Category: genocide

The Other Shoe Has Dropped

Trump unmasked as The Genocide Emperor.

Watch this, focusing on the comments about Trump.

And now, read this, emphasis added:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump says he’s now in favor of more legal immigration because of economic gains on his watch.

Trump raised eyebrows in his State of the Union speech Tuesday when he said he wanted people “to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.” His policy positions to date do not reflect that wish. Asked Wednesday during a meeting with regional reporters whether the line represented a change in policy, Trump said it did.

“Largest numbers ever”…Since most – virtually all – of these newcomers will be non-European, this is race replacement, this is genocide, and this is biological, cultural, social, economic, and political dispossession.  Keep in mind that Whites have an increasing death rate, dying from despair, with the dispossession championed by Trump being a key part of that.

Thus: Trump the avatar of White genocide.  Trump the advocate of mass non-White immigration.  Trump the promoter of White Death.  Trump the genocidal lunatic, seething with animus toward European-derived peoples.  Trump the architect of the Great Replacement.

Now, I am sorry, but I need to bring up the past.  Let us make some useful comparisons.

The “movement” about Trump since 2015: The God Emperor, In Trump We Trust, an American Caesar who will stabilize White demographics, the movement won the election, we memed Trump into office – wild, fervent, almost onanistically homoerotic support.

Ted Sallis about Trump since 2015: A fraud, a vulgar ignorant buffoon, a Negrophilic race cuck, Touchback Trump (as a champion of “touchback” immigration – the illegals can come in as long as they go home first and re-apply), Amnesty Don, can’t be trusted, his only objection to illegal immigration is the illegality – he supports legal immigration, etc.  I also noted that the only reason to support Trump is that his persona and bombastic statements, when coupled to America’s culture of anti-White hysteria, “triggers” the Left, causing division and chaos.  I was right about that as well.

Long time readers of this blog will be familiar with all of this.  But now, it is time to speak plainly. Now that the other shoe has dropped, and Trump is revealed for what he truly is (and even if he “walks back” these comments under pressure, “the cat is out of the bag”), it is time to hold the Trump fanboys accountable.

Thus, I openly call them out. They should RESIGN from the “movement” – or at least RESIGN from any position of “leadership.”  They should shut down their websites and blogs, they should stop panhandling, and they should just go away and ponder their perpetual bad judgment, their inability to admit error, their defective character – all of it.  Now, I know they won’t do it.  Instead, they’ll just continue rolling along, making the same horrendous world historical mistakes over and over and over again.  After all, it’s time to put all our effort into supporting “Tulsi” now, right?  The God Empress!  The Semi-Samoan Hindu Princess who will usher in the White Millennium!

I will not be so crude as to openly name those who should – if they any sense of decency whatsoever – resign. No, but let us instead use euphemistic nicknames.  The following is not an exhaustive list, but gives a “flavor of accountability,” to coin a phrase:

Mr. HuWhite, The High Trust Kid, Hobbit Hole, Lady Raine’s Little Weasel, In Mud We Trust, Mophead and Rosie’s Pet, The Drunken Bard of Alexandria, Gamblin’ Man…well, you get the picture.

Advertisements

Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a Racist?

Let us consider this question.

Read this.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (henceforth, AOC) calls the Negrophilic leftist Trump a “racist” and engages in nonsensical justification for her accusation.  But is AOC herself a racist against White people?  And does she have the moral right to criticize Trump on racial issues?   I argue the answers to those questions are Yes and No.

First, AOC promotes a dishonest and anti-White narrative about Unite the Right – that “Neo-Nazis murdered a woman.” The violence at Unite the Right was initiated by leftists, who were there to use thug tactics to break up a legally convened rally.  The death in question was the direct result of one individual – Fields – who had no direct connection to the organizers of the rally, and the death – regardless of the politicized jury verdict – was possibly not in any way premeditated, not “murder,” and may in part been due to the pre-existing health problems of the individual killed. Any “Neo-Nazis” present had no intention or desire for violence, and to argue otherwise is so fundamentally dishonest as to constitute grand-scale gaslighting. It also suggests an animus toward White people and specifically an animus against those Whites who defend their racial interests in the same manner that non-Whites such as AOC do for their own people.

Second, and more importantly, AOC supports policies on race and immigration that – by the definitions of the UN Genocide Convention – promotes White genocide.  If one takes the UN Genocide Convention seriously, and applies its standards fairly to all people, there can be no other conclusion than what I have just stated.  If this is so, then it is reasonable to further conclude that any person who supports genocidal policies holds a racial animus against the targeted population.

So – is AOC an anti-White racist?  The only conclusion based on all of the above is Yes.

Does AOC have the moral right to criticize Trump on race? Hardly, if the designation of AOC being a genocidal racist holds.  And there is another reason the answer to this second question must be No. Consider the following. Trump has a history of catering to Black interests – such as with “criminal justice reform” or a pardon for the violent abuser Jack Johnson – and a history of associating with Black racial leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. So, AOC, when you establish a history of catering to White interests, and when you establish a history of associating with David Duke and Richard Spencer, then get back to us with your opinions about Trump’s alleged “racism.”  Otherwise, you are nothing but a low rent hypocrite.  And an anti-White racist.

Sports Teams Names

Not “racism.”

Question: If names like Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, etc. are a reflection of White racism and meant to mock and ridicule (in this case, Amerindians), then why aren’t there sports teams with names mocking groups also alleged to be victims of White racism?  

Why no Atlanta Coons?  Detroit Dindus?  California Wetbacks?  Seattle Gooks?  New York Sheenies?

Is it possible that the Amerindian names reflect respect for the fighting skills and aggressiveness of Amerindian tribes, qualities that sports teams naturally want to represent?

The fallback view is that while the names are not intentionally racist, they are still unintentionally “insensitive” to the “feelings” of Amerindians, and as such need to be eliminated.  

Well, I don’t know.  We live in a society in which America’s leading newspaper, the New York Times, is an out-and-out hate organization, knowingly hiring a Korean racist with an established intentional pattern of spewing bigotry against White people.  I would think that that intentional racism has priority over the unintentional, no?

As to the argument that anti-White racism is not a problem, or is “impossible to exist,” because “Whites have all the power,” I must say it is mighty strange.  After all, the people who “have all the power” can be insulted, threatened, and humiliated with impunity, and those who are “powerless” are so sacrosanct that any joke (Barr) or even comments meant against bigotry (Papa John’s) causes a White (or even Jewish in the case of Barr) person to get canned.

It’s also strange that a people who have “all the power” are being subjected to state-sponsored genocide, and are discriminated against by law (in addition to by politically correct custom).  It’s strange that James Watson was reduced to selling his Nobel Prize while Al Sharpton is a friend of Presidents, respected political commentator, and speaker at a major political convention.  

All mighty strange, indeed.

The Ascent of Saint Adolf

Brief book review. 

Reading this relatively new Hitler book, which concentrates on the first 50 years of Hitler’s life (1889-1939) I note that it contains the usual snide, conformist, and biased anti-Hitler and anti-NS comments one comes to expect from politicized hacks. The anti-Hitler and anti-NS comments come fast and furious; after all, Mr. Ullrich, the author, has to maintain his status in polite society as a good-white cuck (and also does not want to suffer the same fate as David Irving, eh?).

One example of Ullrich’s gratuitous anti-Hitlerism is his smug labelling of the grand architectural plans of Hitler and Speer as “sheer insanity” and “megalomania.”  In contrast, I view those plans as inspiring, and as a reasonable model of what a European Imperium should build – nay, even greater than Hitler and Speer had planned!  

Hitler and Speer planned for the ages, planned for eternity, planned for what they hoped would be a German Empire.  What would the likes of Ullrich wish to see instead, I wonder?  A “Germany” full of mosques, perhaps, with NECs running wild in the streets and African Negroes swinging from the trees?  If that’s what they wish, they are, thanks to Mama Merkel, well along in those developments. “Germany” as a subaltern cuck nation colonized by the Third World: that sounds like a textbook definition of “sheer insanity” to me.

Particularly amusing is the author’s description of the Nuremberg race laws as an example of “grotesque senselessness” because of some sort of alleged inability of the Nazis to define Jewish ancestry (which, for some mysterious reason, the Jews themselves were perfectly capable of doing).  Modern genetics confirms the validity of the Nuremberg concept, as even quarter-Jews can be genetically distinguished from gentile Europeans.  The bulk of what we know as Jews constitute a reasonably defined ethnic group, and certainly, within that larger grouping, the Ashkenazim, consisting of the vast bulk of those Jews that the Nuremberg laws dealt with, constitute a particularly well defined ethny.  Given the strong correspondence between Jewish identity and Jewish genetics, the Nazi identification of, say, a half-Jew, as someone with two grandparents belonging to the “Jewish religious community,” is actually biologically sound, and far from the “grotesque senselessness” that the scientifically illiterate Ullrich pretends it is.

There are some even more obvious factual errors in the book as well; for example, what to make of September 27, 1939 being described as “several weeks before the beginning of the Second World War” (emphasis added)?

An annoying part of the book is all the sob stories about the “persecution” of the Jews during this pre-WWII period of the Nazi regime. We have the gnashing of the teeth about Kristallnacht, as well as the alleged horrors Jews suffered in Vienna after the Anschluss – university professors made to scrub the streets with their bare hands, or “pious” old Jews made to do “leg squats” in temples while yelling “Heil Hitler!”  But didn’t others have things worse, including ethnies that were the victims of Jewish communist-led genocide?  How many Slavs were slaughtered by the Jews in the Soviet Union?  Was scrubbing the streets or doing deep knee bends worse than millions of Ukrainians being deliberately starved to death in the Holodomor, while grinning Levantines carted off the foodstuffs?   Ullrich doesn’t have the common decency to acknowledge that Nazi “persecution” of Jews was at least in part motivated by the knowledge of what Jewish communists did to Europeans in the USSR, and the fear that they would have done the same in Germany if they had the opportunity. Yes, indeed, I would assume that Ukrainians watching their children die from starvation would have wished they could have got off easy by scrubbing streets and squatting up and down a few times.  But, hey, they were only Slav gentiles, so who cares about them, right?  

Ignoring all of these glaring flaws, the book is fairly well-written and the objective facts buried under the subjective hysteria do shed some light on the Hitler phenomenon, but I came away from this book with a profound disrespect for Ullrich and his “character.”

And Hitler himself?  Saint Adolf was like an individual given a choice of what to do with his money: either put it into prudent, long-term investments; or got to a casino and engage in the most risky forms of high-stakes gambling – and chooses the latter, losing everything.  The money in this case represents the long-term EGI of the German people and of Europeans as a whole, and, also, the money represents the legitimacy of “Far Right” nationalism, particularly fascist thought, and especially the tenets of National Socialism.  Hitler, being the archetype of the Type I “movement” Nutzi and ethnic fetishist, of course took the gambling route, losing all and ruining all; indeed, it is no wonder Saint Adolf is a grand hero and role model for Der Movement, Inc., since the behavioral patterns of he and they are exactly the same.  In summary: Hitler was an idiot.

Genocidal Mongrels

Hold Back Those Mongrels (proposed title for new racialist novel).


I previously wrote about the “Mixed Race Mentality” – and the same arguments apply to the Taylor debate and Taylor’s opponent.  The mixed race (and their parents – hello, Derb!) have a chip on their shoulder, a smoldering rage against the unmixed (“inbred” and “incest” for example, or always exulting over the proposed future non-existence of persons of native European stock, or even of native Japanese stock), and a desire to make everyone admixed like them.

In this sense, we may get a better perspective on both Jayman and Derbyshire.  And I also did read on Majority Rights some time ago that “Razib” is married to a White woman (I do not know the veracity of that claim).  All the pieces are starting to fit together, and the assembled puzzle turn out to be quite an ugly picture indeed.

Holodomor Bloodguilt

Cash or check?


It would seem appropriate for Israel to give reparations to the Ukraine in compensation for the Holodomor (and one can also propose reparations to Russia and other nations affected by communism). The extent of these reparations can be equivalent to what Germany gave to Israel, adjusted for inflation.