Another Take on the Causes of Black Family Dysfunction

/4 Comments/in , /by

Who Lost America? Why the United States Went ‘Communist’ and What To Do About It
Stephen Baskerville
Arktos Media, 2024

Back in July my friend Roger Devlin posted an extended and largely favorable review of Stephen Baskerville’s Who Lost America?[1] I recently read this book and had quite a different reaction. To be very generous, Baskerville’s book is a glass half full.

To his credit the author is a harsh critic of establishment conservatism, although perceptive leaders of the authentic Right long ago realized that the conservative approach to combating the Left was a losing proposition.[2] The critique of Conservative Inc. has certainly intensified in recent years with the rise of Trumpism and the Alt Right/Dissident Right. Yet, while keeping a lower profile of late, Ryan/Romney conservatism is quite resistant to change, and is ready to again take full control of the establishment Right after the Trump era is over.

Among Baskerville’s complaints about the Right include a lack of leadership, creativity, and energy. In contrast the Left is innovative. It has “reinvented itself repeatedly” while the establishment Right is content to dog whistle to their constituents while protecting vested economic interests. “Conservatives seem temperamentally incapable of arousing themselves . . . . [T]hey seem habituated to apathy” (67). The Right is “devoid of ideas and intellectual depth . . . . the Right still produces few intellectuals of any stature, no universities of any quality, no ideas of any value” (119). Okay, this appears to be the case, but I do not believe that conservatives are inherently stupid or lazy. Their retreat is a maladaptive response to political and social conditions. The master manipulators on the Left have exploited the individualism of Western culture. More on that later.

Another telling point made by Baskerville is the centrality of the radical sexual revolution—feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism—to the Left’s agenda. It is part of an effort by the Left to blur all distinctions between cultures, races, and sexes. The author’s main concern is the prevalence of fatherless families, but this issue must be viewed within a wider context.

Credit Professor Baskerville with tamping down on conspiracy theories. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they “can foster a defeatist mentality of . . . helpless resignation. The conspirators become so evil and all-powerful that opposition is pointless” (xxv). Often those who posit such theories assume the status of savvy and sophisticated analysts who can see through the smoke and mirrors, and the smart money is on the sidelines. Later in the book, however, the author will indulge in some “black pilling” of his own.

Baskerville is also on the mark in Chapter 5 “Flirting with Nuclear War.” Here he laments “the needless carnage in Ukraine” (121). Apparently, “the negotiating table is off limits” (123). And “Russia is not the only hegemon playing power politics at Ukraine’s expense. We—the US, NATO, the EU—have cynically manipulated Ukraine as a pawn to augment our own position” (133). There is no mention of the carnage in the Middle East. Baskerville does not address the Jewish question in this book, but elsewhere he has supported Judeo-Christian values.

So, if Who Lost America? is a glass half full, it must also be a glass half empty. It is a work with serious analytical flaws.

To begin with a minor point of terminology: The word communist in the subtitle is in quotes so we understand that it is used a bit ironically. But Baskerville refers several times to a Leftist coup occurring in early 2020. Although I follow the news fairly closely, I missed that event.  A widely accepted definition of a coup is a sudden violent overthrow of the existing government by a small group. At the risk of seeming pedantic, rather than a coup, what we saw in 2020 was the approaching end of the “Long March through the Institutions.”  The term was coined in 1967 or 1968 by German communist Rudi Dutschke. The long march is, in part, a reference to the Chinese Communist Party’s retreat inland during the 1930s. But to simplify things quite a bit, the core concept originated with Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács in post- World War I Europe. After the failure to replicate the Bolshevik Revolution in other European countries a segment of the Left reinvented itself, abandoning violent revolution to work within, but against, society’s institutions. The strategy was imported to America in the 1930s and ultimately led to the Frankfort School’s critical theory and the domination of academic and media culture by the left.

It has taken time, but this technique has succeeded in making cultural Marxism the dominate ideology in government bureaucracies, education, the news and entertainment media, the judiciary, Christian churches, and even in the military and corporations. Not to belabor the point, but there has been no coup. As a professor of political science, one might think that Baskerville would be more precise in his terminology.

The author’s overriding concern is fatherless families. He states that it is an “irrefutable fact that every major social pathology is directly attributable to fatherless homes” (30). The professor is given to making sweeping generalizations without documentation. A family of children living with their married biological parents is best and should be the norm, but why weaken a valid point by overstatement? The author attributes the weakening of family structure, especially among Blacks, to the welfare “reforms” of the 1960s which made men, particularly Black men superfluous. It was during the 1960s that all the markers of family dysfunction—single parenting, teenage childbearing, and divorce) began their inexorable rise.

Baskerville is a rare bird indeed—a rightwing negrophile. “The young African American male is truly an extraordinary figure. His culture in large measure distinguishes that of the United States itself, and he has spread it all over the world—in music, films, sports, religion, and politics—where it inspires widespread imitation” (159). Two points come to mind: The ascendency of Black culture did not happen by chance, but was heavily promoted by the Left, especially the Jewish Left. And yet, despite this cultural dynamism, the author would have us believe that Black men have no agency when it comes to welfare policies. You cannot have it both ways.

In fact, modern welfare policies have been designed to accommodate the Black family structure. The well-known French anthropologist and historian Emmanuel Todd wrote a seminal work on the influence that family structures have on social systems, especially political ideologies.[3] Todd found that: “Family relationships—those between parents and children, between husband and wife—provide a model for political systems and serve to define the relationships between the individual and authority.” He identified seven different family systems distributed across various geographic and environmental regions. Yet the African system, originating in the sub-Saharan region, was unique. Its main characteristics were “instability of the household [and] polygyny.” One of the subheadings in the African chapter is “A fatherless world?” In the African family “the primordial family relationship is between brothers rather than that between father and son.” There is “a lax attitude toward paternal authority, African society does not respond well to discipline. It has trouble forming states.”

Todd is not a racialist. There is no explicit genetic determinism in his argument. He is, however, identified with the Annales School of historiography. The Annalistes are interested in what they describe as cultural continuities of long duration. Thus, while negatively impacted by New World slavery and modern welfare policies, the looser African family structure predates those institutions.

When discussing welfare, it should be noted that modern social welfare originated under German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, hardly a bleeding-heart liberal. During this same period rural America had county poor farms that cared for the indigent, including single mothers, but excluding “rogues” and other unworthies. Both the German and American systems were government-supported, augmented by private charity. My brief stint as a volunteer with the Salvation Army reinforced my belief that the Victorians were right to distinguish the deserving poor from the irredeemables.

In considering relations between the sexes Baskerville believes that “men are too cowed and frightened—too emasculated even to discuss honestly what is wrong” (147). Radical sexual ideologies, the Left’s cutting edge, have feminized society. “Where did all this begin? Here we must return once again, to that pivotal character in the American tragedy: the neglected, demonized, and manipulated black male” (159).  Well, here again, as in welfare policy, Baskerville has things backwards. Second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution, which the author so detests, had its genesis in the “civil rights” movement. The chronology is clear. Mainstream historians agree with feminist journalist and woman of color Anna Holmes: “Correctly contextualized second wave feminism [was] a direct outgrowth of the civil rights movement.”[4] And both are products of the culture of critique.

Forced racial integration meant that the White men could no longer defend their communal interests, diminishing their leadership role. The traditional defenders of the community were men, especially young men, now emasculated and no longer permitted to protect the tribe. What happens if White men assume that role? Consider the fate of Daniel Penny the New Yok subway rider, Marine Corp vet, and architectural student, who stood up to protect his fellow passengers from a psychotic Black criminal. The confrontation ended with the Black miscreant dead. Some called Mr. Penny a Good Samaritan, others called him a hero. The Black Manhattan district attorney called him a criminal and charged him with manslaughter. European-Americans have paid a high price for diversity.

Baskerville has a valid point regarding “the myth of female innocence.” Many White men especially conservatives, engage in the “sentimentalization of women” (157). This is not true in other societies. It is another example of the Left manipulating a Western cultural characteristic to their advantage. Tacitus, in his ethnographic study Germania, notes the high status of women among the northern tribes. Some social historians trace the concept of romantic love to the medieval aristocratic culture articulated by troubadours of twelfth century Aquitaine and Provence, but may well have much deeper roots in Western culture.[5] The present “woke” society is so alienating that many young people find it difficult to make the social/sexual bonds needed for family formation.

The church is another institution that the Left has marched through. Christianity, a universalist and essentially egalitarian faith concerned with individual salvation has been exploited by every outgroup—racial, sexual, and mental—to guilt trip Whites into acquiescing to their demands. In some Whites, the urge to virtue signal has mutated into ethno-masochism where they actually gain pleasure from witnessing the diminishment of their own people and culture. The terrible sectarian conflicts our people have had in the past argues strongly for religion to be a matter of personal belief. But no creed should be permitted to advocate socially destructive policies. A new Western religion would require the emergence of what Wilmot Robertson called “a mind-blowing prophet.” One might hope that a science-based naturalist religion with an element of faith might gain currency in the future.

What is the creation story of the feeble Right? One of the most cogent explanations for the flaccid state of American conservatism was written by a liberal academic Kevin Kruse. His book White Flight is a case study of racial integration in post-war Atlanta.[6] Kruse describes pre-civil rights era White working-class neighborhoods of that city as taking a great deal of pride in their parks, schools, and civic associations. Integration broke up these neighborhoods along with their collective identities. What replaced this communal integrity was an “every man for himself” individualism which translated politically into a shallow, defensive conservatism that retreated from the public sphere into the private sphere. This process was repeated in hundreds of communities across America.

This rise of the enervated Right, which Baskerville complains about, developed in the absence of a confident, collective ethnocultural identity. This psychological manipulation was made possible because Western peoples, especially the Anglo-Keltic branch, tend to be very individualistic. They are likely to seek individual solutions to social problems: A deteriorating neighborhood? Move to the suburbs. Poor schools? Home school or parochial school. Public parks and playing fields no longer conducive to recreation? Join a private club. Once again, a cultural characteristic was exploited by those hostile to our people.

With this in mind we can see why Baskerville’s last chapter, “Conclusion—The Way Out” is way off the mark. The author believes “the true antithesis of leftist ideology is not rightist ideology. It is no ideology—the default state that existed throughout the world until modern times” (198). Wrong and wrong. Terminology matters. While some may argue that ideologies grew out of the French Revolution, in fact an ideology—root word ‘idea’—is simply a set of beliefs about how society should be run. All societies are ruled by an ideology. Premodern ideologies included rule by aristocratic warriors or by the divine right of king or priests. What the Right needs is an ideology more radical and dynamic than the Left.

In the conclusion Baskerville again rides his hobby horse. The solution to our present societal crisis is to repeal “no-fault” divorce laws and “reimpose a presumption of father custody over children” (203). Yes, divorce is bad, it is an admission of failure, but it is not always the woman’s fault. Yes, there is clear evidence that the divorce rate increased after many states instituted no-fault laws, but there were other social factors involved. Plus, many studies have shown that infidelity/adultery is the leading cause for divorce. Desertion is another leading cause. Presumably these are not considered no-fault. If you can believe the CDC statistics the divorce rate peaked in the 1980s at close to 50 percent and has since slowly declined. Presently, 41 percent of first marriages end in divorce, still way too high. The author’s solution is for men to “boycott women and marriage until laws are changed” (204). A men’s revolt “is a key takeaway of this book” (205).

There is a lot to unpack here. This is just a guess, but one might suppose that the author has personally experienced a bitter divorce and custody battle that has skewed his perceptions. If young White men did “boycott” the young women of their race, then we will know that the life force has truly left our people and all is lost. The more important and immediate problem is the low White birthrate, and the need for pro-natalist policies. If the European-American ethny had a collective voice it would encourage marriage. There are no guarantees in life other than death and taxes. Starting a business, entering a profession, starting a family are all risky. What if an army recruiter emphasized the dangers of military service, highlighting whose who came home grievously wounded or in a body bag. How many recruits would enlist? In any case, the battle of the sexes has been waged for millennia, consider Aristophanes Lysistrata or Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew.

In the end, Baskerville’s criticisms of conservatives, while valid, rings somewhat hollow. He singles out Victor David Hanson’s “10 Steps to Save America” as an example of “the pointless wish lists dreamed up by frustrated conservatives” (207). That is a bit ironic because Baskerville’s ideas on citizenship are somewhat similar to Hanson’s non-ethnic civic nationalism. In fact, Who Lost America? could be summarized as an amalgamation of libertarianism, Hanson’s ideas on citizenship, and the men’s rights movement.  But in the end Baskerville is a reactionary. His answer to the failure of conservatism is radical reaction reaching back to the nineteenth century for some of his policy proposals.

After being so critical of the professor I would be amiss not to offer an alternative. Strong communities are key; they support and strengthen marriages, increase birthrates, and contribute to the overall quality of life. A while back, I made some suggestions for forming White communities even during these trying times.[7] My vision of citizenship differs from both Hanson’s civic nationalism and Baskerville’s libertarian-influenced radical traditionalism. The professor warned us about being “black pilled” by conspiracy theories, yet Baskerville dismisses my idea of building “local communities and parallel structures. . . . As if the totalitarians are going to permit this” (xxvi).  Properly conceived, it would be difficult for any authority to prevent the building of European-American communities and parallel structures, as in the case of Orania in South Africa. If there is a remedy for our decadent society, it begins with recreating a strong ethnic and cultural identity. Opposition to such an idea unites Baskerville with the woke Left and the establishment Right.

[1] F. Roger Devlin, “Courage Cannot Be Outsourced,” A Review Essay on Stephen Baskerville’s Who Lost America? The Occidental Quarterly 24, no. 3 (Fall, 2024): 3–23..

[2] See, for example, William Pierce’s essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win,” Attack!, no.4 (1971); reposted in National Vanguard (September 22, 2010). https://nationalvanguard.org/2010/09/why-conservatives-cant-win/

See also: Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (H. Allen, 1981).

[3] The quotes below are from: Emmanuel Todd, The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems. Translated by David Garrioch. (NY: Basil Blackwell, Ltd. 1985) 6,7,191-195.

[4] Anna Holms, “The Second Wave,” New York Times Book Review, 09/15/24, 10.

[5] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future (CreateSpace, 2019).

[6] Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism. (Princeton University Press, 2005).

[7] Eric Paulson, “Nine Reasons for an Ingathering” The Occidental Observer (11/03/2010).

 

Mbogba’s Machete: More on Blacks Blighting Whites

/8 Comments/in , /by

I’m the creator of the universe. And so are you. There’s a huge and immensely complex universe, crammed with color, sound, taste, scent and sensation, that exists only because of me. It’s the universe of my personal experience, brought into being by my brain, even (or especially) when that brain is asleep.

Pseudo-mystical leftist nonsense

Meanwhile, your brain is bringing another huge and immensely complex universe into being. And so is the brain of every other sentient human. But I’m a White male, so there’s nothing special about my brain-born universe. However, if you’re not White or not male, there is something special about yours. If you’re Black, your brain-born universe is very special indeed. If you’re a Black woman or (gasp) a Black transwoman, it’s so special that Whites should bow before its creatrix in awestruck worship. That’s what leftists think, anyway. I’ve argued elsewhere that this creation-by-consciousness helps explain why leftists regard even the most minor Black presence in Western history as deeply significant. How so? Because any Black who was present in, say, Tudor England or the Roman empire was, in a sense, creating Tudor England or the Roman empire by being conscious of it. A Black brain contained the world of that time and thereby, in leftist eyes, was creating and sustaining the world.

That’s pseudo-mystical leftist nonsense, of course, but leftists have never asked for truth and logic in their ideologies. They ask only that their ideologies grant them power, feed their narcissism, and assuage their neuroses. For a good example of this, let’s take a look at an article about “Black British” history in the Guardian from 2023. It’s exceptionally dishonest and stupid even by the Guardian’s standards. Here’s a highlight:

Although people with dark skin first came to Britain about 12,000 years ago, with the first known people to come directly from Africa settling approximately 2,000 years ago, more than a third (36%) of Britons surveyed believed that the first Black people migrated to Britain only in the past 200 years, with a further 29% not sure. One in four (25%) believed that it was within the past 100 years and only 9% thought that it was more than 1,500 years ago. (“Half of Britons can’t name a Black British historical figure, survey finds,” The Guardian, 26th October 2023)

Leftists constantly complain about right-wingers “erasing” the rich identity and complex experiences of non-Whites. But that paragraph contains two blatant acts of erasure against non-White identity and experience. The “people with dark skin” who came to Britain 12,000 years ago were not “Black.” That is, they were not sub-Saharan Africans and were not ancestral to modern Black groups like Nigerians or Kenyans. Nor were the vast majority of people “to come directly from Africa” in Roman times. The emperor Septimius Severus (145–211 AD) is often described as “Black British” because he was born in north Africa and lived in Britain. But north Africa was (and is) inhabited by groups like Berbers and Arabs, not by Blacks, and surviving images of Severus clearly show that he wasn’t Black.

White Romans denigrated Black skin

The same is true of the Roman governor Quintus Lollius Urbicus (fl. 140 AD) and the “Aurelian Moors” once stationed on Hadrian’s Wall. They too came from North Africa and they too were not Black. Yes, there is reference in Roman history to an “Ethiopian” soldier meeting Septimius Severus in Britain, so genuine Blacks were very likely present here 2,000 years ago. But guess what? Severus recoiled at the color of the Ethiopian’s skin, which he regarded as an unlucky omen. So the Romans were racist against Blacks! They denigrated Black skin. “Denigrate” is the mot juste: its literal meaning in Latin is “blacken completely.”

And when modern leftists celebrate Roman Britain as “diverse” and “multicultural,” they don’t explain why the empire had a policy of stationing troops from distant provinces in Britain. What is the explanation? It’s simple: the Romans knew that those foreign troops had no kinship with and would feel no sympathy for the indigenous Celts of Britain, who had been brutally conquered and were being harshly exploited. In other words, leftists are celebrating imperialism, colonialism and enslavement when they celebrate Roman Britain. After all, the very words “empire,” “colony,” and “slave” come to us from Latin. So-called Blacks like Septimius Severus and real Blacks like the Ethiopian soldier were only in Britain because of brutal imperialism by Rome. If you want a good example of that brutal imperialism, here’s the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56–117 A.D.):

Prasutagus King of the Iceni, celebrated for his long prosperity, had named the emperor his heir, together with his two daughters, in an act of deference that he thought would place his kingdom and household beyond the risk of injury. The result [after his death] was contrary — so much so that his kingdom was pillaged by centurions and his household by slaves as though they had been prizes of war. As a beginning, his wife Boudicca was flogged and his daughters raped; all the chief men of the Iceni were stripped of their family estates; and the relatives of the king were treated as slaves. Impelled by this outrage and the dread of worse to come, for they had now been reduced to the status of a province, they flew to arms and incited to rebellion the Trinobantes and others, who, still unbroken by servitude, had entered into a secret and treasonable compact to resume their independence (Tacitus, Annals, Book XIV, 31)

Queen Boudicca led the native British in rebellion against the foreign invaders who had imposed “diversity” and “multiculturalism” on them at sword-point. The rebellion was bloodily suppressed: Tacitus reports that 80,000 Britons were slaughtered in the final and decisive battle. By leftist standards, the imperialist enslaving Romans were guilty of horrible crimes against the indigenous Celtic natives of Britain. So why are leftists so desperate to shoehorn Blacks into Roman history and pretend that Blacks were an important part of Roman civilization? Again, it’s simple: because leftists care about power and prestige, not about truth and logic. They want Blacks to be associated with the grandeur and great achievements of Rome, while reserving the bad parts of Roman history strictly for Whites.

Leftists portray Blacks as proud Roman soldiers in a brutally imperialistic army of unrepentant enslavers (images by the BBC)

That’s why leftists love to portray Blacks as Roman soldiers in the splendor of scarlet cloaks and gilded armor. But you can be sure that leftists would never use Blacks as Roman soldiers in any modern portrayal of Queen Boudicca being flogged and her daughters being raped. The same applies to the leftist shoehorning of Blacks into more recent Western history. Again, leftists want Blacks to have the prestige of the West while reserving the sins strictly for Whites. For example, leftists often proclaim that “Black history is British history” and that Blacks resident in Britain are thereby completely and authentically British. Does that mean that these completely British Blacks share any responsibility for the imperialism, colonialism and enslavement so wickedly practised in “British history” by “the British”? Of course not. Blacks are to be associated only with the positive aspects of British history, while the negative aspects are reserved strictly for Whites. Indeed, leftists want to pretend that the positive aspects of Britain and the West exist only because of Blacks and other non-Whites.

“The grave concerns of Black Londoners”

Blacks are the most important racial group in leftism, of course. But that isn’t because leftists value Blacks in themselves. No, it’s because they value Blacks as anti-Whites, that is, as the group most distant in appearance, behavior and achievement from Whites, and therefore most harmful to White civilization. If a White nation imports Blacks, it inevitably imports violent crime and educational failure. But for leftists that’s a feature, not a bug, of Black immigration, because they can blame all Black pathologies on White racism. Meanwhile, they do their best to ignore the numerous White victims of Black crime. For example, I pointed out in “Blacks Blight Britain” that there has been no feminist response since the Black Muslim Mohamed Iidow (sic) was found guilty of killing the White woman Natalie Shotter. Shotter was lying unconscious on a park-bench in London when Iidow repeatedly committed “oral rape” against her. He “overstimulated the nerves at the back of her throat” and induced “a cardiac arrest.”

Feminists have not condemned this horrific example of toxic masculinity and rape-culture. And the non-White leftist mayor of London, the Pakistani Muslim Sadiq Khan, has not issued any stern statement to the media, condemning male violence against women and vowing to fight even harder for women’s safety. Mohamed Iidow is Black, Natalie Shotter was White, therefore the rape-killing does not advance the pro-Black, anti-White agenda of leftism and leftists are silent. But Sadiq Khan did issue stern official statements about the fatal shooting of a 23-year-old Black man, Chris Kaba, by a White police marksman called Martyn Blake in September 2022. Khan lamented the “young life cut short” and acknowledged “the grave concerns and impact of Chris’s death on black Londoners across our city and the anger, pain and fear it has caused — as well as the desire for justice and change.” He was advancing the cause of leftism, you see, and promoting the lie that innocent Blacks are the perennial victims of racist Whites in the police.

Leftists bewail the death of Black thug Chris Kaba (image from Stop Hate UK)

The cause of leftism was further advanced when the leftists of the Crown Prosecution Service decided to put the White marksman on trial for “the murder” of Kaba. It was a misguided and malicious prosecution that placed Martyn Blake and his family under immense strain as they waited for and then endured the trial. Leftists were trying to create an anti-White martyr-cult around Kaba to match that of George Floyd in America. But they didn’t get the verdict they wanted. In the same week in 2024 as Mohamed Iidow was found guilty of killing Natalie Shotter, Martyn Blake was found not guilty of murdering Chris Kaba. Leftists have ignored the death of Natalie Shotter and once again lamented the death of Chris Kaba.

Kaba’s colorful contributions

Indeed, it seemed likely that those lamenting leftists would successfully incite Blacks in London to riot in protest at the not-guilty verdict. But the judge in the case forestalled that by allowing hitherto concealed details of Kaba’s contributions to Britain to be made public. Kaba was not the innocent Black victim portrayed in leftist propaganda. He was a violent career criminal who would have gone on trial for the attempted murder of another Black if he had not been killed by the police. Leftists have constantly described Kaba as “unarmed” when he was shot. In fact, he was armed with a large and powerful car when, having received clear instructions to surrender to armed police, he tried to batter his way out of a police road-block and was shot by Martyn Blake, who rightly feared for the lives of himself and his fellow police.

Leftist propaganda has also portrayed Kaba as a young musician who was expecting his first child when his life was brutally ended by White racism. In fact, the “drill rap” he performed with a gang called 67 can only loosely be described as music and he was subject to a restraining order after committing “domestic violence” against the mother of his child. In one of his crime-celebrating videos, Kaba issued this auto-prophetic Afro-apophthegm: “Fuck around and get smoked.” Well, he was 13 when he is first known to have begun “fucking around,” that is, committing violent crime. It was entirely predictable that he would one day “get smoked,” that is, die by violence.

Fascinating names from far-off climes

It was also much more likely that another Black thug would kill him, rather than a White policeman. In the same month as leftists have ignored the entirely horrific killing of Natalie Shotter and lamented the entirely justified killing of Chris Kaba, another story about violent death has been in the news. Like so many similar stories from modern Britain, it’s what I call a feast for phoneticians, because it contains fascinating names from far-off climes:

A group of four attackers who used a “fearsome” machete to murder a teenager in east London have been given life sentences. Wazabakana Elenda Jordan Kukabu, known as Jordan, died after he was stabbed in the heart outside Dagenham Heathway Underground station in May 2023.

Michael Tommy-Mbogba, 21, and Toluwaslase Odunewu, 18, as well as a two teenagers aged 17 and 16 — who cannot be identified due to their age — were all found guilty of murder following a trial at the Old Bailey. During sentencing, Mr Kukabu’s mother, Tantine Kukabu, said she never thought she would lose her son, “let alone in such a brutal and painful way”. The trial heard Mr Kukabu had arrived at the station with two associates when they were confronted by a heavily-armed group. Their car was surrounded as Mr Kukabu and his colleague Matthew Adekoya, 20, tried to escape.

Mr Adekoya was chased and stabbed by the 17-year-old defendant, but managed to drive away. Mr Kukabu collapsed and died at the scene after being stabbed by Mbogba, the court heard. … The court heard [the killers] were identified after one man had seen the defendants sitting on the top deck of a bus after the murder, re-enacting the fatal attack they had just carried out. (“Four jailed over ‘beautiful’ teen’s machete murder,” BBC News, 16th October 2024)

Machete-mensches Michael Mbogba (left) and Toluwaslase Odunewu (right)

By “re-enacting,” the leftist BBC means “laughing and celebrating.” It was a very stupid thing to do in public, but that makes the murder like the rape-killing of Natalie Shotter. They’re examples 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. Despite that brutality and stupidity, leftists would insist that the machete-mensch Michael Mbogba is “British.” After all, it’s probable that he was born on the magic dirt of Britain, just as Chris Kaba was before him. But in reality, as opposed to leftist fantasy, Blacks like Kaba and Mbogba are not British at all. Kaba was born to parents from the Congo and Mbogba was probably born to parents from Cameroon. That’s where his phonetically fascinating name comes from. It’s not a White British name: it’s a Black African name. And when Black Africans come to White Britain, they don’t bring only their un-British names. No, they also bring their un-British genetics and culture, both forged in the un-British environment of sub-Saharan Africa. That’s why Blacks blight Britain and don’t belong in Britain.

Smiling traitors in Poland

But it’s precisely because Blacks blight Britain and don’t belong in Britain that leftists are so eager to import Blacks, privilege Blacks, and prevent the effective policing of Black behavior. Blacks create crime and chaos wherever they go, and leftists use that crime and chaos to advance leftism. The same is true of all other White nations. Britain has been blighted by the Black Chris Kaba and Portugal has just been blighted by another Black: “Two nights of disturbances have shaken outskirts of the Portuguese capital Lisbon following the fatal police shooting of a Black man.” Like Chris Kaba, the dead Black in Lisbon seems to have been a thuggish criminal: “According to a police statement, the shooting victim had fled and crashed a car after seeing a police vehicle. When officers approached, he tried to attack them with a blade, before being shot and dying in hospital.”

“The smiler with the knife under the cloak”: Polish traitor Szymon Hołownia smiles in happy anticipation of non-White crime and chaos (photo Notes from Poland)

I would once have contrasted ethno-enriched Britain and Portugal in western Europe with un-ethno-enriched Poland in eastern Europe. Up until now, Poland has not suffered from the non-White crime and chaos so prevalent in Britain and Portugal. But Poland has a traitorous leftist government that wants to blight Polish Whites with Blacks and other ethnic enrichers: “The Polish government is setting up 49 Foreigners’ Integration Centres (CICs) across the country, aimed at helping newly arrived migrants integrate into Polish society, the European Commission announced this week.” In fact, the non-White migrants will not “integrate into” but attack Polish society. That is, they will commit rape, murder and other crimes against Polish Whites, and provide traitorous leftists with home-grown versions of George Floyd and Chris Kaba. The White traitor you can see in the photo above is smiling in anticipation of this crime and chaos. He’s called Szymon Hołownia and is the speaker of the Polish parliament or Sejm.

It’s no coincidence that Black-welcoming Hołownia once issued a parliamentary exclusion and stern rebuke to a patriotic Polish MP called Grzegorz Braun, who had used a fire-extinguisher to douse a “Chanukah menorah” erected by Hasidic Jews in the Sejm. Braun rightly denounced the menorah as symbolic of rasistowskiego, plemiennego, dzikiego, talmudycznego kultu – a “racist, tribal, savage Talmudic cult.” Braun also described the menorah as “Satanic.” And he disrupted and denounced a lecture devoted to the Jewish Holocaust cult. He’s fighting on behalf of Whites and Christianity; Szymon Hołownia is fighting against Whites and Christianity. That’s why Hołownia performs the goy-grovel before Jews and welcomes the arrival of Blacks in Poland. Just as the menorah is symbolic of Satanic Judaism, so Mbogba’s machete is symbolic of Black crime and chaos. That machete is already swinging in London and Lisbon. Soon it will be swinging in Poland too.

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.