Understanding How Trump Operates

/12 Comments/in /by

Warren Balogh has a Substack. Please subscribe!

Understanding How Trump Operates

Adapted from a Twitter post by me on 10/25/24

Everything about Trump and the way he thinks comes down to the Deal.

Even though his book The Art of the Deal was ghostwritten, the second chapter “Elements of the Deal” undoubtedly come from the man himself.  He breaks these down as:

– Think Big

– Protect the Downside (& the upside will take care of itself)

– Maximize Your Options

– Know Your Market

– Use Your Leverage

– Enhance Your Location

– Get the Word Out

– Fight Back

– Deliver the Goods

– Contain the Costs

– Have Fun

For all the people in the nationalist movement and adjacent to it, who seem to admire or even worship Trump, very few have taken the time to study these principles and how he applies them in politics.  Trump is a political genius, but he’s not an ideologue at all—he doesn’t have principles in the ideological or ethical sense of the word.  What he has is a modus operandi that he applies consistently and to deadly effect, which his enemies have never been able to figure out how to counter effectively, and even many of his allies fail to grasp.

Everything he does and the way he thinks can be explained by how he applies these operating principles.  Trump sees powers and interests in America and in the world, and he “deals” with them on the basis of his leverage and their leverage over him.

The fact that Trump seems to promise everything to everyone and, for instance, never sides completely with neocons over paleocons, or paleocons over neocons, is an example of “Maximize Your Options.” Serving fries at McDonald’s is an example of “Know Your Market”—he knows who his target voters are and how to appeal to them.  The same goes for when he visits the Rebbe’s grave: he’s appealing to his target donors and backers.

His penchant for doing controversial things that attract publicity and drive the news cycle towards himself is an example of “Get the Word Out.” The fact that he has figured out how to tap into the mass enthusiasm of the long-suffering White masses without spending a huge amount on advertising or traditional political consulting is an example of “Control the Costs.”

“Use Your Leverage” is his ultimate deal-making insight, and this is something he deploys powerfully, all the time.  He knows no other elites in America will stand up for White people and they are desperate for a champion, so that’s leverage he has over them.  He knows powerful, rich Jews need to enlist White people to prop up their financial domination and Zionism, the fact that he alone can inspire that enthusiasm in White people (and a figure like Michael Bloomberg, for example, never could) is leverage he has with Jews.  Trump learned the lesson from losing to Pat Buchanan in 2000 that there was a huge, untapped base of frustrated White populism and nationalism in America that no Republican was willing to touch, and he picked it up at a steal.

This is why, when White people in the hinterland worship Trump and are willing to serve him and die for him, he takes it for granted and he doesn’t value their loyalty.  Trump doesn’t think in terms of loyalty, he thinks in terms of leverage, so a common person who has pledged blind loyalty to him has lost all leverage over him.  Meanwhile, a Jewish billionaire who is 9/10ths hostile to Trump, he will still respect because that person has leverage.  This is why he leaned into White populism and nationalism to win the 2016 Republican primary, then immediately pivoted to catering to the establishment Republican Party elites.  He didn’t need the leverage of GOP primary voters anymore, he had that group locked down, but what he did need was support of the old GOP establishment to win the general election.

This is also why Trump constantly leans into more LGBTQ+ voters, more Black voters, more Hispanic voters.  It isn’t so much that he is ideologically anti-White (neither is he ideologically pro-White), as he needs the leverage that those traditional Democratic voting blocs would give him and he doesn’t need Whites.  Trump doesn’t lean into White nationalism not because he’s ideologically opposed to it, but because all that could do is hurt his leverage with the powerful anti-White elites who rule the country.  Right now he’s signaling a bit in that direction, because he needs WN enthusiasm to cross the finish line.  The instant he’s back in, even if he has record turnout from White working class voters, he’s going to credit his victory to Blacks and other minorities because that was the group holding out, and stealing them away from Kamala would be the ultimate act of undercutting her leverage.

He is a supreme pragmatist, a businessman, a capitalist and a showman. If you want to influence Trump, the worst thing you can do is come at him from a position of weakness. He only respects and deals with strength. In many ways, his way of operating should be familiar to anyone who understands the Red Pill tropes about women. “Trump hypergamy” is a thing, Trump “monkeybranches” constantly and any poor fool who has “oneitis” for Trump is going to be rapidly used, cheated on and left behind. The people he respects most of all are other billionaires and people who are more powerful than him, and this will never change.

Original Post: https://x.com/Ahab4K/status/1850023748599984401

Trump up 2 points in battleground states, but Harris up 500 points on late mail-in ballots

/12 Comments/in /by

Like a good social justice protest, the Harris campaign is crashing and burning. Whether it’s teleprompter Kamala or earpiece Kamala, her media blitz has only resulted in voter favorability sinking toward her earlier VP approval ratings. Not only is she struggling with the under-30 vote, she’s losing Black men faster than a father’s day picnic. Even Saturday Night Live has lowered the curtain on her flailing campaign. All that’s left now is to announce a Victory Plan™ in the style of Volodymyr Zelensky.

Though Harris and Zelensky haven’t always seen eye to eye (she wears heels), they have more in common than they would like to admit. Both are the spoiled children of political convenience — thriving on delusions of importance and competence. They have come to occupy high office without proper democratic mandates and are backed by big money interests. Even their political godfathers, Soros and Kolomoisky, share similar backgrounds. The fate of both of their political careers now comes down to the November election, and the only ray of hope is ironically embodied by the freshly lacerated cadaver of Joe Biden. After all, it was his Lazarus victory in 2020 that forever changed the rules, demonstrating that an incoherent, unpopular, media-avoiding bunker campaign could nevertheless wake up with 81 million votes. Harris barely survived her candidacy’s honeymoon, but all may not be lost.

Realclearpolling currently gives Trump a 1 to 2 point edge in swing states Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona. Assuming current trends, it’s going to take some moonlight action with mail-in ballots from the Harris campaign to flip results late in the vote count. The legal reform to massively liberalize postal voting was the great coup of 2020 and the same logistical infrastructure is still in place, be it on the ground or embedded in the US Postal Service. But don’t call them vote riggers – their preferred pronoun is ballot harvesters.

As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton charges, all of the battleground states that flipped for Biden in 2020 ignored federal election laws and unlawfully enacted last-minute changes that meant photo ID was not required — using the covid-19 pandemic as a pretext. With just signature verification enforced, the result was immediately palpable. Texas and Georgia used to vote the same way, but due to the difference in local law Trump managed to lose Georgia while winning Texas by 6 points. Since proving fraud on the basis of signatures is practically impossible, Paxton suggests that it was a scheme so well organized and executed that Soros was likely behind it.

Republican ears are certainly amenable to a good conspiracy theory, but you can hardly blame them when the voter turnout clocks in at 66.6%. Though it wasn’t mentioned much, Biden’s election triumph broke a 120-year record for turnout and was an increase of 6.5 percentage points from 2016. Logic tells us that the covid pandemic should have actually decreased turnout in 2020, not increase it. As if economic inflation wasn’t enough, now there is also voter turnout inflation. Add to this the fact that all of the bellwether counties somehow got the result wrong and the cloud of smoking guns starts to get bigger. Even marquee bellwether state Ohio was blindsided, ending a sixty year record.

Quantitative metrics aside, a look at the qualitative distribution of votes suggests that the electoral system has reached the twilight zone — figuratively and literally. By some unexplained mechanism of demographics, two-thirds of postal and absentee ballots went to the Democrats in 2020. The official explanation for this is that Trump’s critique of postal voting led to extreme partisanship in method of voting, though this seems wholly inadequate. Republican voters tend to be older and more rural, so it should follow that Republicans do better in the postal and absentee category. Biden voters were so overrepresented for mail-in ballots in 2020 that they even exceeded their comrades voting in person (58% to 42% according to Pew Research). Forget chasing the White working class or Latinos – the new number one constituency for the Democratic Party is absentee and postal voters! On the other hand, a Rasmussen survey found that only 36% of Biden voters reported casting a mail-in ballot. Draw your own conclusions regarding the 22-point discrepancy.

If we go further and isolate early postal votes from late ones, the distortion gets even more grotesque. Official data do not provide this, but anecdotal evidence indicates that the lopsidedness was off the charts. With 92% of the vote counted in Wisconsin, Trump led by 8 points, but would lose because of a late vote dump of incredibly uniform ballots. Similar reversals were seen in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona. A Dominion employee gave an affidavit stating that an arrival of 100,000 votes at 4 am in Michigan went 100% for Biden — the claim being corroborated by independent contractors. When the world’s greatest technologist Elon Musk argues for a return to simple paper ballots and photo ID like virtually every other country, it’s with good reason.

Musk, who voted for Biden in 2020, is now a surrogate for Trump following his claim that a Harris administration would throw him in prison and destroy Twitter (X). It’s a very reasonable worry. The saga of 2020 is still playing out for Trump’s other allies; earlier this week a New York judge threw out the bankruptcy case of Rudy Giuliani, who lost his attorney’s licence and was ordered to pay $148 million to two Black election officials in Georgia whom he allegedly defamed in his post-election crusade to expose fraud. If this is how the former mayor of New York during 9-11 is treated because of his affiliation with Trump, one can only imagine the ongoing lawfare against protesters from the much eulogized January 6 pogrom.

The best bellwether for this election’s sentiment might be the recent poll that shows 79% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. The tragedy is that Americans are hopelessly polarized on the causes and solution to the crisis. Illegal immigration has been essentially decriminalized and political assassination has been virtually normalized. Record low trust in elections and media is bipartisan. An astounding 42% of independents and even 7% of Democrats say that Biden didn’t win the election fairly. Evidently not all have forgotten the primary rigging against Bernie Sanders that sullied the Democrats in 2016. Nowadays, the Democratic Party Politburo is so efficient that it foregoes primaries altogether and installs candidates at will. Out with Methuselah — in with Jezebel, and the base barely bats an eyelid.

The Republican Party, thankfully, is richer for one Tulsi Gabbard, but the female vote could still cost Trump the election. Trump knows it and has resorted to courting women through such token initiatives as women-only town hall events.

The irony for Trump supporters in 2024 is that they have to believe that Trump was good enough to beat Biden last time but was thwarted by electoral fraud – while also believing that fraud won’t happen this time. Or that Trump wins by such large margins as to be safe, because they know that relying on the judiciary, media, or Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence to fight for the truth is not going to happen. The litmus test of 2020 made it clear that there are simply too many people with sinecures unwilling to risk constitutional chaos and civil unrest.

The public largely join them in wishing to preserve the myth of American democracy, or at least reckoning that it’s better to let some things slide. Implicitly, American democracy has become too big to fail. For all of the extra eyeballs that will be honed in on electoral proceedings this year – the hindsight will indeed be 2020, but to what avail? The Democrats always seem to be one step ahead as great innovators within the electoral industrial complex. This election more than any other has epitomized the clash of the ballot and the bullet, with much of the country quite indifferent to the latter’s appearance. America has crossed the Rubicon, but whether you think the river runs red or blue ultimately depends on your perspective.

Blacks Blight Britain: An Obvious Truth That’s Officially Unspeakable

/17 Comments/in , /by

Here’s the shocking headline: “MAN RAPED AND KILLED UNCONSCIOUS WOMAN.”

Here’s the feminist response:   .

No, that isn’t a typo. There has been no feminist response. Bestial male violence has been greeted with stubborn feminist silence. There have been no hard-hitting polemics in the Guardian or at the BBC, raging righteously against the horrors of toxic masculinity. A helpless woman was raped to death in public by a lethally entitled man and feminists are saying nothing. But why the silence? Because feminists do not genuinely care about protecting women from rape and other forms of male violence. Instead, they care about protecting their insane and evil ideology from reality. Like all other leftists, feminists cannot admit the truth about which kinds of men pose the worst threat to women. It’s non-White men, of course, and Blacks in particular:

Bestial Black rapist Mohamed Noor Iidow (sic), imported by leftists to harm Whites

A vile predator who killed an NHS worker by repeatedly orally raping her as she lay unconscious on a park bench was today [18th October 2024] convicted of manslaughter. Jurors at the Old Bailey wept as they were shown horrifying footage of the vile attack carried out by 35-year-old Mohamed Noor Iidow. Iidow had been prowling Southall Park in west London looking for women to assault when he found mother-of-three Natalie Shotter, 37, lying on a bench. The fiend overstimulated the nerves at the back of her throat in the horrific attack on July 17, 2021 and caused her to have a cardiac arrest. Ms Shotter, who was a little more than five foot tall and weighed just 95lb, lay dead for hours before finally being found by a passer-by. (“Pictured: Vile predator who killed NHS worker mother-of-three, 37, by repeatedly orally raping her as she lay unconscious on park bench,” The Daily Mail, 18th October 2024)

No photo of Mohamed Noor Iidow was published before he was found guilty, but no-one needed to see his photo or know his name to predict what race he would be. As I said in “Mo with the Flow,” it was always likely that the crime would prove yet another example of a very simple equation: Bestial + Bustable = Black. That is, the worse the crime and the easier it is to solve, the likelier it is that the criminal is Black. The rape of Natalie Shotter was both bestial and bustable, and the rapist did indeed prove to be Black.

A Muslim’s meteor-murder

But that’s precisely why there has been no righteous response by feminists to this horrific example of repulsive rape culture. Leftists preach equality but practise hierarchy. Mohamed Noor Iidow belongs to two groups that sit at the top of the leftist hierarchy, far above Whites like Natalie Shotter. He’s both Black and Muslim. After all, he’s named after the founder of Islam, who consummated marriage with a nine-year-old and told his followers that God approved the taking of sex-slaves. Iidow’s middle name, Noor, is Arabic for “light,” but he’s been a blight to Britain, not a light. And light is the last thing leftists want to shed on his behavior. Just as I confidently predicted that he would be Black, so I now confidently predict that he has committed a meteor murder. That is, his horrible crime will flash through the headlines and then disappear for ever from the mainstream media. There will be no martyr cult for Natalie Shotter, just as there has been no martyr cult for Susan Hawkey.

What will happen if you import violent, stupid, rape-friendly non-Whites into the White West?

Who was Susan Hawkey? She was a 71-year-old White woman whose death provided another example of that very simple equation: Bestial + Bustable = Black. Susan Hawkey was tortured and murdered in 2023 by two Blacks, Xyaire Howard and his girlfriend Chelsea Grant. She was also very likely raped by Howard, because a used condom was found with her corpse and all her lower clothing had been removed. Yes, Howard left a used condom at the scene of a horrific murder. Like Mohamed Iidow, he’s both highly dangerous and deeply stupid. Like Iidow, he should never have been allowed to live in a White nation like Britain. Nor should Leroy Campbell, the Black who raped and murdered a White nurse in 2017 after serving a “life sentence” for other rapes. Nor should Valdo Calocane, the Black who murdered three Whites in Nottingham in 2023. Nor should Axel Rudakubana, the Black who murdered three young White girls in Southport earlier in 2024.

Consigning Whites to violent death

I could go on and on listing bestial Black crimes and innocent White victims. And I could do that not just for Britain, but for every Western nation that permits Blacks to live on its territory. As the late great Jewish writer Larry Auster once said: “To import a black population into a previously all-white country is to consign a large number of whites in that country, year after year, generation after generation, to violent death at the hands of blacks.” Faced with that irrefutable truth, leftists across the West have worked tirelessly to import Blacks, privilege Blacks, and prevent effective policing of Black crime. In short, they’ve unleashed beasts on ordinary Whites. And when ordinary Whites have resisted that Black bestiality, leftists have demonized them as racists and used the full force of the law against them. For example, in 1958, ordinary Whites in London rioted in protest against Black migration into Britain and the Black crime that inevitably followed.

Jews import Blacks, Blacks rape and murder Whites #1: Jewish overlords Cyril Salmon and Barbara Roche

 

Jews import Blacks, Blacks rape and murder Whites #2: Bestial Blacks Mohamed Iidow and Xyaire Howard

 

Jews import Blacks, Blacks rape and murder Whites #3: Dead Whites Natalie Shotter and Susan Hawkey

If Britain were a democracy, three things would automatically have followed that White riot in London. The concerns of those ordinary Whites would have been heard; Blacks would have been sent back where they belonged; and all the Black murders and rapes I listed above would never have happened. A clear majority of Britain’s White population opposed non-White immigration in the 1950s and wanted non-Whites deported. That majority was ignored, because Britain isn’t a democracy. Instead, it’s a Judeocracy where Jewish money controls politics and Jewish ideologies control race relations. That’s why the White rioters in 1958 found themselves up in court before a Jewish judge called Cyril Salmon (1903-99), who imposed harsh sentences on them pour encourager les autres. The same thing has happened to the Whites who rioted in 2024 after that Black savagely murdered three White girls in Southport. They got harsh sentences for resisting non-White violence.

Britain is not a democracy: it is a Judeocracy. Cyril Salmon was one Judeocrat; Barbara Roche is another. She was the immigration minister who told the Guardian in 2001 that she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” As part of her combat, Roche opened Britain’s borders to the Third World during the Blair government. As the Daily Mail noted in 2016, among the Third-World newcomers were “more than 200,000” Somalis: “Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry.” But Roche struck a blow against xenophobia and “granted [them] ‘exceptional leave to remain’.”

Roche’s enrichers

Mohamed Iidow, who raped a White woman to death in 2021, seems to be one of Roche’s enrichers. He looks like a Somali and has a Somali surname. One day Barbara Roche will go on trial for committing war-crimes against British Whites. So will many other leftists. And I think that one of the witnesses for the prosecution should be a Jewish writer called Anne Applebaum. She’s recently condemned Donald Trump for “speaking like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.” Trump is speaking the truth about non-White migrants, you see, and Applebaum doesn’t like the truth:

If you connect your opponents with disease, illness, and poisoned blood, if you dehumanize them as insects or animals, if you speak of squashing them or cleansing them as if they were pests or bacteria, then you can much more easily arrest them, deprive them of rights, exclude them, or even kill them. If they are parasites, they aren’t human. If they are vermin, they don’t get to enjoy freedom of speech, or freedoms of any kind. And if you squash them, you won’t be held accountable. (“Trump Is Speaking Like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini,” The Atlantic, 18th October 2024)

The Jew Anne Applebaum doesn’t like Trump speaking the truth about the harm done by non-White migrants. She’s very concerned about rhetoric “connect[ing] your opponents with disease” in order to justify harm against them. That’s why she will make an excellent witness against the leftists responsible for an advert that was running on British television while Mohamed Iidow was on trial for raping a White woman to death. The advert shows a Black man snacking on nuts at a party. He doesn’t know that a small and malevolent-looking blonde White girl has been sucking chocolate off the nuts before he eats them. The blonde girl has a cold and infects the Black man, who then has to visit a pharmacist where a Black woman gives him medicine to cure his White-imposed disease. The advert pretends to be light-hearted, but the message is clear: “Innocent Blacks bless Britain, disease-ridden Whites harm Britain!”

An innocent Black man is infected by an ignoble blonde White

Just imagine if the races had been reversed in that advert and a blond man had been infected by a malevolent-looking Black child before visiting a pharmacist where a blonde woman gave him medicine to cure a Black-imposed disease. Leftists would have shrieked in outrage, the advert would have been vanished from the screen, and everyone responsible for it would have been hunted down, demonized and disemployed. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that those responsible would have been prosecuted for “inciting racial hatred.”

But an advert about Blacks harming Whites would never appear in the current West, because leftists control advertising and leftism loves lies. The truth is that Blacks blight Britain and every other White nation that permits them residence. Leftists not only censor that truth: they invert it and promote the lie that Blacks bless Britain. Sooner or later, leftists will answer for that lie.

A ONU, a imigração, a tolerância e o prefeito de Cuiabá

/in /by

Parece que a Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) substituiu a Santa Sé como centro de representação do Bem neste mundo tão mau e censurável. O último preceito anunciado da bem-aventurança que nos chega de Nova Iorque (!) já mereceu destaque de editorial num jornalãozinho de Cuiabá. Trata-se da pregação em favor da “Tolerância” ante o “necessário” acolhimento das massas de migrantes que a elite global tange como a um rebanho conforme seus interesses. A campanha de manipulação psicossocial integra-se na estratégia de criação de uma ordem supranacional para plasmar o mundo à imagem e semelhança da casta global. O projeto de poder envolve uma espécie de cristandade invertida de legebetistas, toxicômanos, “antirracistas” e toda sorte de grupos minoritários de marginais e descontentes capazes de produzir desagregação social. No trono de São Pedro pós-moderno estaria assentado o especulador judeu George Soros, o “bom burguês” dos esquerdizoides. Para a dissimulação desses diabólicos desígnios, a Unesco associa a tudo isso, muito natural e candidamente, a data de 16 de novembro como o “Dia Internacional da Tolerância”.

Entrementes, na realidade do cotidiano do Brasil, como em todo o planeta, todo o mundo é racista. O racismo não é só coisa de branco ou moreno, mas também, e principalmente, de negros. O racismo negro é teoricamente antibranco, quando formulado em termos teóricos na academia. Os “representantes” de movimentos negros cultuam a memória lendária de Zumbi, buscam exaltar a “consciência negra”, negam que haja diferenças inatas entre as raças, dizem que o negro é lindo… mas se casam com gente branca!

Ora, por que um país de consciência branca deveria se preparar para “acolher” populações negras? Por que a hipocrisia de intelectuais universitários, militantes diversos e editorialistas da imprensa deveria ser imposta à população da capital de Mato Grosso, a todo o Brasil, à Europa, ao mundo inteiro? Respondem os santarrões politicamente corretos que assim se comportam as pessoas boazinhas. Dizem também que o Lobo Mau é racista. Querem nos fazer acreditar que todo imigrante é Chapeuzinho Vermelho. Sabemos, entretanto, o que Chapeuzinho fez com o Lobo Mau no Haiti, por volta de 1800.

Vem da ONU o apelo para que vivamos todos juntos, fraternalmente, no seio de Pachamama, num mundo sem fronteiras. Uma pregação linda, espiritualmente muito elevada, tão elevada que acaba no mundo da Lua. Essa mesma mensagem, por incrível que pareça, é veiculada em toda parte, por todos os meios, o tempo todo e a pretexto de tudo. Está nos livros, nos cinemas, na televisão, nos caixas eletrônicos, nos cartazes de rua, está no editorial de A Gazeta, jornal de Cuiabá, do dia 22 de novembro de 2018. O texto representa um tapa na cara dos leitores desse jornal. É como pedir a palestinos para que se convertam ao judaísmo. Nossa sensibilidade psicossocial recebe a invasão alógena como a carne recebe a faca. A carne não pode tolerar a faca. (Felizmente Bolsonaro não morreu.)

A ONU, o que é, afinal? A ONU é um clube dos vencedores da Segunda Guerra Mundial para continuar a guerra por outros meios. A propaganda diz que seu objetivo é manter a paz e a harmonia entre as nações. Eles querem a paz, realmente, mas fica faltando esclarecer um “detalhe”: a paz só se justifica como condição de manutenção do poder deles. Por isso não defendem a paz na Líbia, nem na Síria, tampouco no Irã ou em tantos outros lugares onde a guerra pode ser mais atraente. Pela mesma razão não quiseram a paz que lhes ofereceu Hitler em 1939, depois de tomar a Polônia. Se aceitassem, a Guerra teria começado e terminado com a invasão da Polônia. Não queriam a paz; queriam o mundo todo para si.

Os mentidos mentores da ONU passaram a querer a paz só em 1945. Nesta triste data os donos do mundo venceram a Guerra. Então enforcaram seus inimigos, depois de devidamente diabolizados, e ainda transformaram a poderosa Alemanha de Hitler na colônia judaica que sionistas ainda hoje parasitam. Transcorridos mais de 50 anos de doutrinação antinacional na Alemanha, a própria dirigente (anti)alemã, Angela Merkel, entrega as mulheres de seu país aos estupradores de todo o mundo na farra da imigração.

Agora os porta-vozes de George Soros em Cuiabá pedem que acolhamos os invasores do Haiti em nome da “tolerância”. Tanta abertura à diversidade não deve sair barato. Aliás, quanto a Prefeitura dá para os haitianos da Pastoral dos Migrantes? Os municipários ganhamos tão pouco. Em vez de mandar recurso público para o Haiti, o prefeito deveria empregá-lo para pagar melhores salários aos seus servidores.

___________________________

Autoria: Chauke Stephan Filho: mato-grossense nascido em Cuiabá em 1960. Estudou Sociologia e Política na Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC/Rio), Português e Literatura Brasilesa na Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT) e cursou também Educação (pós-graduação) na Universidade de Cuiabá (Unic). Dedica-se ao estudo da sociologia do racismo e de conflitos afins como servidor da Prefeitura de Cuiabá. Nesta mesma Prefeitura, presta serviços como revisor de textos. É colaborador de The Occidental Observer.

 

James Edwards Looks Back on 20 Years of TPC

/2 Comments/in /by

American Free Press: You are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the founding of the show. How did it all begin?

James Edwards: I got my start with the Buchanan for President campaign of 2000 when I was 19 years old. I started as a volunteer and then quickly worked my way up to become treasurer of the effort in Tennessee, a delegate to the Reform Party nominating convention, and a member of the National Committee. By the end of that year, I was making local media appearances as a campaign spokesman. I still vividly recall a television debate that I participated in. I was matched up against the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic Parties of Tennessee, respectively. It was probably the political equivalent of young boys trying to defend Berlin against the battle-hardened troops of the Red Army. I have a VHS tape of it in the attic, though I can’t bear to watch it. But that year changed my life forever. After the campaign ended, I wanted to keep the band together and most of the Buchanan supporters in the region stuck around to support me in my 2002 bid for a seat in the Tennessee state legislature. I lost but received over 15% of the vote as an independent, which was unprecedented. As it turned out, I did just well enough to receive a call from a local AM radio station that was switching formats from music to talk, and the rest is history.

AFP: Did you have an idea in mind from the very start about the kind of broadcast that you wanted to present?

Edwards: In 2004, when the show debuted, I was still looking for ways to stick it to the uniparty in Washington. I had absolutely no interest in becoming a local “conservative” talk radio host. By that I mean, the idea of trying to be or sound like Sean Hannity was repulsive to me. Guys who read press releases from GOP headquarters are a dime a dozen. While I very much wanted to succeed, it had to be on my terms. I wanted to advance populism and nationalism. I committed to talking about the issues that I was passionate about, which also turned out to be the issues that nobody else in broadcast media was talking about back then. I wanted to ask provocative questions and start productive conversations. For instance, why did every race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation seem to have spokespeople and advocacy organizations except for the founding stock of this country? I also wanted to talk with interesting guests who had unique viewpoints and weren’t being given access to media platforms. This set The Political Cesspool apart very quickly.

AFP: How long did it take before you began to gain notoriety?

Edwards: Al Sharpton came to town just a few months after the program debuted to conduct a march advocating for changing the names of three city parks that honored the Confederacy. I took out a permit to hold a vigil in defense of the Confederate-named parks at a location located along Sharpton’s planned march route. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center and local media coverage, we attracted about 200 participants while Sharpton attracted a few dozen. We were quickly added to the SPLC and ADL list of “hate groups”, where I have proudly remained ever since. National media attention followed and from there I was able to quickly build a reputation, for better or worse, as a reputable voice for the dispossessed majority. I even once enjoyed a short-lived stint as an on-air contributor to CNN, which, looking back, was pretty remarkable. They didn’t agree with me but were looking for someone who would articulate dissenting viewpoints during primetime debates about racial issues. “Mainstream” media doesn’t offer invitations like that to men like me anymore. But in those days, they did, and I was able to plant a flag.

AFP: Readers might be interested to learn about some of the more surprising guests you’ve interviewed. Would you be willing to share some names?

Edwards: For starters, I am very proud of our interview with Drue Lackey. He was the police officer pictured in the iconic photograph fingerprinting Rosa Parks on the night of her arrest. He went on to become the Chief of Police in Montgomery and later wrote a book called Another View of the Civil Rights Movement, in which he used his eyewitness recollections to outline the so-called “civil rights” movement as being nothing more than a forerunner to the kind of violence and unrest we’ve seen from Black Lives Matter rioters in more recent times. But I have been fortunate enough to talk to a lot of interesting people over the years. Mel Gibson’s father, Hutton, made several appearances before his passing. Hollywood media attacked him furiously for it, but he never backed down. AFP readers might remember that Hutton Gibson was also a friend of Willis Carto and spoke at some gatherings that Willis organized. In another Gibson connection, I interviewed Lt. Gen. Hal Moore, who was made famous during the Battle of Ia Drang. Mel Gibson played Moore in the 2002 film We Were Soldiers. Speaking of movies, Sonny Landham, who starred in several of the top action films of the 1980s became a very good friend of mine and was a regular guest. Keep that in mind the next time you see him as “Billy” opposite Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie Predator. Sadly, everyone I’ve just mentioned has gone on to receive their eternal reward. Musicians like Ted Nugent have also stopped by. We have interviewed other celebrities and historical figures over the years but only those with whom we could find some common ground without having to surrender our position on the issues. That’s the key. Pat Buchanan also did a series of interviews with me before he retired, which meant a great deal to me personally.

AFP: Haven’t several U.S. Congressmen also appeared?

Edwards: It’s true. The first one was U.S. Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina way back in 2012. He was making news for breaking with the dominant neoconservative ideology of the GOP at that time. We had a very engaging discussion. More recently, former U.S. Reps. Steve King and Steve Stockman have been making regular appearances. Both are great guys. Steve King and I spent a few days in Florida earlier this year where we spoke at a conference together. There have been a few others. Of course, to be fair, I have been denounced by a far greater number of congressmen than I have worked with. But I have also worked with many former and current elected officials in Europe, like Nick Griffin and Filip Dewinter, who run circles around most of their American counterparts in terms of courage and vision. But talking with politicians for the sake of talking with politicians was never something that interested me unless they had something interesting to say. And most of them don’t. Hundreds of local talk radio guys can ask microwaved questions to boring politicians and get the same uninspired answers. That’s not who I am. I want to talk to the sharpest minds on our side. We need to build our own media and our own spokesmen. Just to give you an idea, in terms of the number of appearances logged, my top three all-time guests are Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald, and Sam Dickson. Believe me, it’s those men and others like them who I am most remembered for having worked with and I wouldn’t have it any other way. That said, for our movement to grow, we need to be able to make inroads with elected officials, artists, and other members of the elite. That is something that I think I have been uniquely positioned to do and have had some relative success with.

AFP: Your interview with Donald Trump Jr. sparked a national media firestorm. What do you remember about that?

Edwards: This was one of the most interesting stories of my career so far. I applied for press credentials to attend a Trump campaign event in February of 2016. I was granted the press credentials while many were not, vetted by the Secret Service, and then permitted by the campaign to broadcast my program live from the “press pen” while then-candidate Trump was giving a speech. The next day, I was contacted by the campaign and asked if I would interview Donald Trump Jr., which I happily agreed to do. We taped the interview on Super Tuesday of 2016, which was, at that time, the most important day in Trump’s political career. It was a wonderfully agreeable interview. But that’s not how the media covered it. To say it was “covered” would be an understatement. It was its own news cycle and then some. In March 2016, it seemed that every media outlet in the country and many more around the world were writing or talking about the “white supremacist” that Trump Jr. had spoken with. Having been in media for well over a decade at the time of the unrest in 2016, I naturally assumed that the “story” would die down after a few days as they always do. It did not. The James Edwards-Donald Trump Jr. interview stayed in the news until Election Day. For eight months. During one random week in September, more than six months after the interview, three stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post were published that cited it. Even CNN, the network that used to fly me to Manhattan and put me up in posh hotels in Central Park, assembled panels to discuss it. Like Frankenstein’s monster, the entire thing took on a life of its own. The odious Media Matters listed me alongside Ann Coulter as being one of the “Top 20 right-wing media fixtures” responsible for Trump’s nomination, which was absurd. By the time it was over, the media had so wildly exaggerated our conversation that the legend became fact. During the final days before the election, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign ad stating that if Trump became president “extremists” like James Edwards would shape the country. Trump Jr. later said that the interview would follow him for the rest of his life. To this day, his official Wikipedia page questions whether he believes in the Great Replacement or was just pretending to during our conversation for political gain. It was all very surreal. That whole year was. I later stood just a few feet away from the president when he was being sworn in. Once again with press credentials. But they always maintained plausible deniability.

AFP: In your opinion, how has media coverage changed in the past two decades?

Edwards: On the one hand, as bad as it always was, it has gotten much worse and more hysterical. There is simply no tolerance for the diversity of opinion from the establishment-controlled press. The days of seeing someone like me or Peter Brimelow on TV are long gone. They might still talk about us, but never with us. On the other hand, in the past decade, there has been an explosion of content creators who have taken advantage of streaming platforms and podcasts. When I first went on the air YouTube and Twitter didn’t even exist yet. It’s a whole new ballgame now and there is a proliferation of talent that simply did not exist twenty years ago, and it is shifting the narrative in our favor.

AFP: Let’s come full circle and get back to your recently held 20th-anniversary conference. What can you tell us about it?

Edwards: The days are long, but the years are short. It does not seem like it has been twenty years. But the anniversary event was just fantastic. It was a packed house which was made even more remarkable considering we cannot publicly promote these events because of the threats of violence that come from the so-called social justice warriors. In 2008, such people threatened to blow up a hotel and murder the general manager and his family at his home if they refused to cancel our contract. Since then, we have had to hold strictly private events in the land of the free for the safety of our supporters and venue staff. But we have adapted quite nicely and can have large events with trusted supporters. My audience is like extended family and our conferences have always taken on a family reunion type of atmosphere. The camaraderie and spirit of togetherness are very palpable. We had great speakers, including program mainstays Dickson and Taylor. Nick Griffin also spoke. Harry Cooper gave a historical presentation, and several others also gave enthralling talks. True to form, we sprinkled in a celebrity speaker who shall remain nameless, but he really stole the show. It was held at a first-class facility and a good time was had by all. Great food and musical entertainment. We had it all.

AFP: Where do you plan to go from here?

Edwards: Every day that I’ve been able to do this has been a gift. None of us know how much longer anything will last but I can tell you that I’m still as passionate and full of vigor for this fight as I’ve ever been. Funding is always a concern. We do need support. But I will endeavor to stay in this struggle, without retreat or apology, for as long as folks think we are providing something of value to the cause.

Covid et pandémie : la dictature du bien-être comme méthode de surveillance politique

/in /by

Docteur en philosophie, polyglotte, diplomate aux États-Unis et politologue, le Croate Tomislav Sunić livre à nos lecteurs ses réflexions sur les pandémies et le contrôle social.

Polémia

Sommaire  masquer 
1. Maladies contagieuses
2. Dommages physiques et psychologiques irréparables
3. De Big Brother à Big Mother
4. Serment d’Hippocrate ou Serment Hypocrite ?

Maladies contagieuses

Les maladies contagieuses sont un fait de la vie, même à l’ère de la médecine avancée. Toute maladie de ce type est susceptible d’être étiquetée pandémie si un homme politique fort ou une institution supranationale décide de l’étiqueter comme telle. Tout comme nous sommes maintenant habitués à l’autocensure académique et à la police de pensée secrète qui scrute notre langage en ligne ou nos conférences hors ligne, nous observons également la montée des équipes de santé surveillant notre vie quotidienne, nous enseignant ce qu’il faut manger, comment avoir des relations sexuelles sans danger, comment rester éternellement jeune et comment combattre la vieillesse. Ne pas se conformer à ces règles thérapeutiques et hygiéniques vous classe comme un hérétique indigne de participer à ce que l’on appelle pompeusement la société civile.

Dommages physiques et psychologiques irréparables

Les pourvoyeurs de la récente pandémie de Covid et ses commissaires de l’OMS qui font peur, y compris leurs acolytes politiques aux États-Unis et dans l’UE, semblent s’être temporairement retirés de l’écran radar. La nouvelle marque de leur progéniture mondiale, cependant, avec plusieurs bienfaiteurs de santé autoproclamés, et encore moins des guerriers de justice sociale, pourrait cependant réapparaître à l’horizon, si les circonstances politiques le nécessitent.

Qui a encouragé les confinements en 2020 au lieu de s’en tenir à des mesures d’isolement modérées et ciblées pendant la propagation du Covid ? Qui était la personne chargée au sein de l’OMS d’expliquer en langage simple l’étiologie de cette maladie virale ? Fuite d’un centre de recherche chinois sur le gain de fonction ? Nous savons encore peu de choses des principaux acteurs qui ont ordonné la répression massive organisée à la faveur du Covid, causant des dommages physiques et psychologiques irréparables à la vie de millions de personnes, en particulier les écoliers et les petites entreprises, sans parler des ravages économiques. Une fois le confinement pandémique levé en 2021, les personnes qui craignent ce virus ont fait preuve de sagesse pour éviter qu’il ne devienne viral.

Les médecins, les scientifiques biomédicaux, les biologistes et les généticiens peuvent certainement affirmer avec fierté que leurs domaines de recherche, contrairement à ceux des sciences sociales, sont de nature empirique et peuvent souvent être facilement vérifiés scientifiquement. Comment se fait-il pourtant qu’un nombre important de leurs collègues dissidents aient rejeté le récit apocalyptique de la maladie présumée la plus mortelle au monde ?

Mais de nombreux généticiens comportementaux et sociobiologistes du monde universitaire sont confrontés à une situation bien pire. Lorsqu’ils remettent en question les traits héréditaires ou raciaux innés qui déterminent le comportement de nos politiciens et faiseurs d’opinion, ils courent le risque d’être confrontés non seulement à une guerre juridique diabolisante, mais même à une peine de prison. Sur la base de leurs preuves empiriques largement ignorées sur nos défauts ou nos forces héréditaires, nous pouvons faire une hypothèse éclairée sur la façon dont les « chromosomes criminels » prospèrent chez nombre de nos politiciens élus et faiseurs d’opinion.

Fondamentalement, la peur du Covid, lorsqu’elle a commencé il y a plusieurs années, a ouvert la voie dans l’UE et aux États-Unis à la reconstitution de l’ère soviétique lorsque le scientifique stalinien Trophime Lyssenko exposait sa théorie sur la façon de faire pousser des oranges dans le cercle arctique et de transformer un Homo sovieticus à faible QI en un scientifique de l’astronautisme. Les mêmes oukases communistes surréalistes sont toujours bien vivants aujourd’hui dans l’enseignement supérieur et l’arène politique réglementés par la discrimination positive aux États-Unis, où les prises de décision imposées par la DEI sont principalement menées par des imbéciles qui détestent l’idée d’une méritocratie.

Nous n’avons pas besoin d’entrer dans le domaine dangereux du freudo-marxisme ou de la scolastique CRT qui rejette depuis des décennies l’étude des différences raciales ; nous pouvons plutôt citer le dramaturge Molière, dont les pièces satirisent des charlatans se faisant passer pour des surhommes médicaux capables de guérir toutes les maladies physiologiques et politiques. Compte tenu des divergences entre les scientifiques de haut niveau sur l’utilité du dernier confinement lié à la pandémie de Covid, on peut légitimement se demander si nous ne devrions pas maintenant nous tourner à nouveau vers les homéopathes médiévaux ou les marchands d’huile de serpent pour des pouvoirs curatifs plus efficaces. La confiance dans l’establishment médical a disparu.

C’est toujours le dogme politique dominant, le mythe politique et l’esprit du temps dominants qui déterminent l’approche des sciences naturelles, jamais l’inverse. Les chercheurs en sciences sociales et les avocats sont dans une position encore plus délicate ; s’ils veulent rester dans le secteur éducatif ou juridique, ils doivent obéir au dogme actuel selon lequel les influences environnementales sont tout le jeu et rejeter le rôle des gènes dans l’étude du comportement politique de leurs clients ou accusés. S’ils se concentrent trop sur le rôle des chromosomes criminels dans le comportement politique, ils n’obtiendront pas de titularisation et pourraient être qualifiés de racistes incorrigibles ou de suprémacistes blancs proverbiaux.

 

De Big Brother à Big Mother

Retour au corps, ou plutôt, retour au langage corporel qui est devenu une nouvelle religion dans notre « état thérapeutique et maternel » élargi. Cette expression a été utilisée par l’auteur américain Christopher Lasch et quelques autres philosophes dissidents comme le regretté auteur français Jean Baudrillard et Alain de Benoist. Au lieu du Big Brother orwellien, la Big Mother émerge avec ses ordonnances transgenres postulant le dogme que les identités biologiques sont des constructions sociales éphémères qui peuvent être changées ou remplacées à volonté. De plus, nous avons été témoins au cours des dernières décennies de la croissance d’une nouvelle pandémie dangereuse, une pandémie culturelle de la « guerre des regards » entre les politiciens et les célébrités, chacun prétendant que sa propre couleur, Leur taille, leurs aptitudes motrices et leurs traits phénotypiques les rendent nettement supérieurs à leurs adversaires. Il était une fois, une personne noire obèse était considérée comme malade et avait besoin d’un traitement hospitalier ou d’un régime de perte de poids radicale. Selon le dogme de la construction sociale véhémente, l’obésité est maintenant considérée comme une question de mode de vie qui peut aider provisoirement une personne à prendre le surpoids du statut de célébrité lors d’une audition cinématographique. En outre, si un aspirant politique blanc veut, aux États-Unis ou dans l’UE, être jugé favorablement, il doit auparavant approuver les récits de victimisation des électeurs non-blancs ciblés tout en multipliant dans son entourage d’individus de sexualités, perspectives et apparences raciales différentes.

Le même mimétisme viral peut être observé lors d’un duel télévisé entre candidats à la présidence, les spectateurs étant contraints de se concentrer davantage sur les prothèses de leurs candidats préférés et moins sur leurs politiques respectives. Sous le couvert du scientisme, un nouveau totalitarisme est en train de se former, recourant à des méthodes de surveillance politique beaucoup plus élégantes, mais fatales, que celles imaginées par le système communiste.

Dans la description du processus de « covidification » dans l’état thérapeutique, l’autocensure des scientifiques et des dirigeants politiques devient la règle non écrite. Alain de Benoist le voit ainsi : « Le type humain dominant d’aujourd’hui est le narcissique immature qui ignore toutes les réalités autres que la sienne, et qui désire avant tout satisfaire tous ses désirs. Ce type d’être humain infantile, à l’orientation libérale-libertaire prévisible, est parfaitement en ligne avec le Système. … Ce qui suit est une civilisation thérapeutique centrée sur le “moi”… » Un homme d’État prend des décisions, donne des ordres et des réquisitions. Macron, cependant, s’appuie sur les conseils d’« experts » qui, en règle générale, ne sont jamais d’accord.

Les prédictions de jugement dernier concernant des dizaines de millions de décès liés au Covid ne se sont pas réalisées. Les décomptes officiels des cadavres dus au Covid sont toujours rappellent davantage le livre de l’Apocalypse qu’un bilan comptable. C’est un truisme que de constater que les experts en sciences sociales ne s’accordent presque jamais sur leurs théories respectives d’amélioration du monde mais on pourrait s’attendre à ce que les scientifiques soient plus sérieux. Or, de nombreux experts du Covid ont divergé sur l’origine et le traitement du coronavirus, tout en se surpassant à la télévision avec leurs égos de la taille de la cathédrale de Zagreb.

Serment d’Hippocrate ou Serment Hypocrite ?

Cela nous rappelle Molière et sa description du médecin imaginaire parlant à son patient imaginaire, les deux projetant leur faux double et les deux supposant que leur mensonge ne sera pas détecté par l’autre partie. Un personnage de la pièce de Molière décrit ainsi le médecin Purgon (dont le nom pourrait bien être affiché aujourd’hui sur internet comme un mème enfant pour Pfizer Inc. au purgatoire): «Il (Purgon) a dû tuer beaucoup de patients pour faire autant d’argent. » A quoi un autre personnage de la même comédie répond : « La plupart des gens meurent à cause du remède, pas de la maladie. » On se demande si des milliers d’experts de la Covid ont pris le Serment Hypocrite au lieu du Serment d’Hippocrate…

Les cas de tromperie sont nombreux, non seulement dans les sciences sociales mais aussi dans les domaines des sciences naturelles. L’étude de la génétique comportementale, lorsqu’elle est combinée aux sciences sociales, pourrait nous aider à mieux saisir le drame humain, notamment en observant la psyché des décideurs dans un état d’urgence. Cette approche est toutefois strictement évitée dans les départements de sciences sociales, tant aux États-Unis qu’en Europe, où l’idée prédominante est que tous les gens sont égaux — et donc disponibles — à volonté. Il n’y a pas si longtemps, l’obsession communiste multiethnique, multiculturelle et égalitaire avait ce Lalaland fictif à l’affiche tous les jours en Europe de l’Est et en Yougoslavie — avec des résultats catastrophiques.

En invoquant des pandémies surréalistes et fictives, ou le mythe désormais populaire de la prétendue pandémie montante du fascisme de droite, un politicien peut toujours être tentant. Il peut être utile pour réprimer toute forme d’hérésie politique. Avec l’ère du Covid, nous ne sommes plus dans le domaine de la science, mais dans le département de démonologie.

Tomislav Sunić
21/10/2024

Devout Catholic Lawyer Found Guilty of Something in Scientific, Objective Legal Process in Charlottesville. Or How to fight a Show-Trial

/1 Comment/in /by

In the Jewish media, attorney Augustus Invictus is famous for once—in his pre-Christian days—going on a desert vision-quest to drink goat’s blood. But these journalists have not noticed an even more bizarre habit of his: he drinks the blood of his own God every week!

Disgusting.

Thankfully, Charlottesville Virginia is putting an end to his madness with rational, Jeffersonian legal procedure. In a rigorous and truth-oriented trial, Albemarle County prosecutors ripped away Mr. Invictus’ pretensions of normalcy and exposed him for the soul-warped, god-killing freak he is.

Or so the Jewish media would have you believe.

In all seriousness…the truth is the opposite. Invictus is a lawyer who has defended many men brought up on political charges. He has done work that few others can or would do. No doubt this made him a target.

A year and a half ago, he was charged with “burning an object with intent to intimidate” because he took part in a tiki-torch march on the campus of the University of Virginia (UVA) in Charlottesville seven years ago. The march happened the night before the doomed “Unite the Right” rally the next day.

While planned in secret, the march was discovered by Antifa spies, who published the location and start-time. Antifa then called on hardened criminals to block and disrupt the marchers. They also duped some feckless UVA students into assisting them.

The march presented clear evidence of the masses’ deep dissatisfaction with Jewish rule. Sadly for Antifa, their attempt to block the march from reaching its stated objective failed. They picked a fight, striking the first blows, and then, faced with the prospect of actually fighting, chose to leave.
So, the UVA-Antifa activists fell back to surer ground—the courtroom. Here they would enjoy huge advantages, being richer, better connected and more given to lying than the tiki-marchers, most of whom were working-class men, not students at one of the most privileged and powerful schools in the country.

On October 11th, after a four-day show-trial, Mr. Invictus was found guilty.

The trial played out as these things usually do. The defense argued facts and laws. The prosecution argued slogans and emotions.

Unfortunately, moral conviction beats logic and facts. Americans will keep losing to “progressive” Antifa psychos until they rediscover this truth. When an evil power uses sophistry to oppress you, you have to fight back with sophistry. You can’t just ask them to play fair.

Feelings First

The state had two fact-witnesses to emotionally manipulate the jury: semi-pretty blonde lawyeress Elizabeth Sines and a certain geeky Black named Devin Willis.

Sines served as the front-girl for the massive Sines v Kessler suit brought by now-disgraced lawsuit-flinger Roberta Kaplan. This blatantly political case took 4 years to get to trial and is still ongoing in appeals.

Devin Willis was also a plaintiff in Sines v. Kessler. He was “John Doe 1” to the defendants until the trial started, making it impossible for at least one defendant to do any research about him or his allegations.

The prosecution against Mr. Invictus also brought an “expert”-witness: Michelle Lynn Kahn of the University of Richmond, a quack, who claims especial knowledge about the “Holocaust” and “trans-Atlantic neo-Nazism.”

Despite these supposed credentials, her purpose was the same as that of Sines and Willis: to emotionally manipulate the jury. Among other surprising claims, she alleged that the Reich’s Agriculture Ministry started the Blut und Boden (Blood and Soil) campaign in the late 1930s because the Germans planned to gas 6 million Jews, believing which obviously requires gorging on carbs. The policy was not—according to her—in any way a reaction to the mass-starvation brought about by the WWI British blockade that lasted till July of 1919 or the Versailles treaty.

The other witness was a chubby cop.

So, White girl, bug-Black, holocaust propagandist, and cop. That line-up is sure to convince most professional Whites that what you say is true.

Defense goes for facts

The defense’s witnesses explained all of the obvious things. Antifa has a history of violence. Antifa was attacking the Alt-Right all summer. The Alt-Right never sought out an Antifa protest to attack them. An Antifa spy revealed the location and start-time of the tiki-march contrary to the will of those who planned it. When the marchers found out about that, they immediately informed the police. They also took reasonable precautions to prevent Antifa from attacking the march and to prevent any hot-headed marcher from getting into a fight with Antifa. Several hardened criminals were in Antifa’s ranks. Antifa regularly dupes people like Elizabeth Sines into standing with them so that the hardened criminals can attack their opponents from behind. When the Antifas wished to walk away from the Jefferson statue, they did so without interference and continued “counter-protesting” a few meters away. And so on and so on.
A reasonable and substantive argument.
When it came to facts, the prosecution’s performance was embarrassing.

The funniest example thereof came in the cross-examining of Mr. Invictus, testifying in his own defense. Attempting to paint him as a violent psycho, prosecutor Lawton Tufts asked why Mr. Invictus had tweeted, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Mr. Invictus pointed to the gigantic portrait of Thomas Jefferson hanging over the judge’s head and said, “I didn’t say that, he did.”

Womp womp.

Tufts did not recognize the quote. But I’ll cut him some slack because—unlike pretty much everyone else in Charlottesville—he didn’t graduate from UVA.

Mass beats precision

The defense ripped apart every logical inconsistency in the prosecution’s argument. And there were a lot of those. The prosecution’s logic did not look like a tree: root-assumptions coming together into a trunk-like conclusion, logically branching out into further consequences.

It looked like tangle-weed. That’s what made it so hard to attack. Jurors could not keep track of all the defense’s refutations. There were a lot of allegations, it was confusing, “oh hell, he probably did something. Guilty.”.

In his closing argument, prosecutor Tufts made short work of the defense’s facts and logic. He proved that you don’t need a top-tier degree to bamboozle a jury.

First, he confused the matter by invoking a doctrine called “concert of action”. Essentially:

  1. The defendant held a torch
  2. The defendant was in a group with people who might have thought bad things
  3. “Concert of Action”
  4. A geek who happens to be Black now claims that he got scared
  5. Defendant therefore burned an object (1), with intent (2 via 3) to intimidate (4)
  6. Guilty!

As the court applied “concert of action”, you could prove anybody guilty of anything. For instance, you could easily prove that Antifa, UVA and the prosecutor’s office plotted to subvert our rights and use the courts for their own political ends. Or that the Charlottesville city administration, police, and leftist agitators all did “concert of action” with Virginia State Police, Governor Terry McAuliffe and the FBI.

Then prosecutor Tufts waived away the defense’s elaborately constructed argument about Antifa violence, taking precautions, and calling the cops. He argued that “It’s not Antifa who is on trial, it’s Mr. Invictus” and that “The marchers wanted to play at war.”

The defense should have immediately and vociferously objected to these statements. It wasn’t the marchers who had a sophisticated intelligence operation, recon elements and hardened criminals… it was Antifa. That is all in the testimony of Antifa ringleader Edward Gorcenski from June’s Jacob Dix trial. They weren’t playing at war, they were waging it.
As to “its Mr. Invictus who is on trial”—that’s rich coming from the lying mouth of the prosecutor who pushed for the indictment in the first place. Where are all of the indictments for the Antifa who threw rocks and packets of toxic chemicals, hacked at people with hammers, and rioted for hours after the police ordered everyone to disburse?

Third, to the defense’s point that Antifa was not surrounded, that they had simply walked through the marchers unmolested and continued protesting off to the side… Tufts twisted the meaning of the defense-witness’ statement. He argued that saying “We allowed them to leave” can only mean that the Antifa were in the power of the marchers at some point, and therefore that the intent had been to intimidate Antifa from the beginning.

Again… logic loses to sophistry.

Prosecutor Tufts’ equivocation on the meaning of “allowed” should have been met with derision. “Will you allow me to respond to that? No? So, you are preventing me from putting on a defense? Your Honor, the prosecutor is denying me equal protection under the law. I demand his immediate arrest!”

To top it all off, Tufts played some snippets of video. Lots of shouting and some scuffles. This had the desired effect on the jurors. They felt shaken. No doubt this instilled in some the moral conviction that they had to vote guilty, regardless of the fact that the video showed Antifa walking away unopposed and unmolested. The method was very similar to that used in the James Fields show-trial.

A show-trial relies on maintaining the appearance of dignity. In Judge Richard Moore’s courtroom, I felt like I was in church. This is the same UVA alumnus who presided over the James Fields show-trial.

The purpose of creating this atmosphere is to lull the jury into a sense of normalcy while the prosecutor calls you all kinds of bad names and insults your honor. If you try to stand on “propriety” and “being above that”, you will lose.

Build a Counter-Narrative

In a show-trial, the only way to win is to build a counter-narrative. The prosecution’s argument is simply “the defendant is bad”. He is racist. He has thought evil things and therefore deserves to be found guilty. It does not matter if a crime was committed.

Lawyers will tell you that you can just refute this argument. “I’m not racist.” But they are wrong. You need to build your own counter-narrative to fight the manipulative and truth-blind arguments of the prosecutor. You cannot just rip apart their slippery story. You have to build your own.

This is hard when you are on the defense, but not impossible. Mr. Invictus and his lawyer did have some success here. They made a strong argument that Antifa was to blame for the violence. Unfortunately that argument alone cannot beat “You’re racist”.

The only proper counter-narrative would have been: Class not race. The argument should run:

  • The prosecution wants you to believe that the defendant is guilty because he talks about race and because he openly says that he prefers his own race. Well fine. But that isn’t why the prosecutor brought the charges. The prosecutor doesn’t give a damn about Black people.
  • This whole trial is because UVA got egg on its face. It wants revenge. These are upper-class Whites who are using the issue of race to attack those they see as social inferiors. UVA feels that it is one of the best schools in the country.
  • They are very proud of their status and supposed achievements. You have seen that with their witnesses—like the insufferably arrogant Professoress Kahn—constantly bragging about their degrees and awards. They brought this charge because these young men did not show them the respect to which they feel entitled.

This is not guaranteed to work. Nothing is. But it will strike the prosecution where they are weak. It plays to the ingrained sense of guilt of upper-class Whites, who are the majority of Charlottesville juries. If the prosecution wants to guilt-trip the jurors about race, you should guilt-trip them about class. The facts will certainly back you up.

The best part about pointing out the class-snobbery of UVA, Antifa and the prosecution is… it’s TRUE!

You don’t need to be a full-on Marxist about it either. National Socialism advocates for socialism because it prizes each class for what it can contribute to the whole People.

When one class (in our society the bourgeoisie or “white collar” class) oppresses and attacks the others, it needs to be chastised and made conscious of its duty. That’s what needs to be done to UVA.

We want to turn the energies of the professional class in a positive direction. We don’t want to tear down white-collar professionals, lawyers and academics. Well… maybe these ones.

Force relevant facts out

In this trial, the defense’s main failure was to call the jury’s attention to the prosecution’s collaboration with Antifa.

The jury was not informed of the following very pertinent facts:

  • The elected prosecutor had a massive conflict of interest because his main donor’s daughter is an anti-White extremist who fought on Antifa’s side at Charlottesville. Sonjia Smith is a billionaire who gave prosecutor Jim Hingeley’s campaign $114,000. Her daughter, Kendall Bills is an Antifa. That is in court records. The prosecutor need not be totally objective—after all his job is to prosecute you—but he does need to at least appear to not be using his office for personal vendettas. That is clearly what is going on here.
  • The two assistant prosecutors arguing this very case—Tufts and Armin Zijerdi—were also in the street with Antifa at Charlottesville. That too is in court records. This makes them potential material witnesses to this very case! Lawton was in communication with several Antifa-affiliated groups in the weeks leading up to “Unite the Right”. That is established in a report ordered by the city government.

Now, I hear the whining voices of a thousand narrow-minded lawyers: “But you can’t make those arguments at trial, you have to make them in pre-trial motions” and “The judge will exclude that evidence because he will say it isn’t relevant to the trial, but only to appeal”.

And to a degree these voices are right. But this is how a show-trial works. The judge excludes all of the most important facts and focuses in on the few little details that make the defendant look guilty.

The only way to fight this is to force those facts out. Blurt them out if you have to. Yes, a judge will stricke them from the record. He might threaten to hold you in contempt.

He knows he is twisting the rules and is daring you to defy him. Your only hope is to call his bluff and keep saying the truth. The whole truth. The relevant truth.

I experienced this myself when arguing against a farcical and politically motivated charge. Whenever I hit on a good argument, the judge would threaten me with contempt. Whole hearings devolved into arguments between me and the judge while the prosecutor stood there and watched. At one point I offered to go sit in jail if that would speed the process up. The judge was more polite after that.

This is the new trial by combat. Are you willing to risk jail-time to prove how much conviction you have? If not, the sheep-brained jurors will see you as a bitch and will vote “guity”. It’s barbaric. It’s totally unjust. But that is where American law is headed. Better to deal with it as it is than to hope uselessly for the return of Enlightenment principles and fairness.

Stop arguing the First Amendment

Now that you have a counter-narrative—privileged Antifa vs working-class men—and you have forced the pertinent facts out—the prosecutors are Antifa—you have a chance at winning.

However, you will fumble if you attempt to argue “free speech” in closing. This is unfortunately what happened for Mr. Invictus.

We all love free speech. But “free speech” always loses to “you’re racist”. It’s like a law of physics. The old gods of America are dying. You will lose if you invoke them.

This is because liberal jurors will see you as a coward and a hypocrite. They are thinking, “He only invokes the First Amendment to cover for his desire to strip other people of their rights”. This makes the jurors mad. They will retaliate by arguing vociferously for your conviction once they get to the jury room.

So, when the prosecutor calls you a racist, your counter-argument has to be “oh yeah, well you’re more racist”. You should also point out that he is a privileged, careerist snob. This can be supported by other arguments depending on the prosecutor’s background, which can be further “dialed in” based on the racial and social make-up of the jury.

For example:

“At least I’m honest.”

“The prosecutor is racist, he’s just better at covering it up than me.”

“The prosecutor is calling me racist because he knows it will help his career”

“Oh yeah? How many ‘Black friends’ do you have?… liar.”

Or you could throw caution to the winds and go with:

“You just hate me because you are Jewish.”

“You are a doing the bidding of your Jewish master”

“You are a Jewish supremacist”

Of course they’ll object and whatever. That’s fine. The prosecutor will use plenty of ad hominem arguments against you.

This is kindergarten-tier argumentation. But the other side won’t fight fair so why would you?

The Real Accuser

In the end, the defense lost because this was rigged.

The prosecuting attorneys were Antifa. They got their jobs from a guy who was placed in office by a leftist billionaire whose daughter is an Antifa. The judge is a UVA alumnus and regular donor.

But the trial was rigged in an even more fundamental way: The defense was not allowed to confront its accusers.

Bottle-blonde Sines and Black nerd Willis were frontmen. The real accuser here was UVA, and its Law School in particular.

At the next trial, the defense needs to assert that ancient right. They need to subpoena Anne Coughlin of UVA law. She is the mastermind and political impetus behind this nationwide inquisition.

She has been calling for prosecutions for years. She started before the August 11 march even happened. In May of 2017, she was inciting city officials and citizens to commit barratry against Alt-righters who staged a similar tiki-torch (Heaphy Report, pp 28-29).

She is friends with prosecutor Tufts. She was with Antifa at Unite the Right, providing logistical support.

This isn’t her first abuse of the legal system either. Ten years ago, she used her powers of sophistry to force the Pentagon to admit women into combat units.

She was in the courtroom at the Invictus trial—sitting between Antifa pseudo-journalist Molly Conger and an attractive blonde girl who bore an uncanny resemblance to a girl I knew in high school.

Seeing them there, I was overcome with confusion. I felt my mind melting out my ears.

I thought, why are these women in the courtroom oppressing my freedom and not on the battlefield defending it?

Oh right. Sophistry.

Fine. We can play that game too.