What exactly is Trump going to do about de-funding, exposing and eliminating the Haji terrorists that Peace-Prize-Obongo & Clinton & Kerry & the CIA & the Pentagon & Kikestan-in-Palestine have armed and trained and supported in Syria and Iraq?

* * *

BTW, Lest We Forget...

2014: The US-backed Haji terrorists in Syria attacked and took hostage Fijian (most of whom are Indian) and Pinoy troops defending Occupied Golan, and threatened to kill them unless the rest of the Pinoys surrendered. The Sikh commander ordered the Flippers to surrender. They refused the order, rescued their Flipper comrades (with Paddy help) and made an escape. They wanted to go back to rescue the Fijians from America's terror-proxies, but were forbidden to do so by the Sikh-in-Chief.

How U.N. troops defied orders, opened fire and escaped Syrian rebels

Reuters | Sep 12, 2014

Early on Aug. 28, al Qaeda-linked militants fighting government forces in Syria crossed a ceasefire line in the Golan Heights on Israel's border and seized 45 Fijians serving in a United Nations peacekeeping force.

The leader of a nearby U.N. contingent from the Philippines telephoned a commanding officer in Manila. They were surrounded, the leader said. Should they surrender and risk being kidnapped by the rebels or hold their ground?

The U.N. force commander, General Iqbal Singh Singha of India, fearing Fijian lives could be in jeopardy if the Filipinos engaged in a firefight, ordered the Filipinos to hold their fire. In Manila, General Gregorio Catapang gave different orders to his subordinate thousands of miles away in the Middle East: Stand your ground. Don't surrender.

For three days, Filipino troops fended off hundreds of rebels from the [US and Kike-backed] Islamic militant Nusra Front group, killing at least three on the final day before escaping under cover of darkness to Israel. The Fijians were released on Thursday after two weeks of negotiation.

U.N. officials and diplomats say the incident with the Philippine peacekeepers highlights a fundamental problem with peacekeeping missions, one that may be impossible to resolve. National peacekeeping contingents retain allegiance to their commanders at home and when bullets fly, they have no problem disobeying U.N. force commanders and taking orders from home.

Based on interviews with U.N. officials, diplomats and Philippine military sources, including an official report on the incident from Manila, Reuters has pieced together a narrative of the events of Aug. 28 to Aug. 30 leading up to the dramatic escape of Philippine troops from the militants' siege.

It was not the first time that fighting from Syria’s three-year-old civil war spilled onto Israel’s doorstep. But it was the most violent incident in the Golan Heights since the Syrian conflict erupted in March 2011.

The 1,223-strong six-nation U.N. force, known as UNDOF, has been on the Golan Heights since 1974. Its job is to monitor the ceasefire line between Syria and Israel - the so-called disengagement zone that bars both Israeli and Syrian troops. The two countries have officially been at war since the end of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war but their border has been largely quiet.

Before the Syrian war broke out, blue-helmeted U.N. observers stationed in the mountainous region had a relatively easy job. For years their main enemy was boredom.

That changed in March 2013, when Syrian rebels kidnapped 21 Filipino peacekeepers. All were released unharmed, but two months later [the USA's infamous "Moderate"] rebels kidnapped and released a handful of others. The spillover of violence from Syria's civil war prompted Austria, Croatia and Japan to pull out of UNDOF.

The Philippines also considered pulling out but stayed at the U.N.'s request. Fiji, Nepal and Ireland agreed to help fill UNDOF's depleted ranks and the U.N. Security Council toughened the mission's rules of engagement to give its peacekeepers more freedom to fight back when under threat.

After the 2013 kidnappings, countries providing troops complained that carrying a pistol was insufficient for a shifting battleground where rebels have shoulder-launched missiles and heavy machine guns. They wanted armored vehicles and heavier weapons - and the freedom to shoot to kill, if necessary, when under attack.

In June of last year, when the U.N. Security Council approved its six-month renewal of UNDOF's mandate, the council emphasized "the need to enhance the safety and security of UNDOF." It also endorsed U.N. recommendations for UNDOF to change its "posture and operations," allowing troops to defend themselves when attacked. The Security Council language on the UNDOF mandate was typically vague about the lengths to which peacekeepers could go in their own defense, but the new flexibility granted to the force did satisfy the demands of the council members and UNDOF troop contributing countries.

The Filipinos put those tougher rules of engagement to work on Aug. 30 when they killed three rebels in a firefight.

After encircling the troops on Aug. 28, Nusra militants communicated to the Filipinos and to the Fijians, who were being held elsewhere at an unknown location, an offer of safe passage if they handed over their weapons. The Filipinos did not trust the militants to keep their word. Philippine military officials in Manila have said openly that General Singha ordered the surrounded troops to raise a white flag, abandon their positions and leave their guns behind for Nusra, a group that the U.N. Security Council last year added to its blacklist of al Qaeda-linked terrorists.

Taking their orders from home, they ignored General Singha. Rather than abandoning their position and weapons, they stayed put and prepared to defend themselves while Philippine military officials and their UNDOF contingent discussed escape plans.

What U.N. peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has acknowledged is that the Filipinos were ordered to hold their fire to avoid jeopardizing the lives of the Fijians. He voiced total confidence in General Singha's decisions during the standoff.

Two days later, tensions escalated. The Nusra militants were growing impatient at the negotiations with UNDOF. The United Nations had already fulfilled one of Nusra's conditions by issuing a statement that said the world body was told the Fijians were seized "for their own protection."

But the U.N. statement was not enough for the rebels.

Around 6 a.m. on Aug. 30 the rebels attacked position 68 in the disengagement zone. Militants on three pickup trucks with mounted weapons attempted to ram through the steel gate of the encampment but were unable to break through. The Filipinos fired on the rebels but began to run low on ammunition. Sporadic exchanges of fire lasted for seven hours.

In the meantime, Filipino troops supported by an Irish armored column rushed to nearby position 69 to extract 32 trapped Filipinos. The armored column was fired upon but the U.N. peacekeepers did not fire back. The operation succeeded.

There were still 40 Filipinos trapped at position 68, along with the 45 Fijian hostages elsewhere. The United Nations tried to link the groups in negotiations but Nusra refused, saying they were separate issues.

A ceasefire was reached that would run until negotiations were to resume at 9 a.m. on Aug. 31. Nusra reinforced its siege as more than 20 vehicles with over 200 rebels arrived on the scene to prevent the 40 remaining Filipinos breaking out of position 68 the way their compatriots had done at position 69. But the reinforcement failed to keep the Filipinos penned in. The blue helmets had a new plan.

Under cover of darkness, Filipino soldiers at position 68 quietly cut the barbed wire and one-by-one scaled a perimeter wall three meters (yards) tall, crossed a mine field and walked 2.3 kms (1.4 miles) to the Israeli side of the Golan Heights. The last man reached safety two hours later.

Catapang jubilantly described it to reporters as "the greatest escape".

U.N. officials acknowledge a sharp disagreement between Singha and the Filipinos, and several accused the Filipinos of thinking only of their own safety and ignoring that of the Fijians held captive.

The hypocrisy of Schumer and fellow anti-Trump zio-Kikes protesting (FakeNews-)”Muslim Ban”




"The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump's executive order on immigration were initially identified as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Sunday pointed to the Obama administration's actions as the basis for their selection of the seven countries. Trump's order bars citizens from Iraq [bans 'Israelis'], Syria [bans 'Israelis'], Iran [bans 'Israelis'], Libya [bans 'Israelis'], Somalia, Sudan [bans 'Israelis'] and Yemen [bans 'Israelis'] from entering the U.S. for the next 90 days. "There were further travel restrictions already in place from those seven countries," Spicer said.";


Democrats & Media celebrated Trump Ban



Uniformed Nationalists On The March in Britain

Of course the usual Commies and passive-aggressive SJW faggots protest against the Nationalists:

Irish Guards & Royal Irish Regiment: It's time to liberate London and Dublin, Lads!

(There are five regiments of foot: the Grenadier, Coldstream, Scots, Welsh and Irish Guards. The regiments of foot can be differentiated by the arrangement of their buttons, as well as by cap badges and collar tabs. Grenadiers have evenly spaced buttons on the front of their tunics, Coldstream have buttons in pairs, Scots in threes, Irish in fours and Welsh in fives. There are two mounted regiments of guards: the Life Guards and the Blues and Royals. The mounted regiments can be differentiated by the colour of their uniforms – Life Guards, red – Blues & Royals, blue.)



Jan 30, 2017

There is no Muslim Ban, even though the Twitter hashtag #MuslimBan is being used by opponents of the EO. The anti-Trumpers want to stop Trump more than they do terrorism. It’s not a Muslim ban. The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.” There is a postponement of entry from 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) previously identified by the Obama administration as posing extraordinary risks. That they are seven majority Muslim countries does not mean there is a Muslim ban, as most of the countries with the largest Muslim populations are not on the list (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Nigeria and more). Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is not affected.

"Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading"





Tucker Carlson interviews Tulsi Gabbard 2017.01.27: Meeting Assad

Tulsi Gabbard, CNN, 2017.01.25:

"Every place that I went, every person that I spoke to, I asked this question to them. And, without hesitation they said 'there are no moderate rebels. Who are these moderate rebels that people keep speaking of?' Regardless of the names of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is Al Nusra or Al Qaeda and ISIS. That is a fact."

Tucker Carlson: Behind Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop Arming Terrorists" bill, Fox, 2017.01.13:

Congresswoman Gabbard, one of the first Democrats to meet with President-elect Trump, explains her bill to stop the government from directly or indirectly arming, funding terror groups who are enemies of US but would help overthrow the Syrian government.

Andrew Joyce, in "Antifa: An Obituary", Occidental Observer, 2017.01.23:

"Trump voters will be forced by Leftist hostility into buying into the narrative that they belong with the Alt-Right."

So he's saying that 'Anti-Fa' will win in the USA.

Joyce describes the Alt-Right:

"Antifa [including Alt-Right] was from its inception a diseased protrusion of the neurotic middle-class. In particular, it drew its lifeblood from pathological or alien elements in the upper middle-class. Always directed by middle-class intellectuals, who were frequently Jewish, Antifa was staffed by a motley crew of materially spoiled, attention-seeking youngsters, who sought in their Jewish...gurus what they could not find from disinterested, career-minded parents. ... It goes without saying that the real world of the worker played no part in this drama. ... “Most of the political activists have a middle class background, few workers are involved in the movement. They are rather the exception. The working class plays no role...." Similarly [a] journalist might have been persuaded by Leftist propaganda to expect to find a young dock-worker or manual laborer. Instead, and more predictably from our perspective, he found dialogue with a young, “gluten intolerant,” activist who had grown up in the wealthy suburbs..., had been sent to an expensive university by his parents, and had developed a love affair with ‘Marxism’ [/Anarchism / Ancapism / Libertarianism / Situationalism / some other kike ~ism] at the behest of guru professors. Our young Anarchist apparently proceeded to explain his moribund political philosophy between sips of rose tea at a fashionable cafe, as he peered over a pair of designer spectacles. Antifa [including the Alt-Right/Alt-Kike] is the bastard child of Marx and Goldman Sachs, conceived in the Hamptons, and nursed on the psychiatrists couch."


Assad West Terror


Leadership, integrity.

I bet Tulsi Gabbard will be running for president.

She's young, good-looking (not bad), maverick, 3/4 Euro and1/4 Samoan, Hindu with a Catholic upbringing, smart, anti-war, anti-globalism, pro-infanticide, pro-queer, and a military veteran. She's like a "dream candidate" for the Dems trying to appeal to mainstream Whites.

Her position on Assad/Syria can also give Dems a way to back off from their losing warmongering policies. She quit as Vice-Chair of the DNC to support Bernie, and she opposed Hillary, and Kike Wassermann-Schultz, and Obongo, so she can help the Dems move on from those millstones. Interesting.

I bet she's secretly anti-Kikestan. In November, Gabbard met with Trump to discuss foreign policy.


Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger [Air Force veteran] spoke out against her trip on Facebook: “To say I’m disgusted would be an understatement. By meeting with the mass murderer of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Tulsi Gabbard has legitimized his dictatorship.”

Washinton Kike-Post:

Gabbard raised eyebrows in Washington when she met with Trump in November to share her view that the United States should stop arming and assisting rebels, a policy that candidate Trump expressed support for. Then, the week Trump is inaugurated, we find out one of the few Democrats to knowingly talk foreign policy with Trump is in Syria meeting with its president.

Melissa Dalton, a Middle East defense expert now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies described Gabbard's trip as “odd” and “premature.” She said it does not appear to be connected to any broader policy deliberations about how to approach Syria. If that's the case, Dalton warned that Gabbard risks undermining those deliberations by taking things into her own hands. “High-level U.S. contact with Assad should be conducted in the context of a broader strategy,” Dalton said, “or it can easily send the wrong message that the U.S. government supports Assad or condones the brutal tactics Assad has used against his own people.”


Gabbard criticized President Obama for not directly associating ISIS and other terrorists with Islam. She said that “[t]hey are not fueled by a materialistic motivation. It's actually a theological [one] — this radical Islamic ideology that is allowing them to continue to recruit[.]”

In the first session of the 115th Congress on January 4, 2017, Gabbard introduced bill H.R. 258 "to prohibit the use of United States Government funds to provide assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to countries supporting those organizations, and for other purposes."

"It's very dangerous when we have people in positions of leadership who use their power to try to quiet those who disagree with them. When I signed up to be vice-chair of the DNC, no one told me I would be relinquishing my freedom of speech and checking it at the door."

Gabbard strongly opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and has led protests against it. A member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, she has been highly critical of both the deal itself and the secrecy surrounding its exact text, arguing that it will largely benefit multinational corporations at the expense of American workers while actively contributing to existing threats to the environment, such as global warming and pollution. Gabbard has said, "The TPP agreement will benefit Wall Street banks and multinational corporations on the backs of hard-working Americans, and it will increase existing threats to our environment...If it contains the same noxious provisions we suspected it would, I will do all I can to defeat the TPP when it comes before Congress for a final up-or-down vote."

Gabbard calls for a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, a ban on naked credit default swaps, and forced breakup of the "big banks". She also condemned banks that foreclosed on the homes of deployed troops. She is a co-sponsor of HR381: Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2015, which would revive the separation between commercial banking and the securities business, in the manner provided in the Glass-Steagall Act.

Gabbard voted in favor of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which lifted sanctions on Iran.

Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, said in late 2012, "I was against the war in Iraq. We never should have gone there in the first place." She calls for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan "as quickly and safely as possible". Gabbard believes that the United States' victory conditions in Iraq have not been clearly defined.

In October 2016, she criticized Pakistan, saying, "People within the Pakistani government continue to provide tacit and overt support for terrorism. This is not new; this pattern of attacks has been occurring now for the past 15 years, and it must end. That's why I've continued working in Congress to cut back US assistance for Pakistan and increase pressure on Pakistan to stop this violence. In the past, the US government took steps to increase pressure on Pakistan, and it's time to revisit that approach." She expressed "solidarity with India in the face of these attacks" (referring to the 2016 Uri attack).

Gabbard was a notable opponent of a $1.15 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, and was quoted in The Hill as saying, "Saudi Arabia continues to spend billions of dollars funding the spread of the Wahhabi Salafist ideology that fuels groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and other jihadist groups around the world. The U.S. must stop arming Saudi Arabia, stop fueling this fire and hold Saudi Arabia accountable for their actions." Later, on CNN, she told Wolf Blitzer, "I think we should ask the reverse question, [which] is what is the United States doing to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for being the number one promoter of radical Islamic extremism, not only in their own country, but around the world, spending hundreds of billions of dollars in funding madrassas and schools and books and media outreach trying to influence people towards this ideology that fuels ISIS, fueling al Qaeda, what to speak of the direct and indirect support that Saudi Arabia and some of these other Gulf states gives directly to the enemy that we are supposed to be fighting and defeating. So, I think it is an important time and question for us, in the United States, to ask: Is Saudi Arabia willing to be our ally? And if they are, then they need to stop this funding, stop this support of Islamic extremists, stop promoting that ideology, and stand with us and focus on defeating our enemy: ISIS.

In 2013 Gabbard opposed the Obama administration's proposed military strikes in Syria, arguing that intervention in Syria would go against America's national security, international credibility, economic interest, and moral center. Gabbard was one of three members of Congress to vote against House resolution 121, a condemnation of the government of Syria and "other parties to the conflict" for war crimes and crimes against humanity, explaining that "this is a War Bill—a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of 'humanitarianism' as a justification for overthrowing the Syrian government". She later introduced legislation to block U.S. military action against Syria. Gabbard has rejected suggestions for the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, stating that such a move would risk confrontation with Russia. In November 2016 she met with United States president-elect Donald Trump to enlist his support to stop the United States' "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government”. On December 8, 2016, Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act to prevent the U.S. government from sponsoring international terrorist groups through funding and the provision of armaments, intelligence, and training. The act was modeled on the Boland Amendment and was endorsed by the Progressive Democrats of America and the U.S. Peace Council. In January 2017, Gabbard made media headlines with a secret "fact finding" mission to Damascus, meeting diverse civil society groups as well as government officials.

Responding to the Obama Administration's policy on using drones in the United States, Gabbard stated, "these tactics should never be used against our own citizens here at home". She said she had a firsthand perspective on the value of these tactics and strategies during a time of war overseas in enemy territory, and that that was the appropriate place for them, not on American soil. In 2012 Gabbard argued against "the use of drones against American citizens who have the right to due process within our own system". In 2013 she said that "drone strikes and other counter-terrorism tactics should not be targeting non-combatant U.S. citizens".

ISIS Natanyahu


For years I almost completely ignored mainstream/kikestream media but wasted a lot of time over the past year watching CNN-Fox-BBC-etc garbage to see what's going on with Trump-hysteria and Brexit. If I'm going to watch non-kikewise non-racially-conscious media, I'd rather watch people I disagree with to some extent on the fringes of the mainstream, than waste time watching blatant propagandists and media-whores like Hannity, Blitzer etc.

I find this guy interesting, even though he's a damn New Yorker. I admire his facility with language (he's a walking thesaurus), and find his old-fashioned conversational style interesting. Other people try to affect his kind of folksiness but just come across as manipulative and cynical.

He's a non-partisan "political agnostic" old ex-hippy ex-"lefty".

Interesting, informed and unbiased commentaries on Trump, popular psychology, Putin, Madonna, pussy-pandering, Fake News triviality, etc


  • George Will's 'beef' with Trump was that Will and NRO and the other cuckservatives wanted to keep up the old "left-right" fixed tennis match. Their main concern was that Trump would be opposed to war with Russia, so they backed Clinton (whom they had just attacked for the past 30 years). They also feared that Trump would "let down Israel", which is a laughable concern since he's as much of an Israel-Firster as any of them. His unpredictable nature gave them the jitters.
  • I would never have called you a Jew, in any sense. However your commentary is flawed because you talk a lot about Jews and jewed institutions and jew-agit-prop without mentioning or naming the Jew.
  • Soros jew Lippmann jew Wilson jews' puppet Obama jews' puppet Trump jews' puppet Goldman-Sachs jew Hollywood jew Clintons jews' puppets NYT jew Bush jews puppet "Dexter-White" jew Schumer jew LAT jew Disney jew Blitzer jew Mitchell jew Nuland jew Reich jew Bernanke jew Churchill jews' puppet Greenspan jew Yellen jew etc.


Globalist-Dominated Canada Gearing Up to Battle Both Russia and Trump

The USA's neighbor to the north is emerging as a new center of globalist-neocon resistance to the new president's policy of 'America First'

Wayne Madsen, Strategic Culture Foundation, January 25, 2017

Neo-conservatives and their globalist co-ideologues are persistent if anything else. The decision by the Donald Trump transition team to bar those neo-con Republicans who signed on to the «Never Trump» movement from having any positions in his administration has globalist and neo-con circles looking for other venues from which to operate.

The neo-cons and globalists have regrouped in order to fight against both Russia and the incoming U.S. President Donald Trump. With the departure of arch-neocons Victoria Nuland from her perch in the State Department, Samantha Power from the U.S. mission to the United Nations, and Susan Rice from the National Security Council, the neocon and globalist establishments, which have in common their Atlanticist views, have settled on Canada as the ideal place from which to wage their wars of subterfuge and propaganda.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fired his foreign minister Stephane Dion to make way for an ideological doppelganger for Nuland, Power, and Rice on the world stage: Chrystia Freeland, his trade minister. Dion's policy of seeking to engage with Russia is what ultimately cost him his job as Ottawa prepares to host every anti-Trump instability operation it can muster for future operations against the Trump administration.

Freeland, who is of Ukrainian descent, became a darling of the globalists after she hammered out a free trade agreement with the European Union last year. A frustrated Freeland leaned heavily on the one holdout to the deal, the regional government of Wallonia in Belgium. Even after it was announced that the Wallonian government dropped its reservations to the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Belgian central government reneged on a deal with the Wallonians that would have required the EU Court of Justice review the agreement before the final accession by Brussels.

Freeland also oversaw the signing of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement with the neo-fascist government in Kiev. Steeped in the corporatism and globalism of Canadian Liberal Party doctrine, Freeland is of the view that regional governments, whether they are in Wallonia, Crimea, or Quebec, have no right to self-determination. This behavior is at the root of corporate globalist ideology. Freeland’s fellow Liberals in Quebec have neutered the Quebec sovereignty movement. However, if French National Front presidential candidate Marine Le Pen is victorious in this year’s election, France can breathe new life into the Quebec independence movement, much as President Charles de Gaulle did in Montreal in 1967 with his famous «Vive le Quebec Libre!» speech.

With the appointment of Freeland as foreign minister and Somali-born Ahmed Hussen as Immigration Minister, Trudeau has drawn a red line against Trump on the twin issues of globalization and open borders migration. Ottawa will soon become a nest for anti-Trump operations that will almost certainly involve the billionaire global troublemaker George Soros.

Like Power, Freeland is a former journalist who traded in her journalistic credentials to become a shill for globalization's new world order. A Rhodes scholar, graduate of Harvard, and alum of the Brookings Institution, she represented the Financial Times in Washington, New York, and Moscow.

Freeland’s anti-Russian stance, including her support for sanctions against Russia over Ukraine and Crimea, earned her a visa ban from the Russian government. During her final months in Moscow for the FT, Freeland became a major critic of the new administration of President Putin and accused him of creating a dictatorship in Russia. Before heading the FT’s Moscow bureau, Freeland’s Russophobia was honed during her time as a reporter in Kiev. In fact, Freeland's bias against Russia has always been present in her reporting. Freeland’s closest friends cross party lines in Canada and they include the Liberal Party’s Zionist overseer, Irwin Cotler; Paul Grod, the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress; and Conservative Party foreign affairs spokesman Peter Kent.

In one of her first statements as foreign minister, Freeland vowed that Canadian sanctions will not be lifted against Russia. On January 10, 2017, Freeland vowed that Canada will serve as a front against rising global «trade protectionism and xenophobia». That was a clear warning to Trump in Washington, Marine Le Pen, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and UK Independence Party politician Nigel Farage. In December 2016, Canada hosted a meeting of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees and Soros's Open Society Foundations that seeks to expand the movement of refugees from the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia to the industrialized nations of the West. There is little doubt that Russophobes Freeland and Soros are cooperating on several fronts against both Russia and Trump.

Europe’s ankle-biting small powers are ecstatic that the Trudeau government has placed a Russophobe in charge of Canada’s foreign relations. Freeland has made no secret of her aim to influence the Trump administration to change course on Russia. She has bragged about her «wide network of contacts» in Washington and she claims she has experience working the «power corridors» in the U.S. Congress, State Department, and White House. The Ukrainian ambassador in Ottawa, Andriy Shevchenko, hopes that Freeland will «educate» the Trump administration on maintaining political and economic pressure on Russia. The Latvian ambassador in Ottawa, Karlis Eihenbaums, views Ottawa as the launch point for a de facto NATO «influence operations» campaign in Washington to derail closer U.S.-Russian relations.

Freeland showed her intentions toward Trump and Putin when she met at the recent Davos Economic Summit in Switzerland with U.S. financier William Browder, the figure at the center of a massive fraud scheme in Russia involving his Guernsey-based company, Heritage Financial Management. Browder, the grandson of the one-time leader of the U.S. Communist Party Earl Browder, is, like fellow fraudster Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a fierce critic of the Russian government and President Putin.

From Ottawa, Freeland will lead the neocon and globalist charge against any attempt by Trump to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). She will almost certainly try to salvage the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which includes Canada and which Trump has vowed to scrap. Freeland will also likely open up Canada's Arctic to a military presence by anti-Russian NATO countries like Norway, Denmark, and Germany, as well as pro-NATO Sweden and Finland. An increased NATO presence, without U.S. forces, in the Canadian Arctic will not only militarize the region but send a warning to Russia about Canadian control over emerging Arctic sea lanes that are increasingly navigable due to climate change.

With Ottawa becoming a center for anti-Trump and anti-Russian activities, the world can expect a chill to set in between Canada and the United States. If Trump begins to view Canada as a source for anti-Trump operations, the U.S. border with Mexico may not be the only flash point in North American politics.


Nigger Judah Adunbi, 63, a founder of a group in Bristol that claims it wants to improve race relations with the anti-White state's pigs, was Tasered in the face while fighting with two incompetent pigs (a useless fat sow, and one who could be a Pakipig) after refusing to give his name when they stopped him, believing he was some other Nigger they were looking for.

Nigger Adunbi accused the pigs of attempted murder, and claims the incident has left him "scared for his life". After he was Tasered, the arrogant Jigaboo bitch-screamed over and over nigger-caribbean gibberish such as "ya ave kill me!"

Following the blown-out-of-proportion incident, the Nigger said: "Dey claim they are lookin for an individual. Dey know who de individual is. So why go as far as accuse any buhlakk man in de stree wit drayedlock!? ... When de Taser it me, I tought it ave kill me! I tought I was dyin! An I was tinkin me children an me grandchildren need me!."

I'n'I doubt that anyone needs this Coon. I'n'I advise it to fuck off back to Africa, where it can interact exclusively with nigger-pigs who will better understand how it ought to be treated.

This was the second time Nigger Adunbi has been mistaken by pigs for the other Nigger. Perhaps he is actually that other Nigger – I don't know – though he hardly seems like a criminal mastermind. In 2009 he won a wrongful arrest case against Avon and Somerset pigs and was awarded taxpayer-compensation.

An interfering neighbour of Nigger Adunbi yelled at the nervous pigs throughout the incident, increasing the tension. He thinks e's some sort of hero, and he filmed the second incident, which took place. The video shows the two pigs approaching Nigger Adunbi outside his home in the Easton area of Bristol on 14 January. They give the name of the wanted man and ask if that is him. When he says he is not that man, they ask for his name, which he declines to give. Nigger Adunbi says he refused because he is "not a criminal" and was "just going about my business". The pavement ape walked into his back garden, and got into a lame fight with the pigs, so they Tasered him. "I collapsed... I was paralysed and she had the audacity to tell me to get up," the yappy Nig-nog said.

Nigger Adunbi was taken to Bristol Royal Infirmary and then to Patchway police station, where he was interviewed and charged with a public order offence and assaulting a pig. Judah Adunbi says he declined to give his name to police because he is "not a criminal" and was "just going about my [nigger] business" Those charges have since been dropped.

According to Avon and Somerset pig guidelines, "You do not have to give your name, address or date of birth to the police if you're stopped and searched unless you are being reported for an offence."

Nigger Adunbi, who was the former chairman of the anti-White race relations group, said what happened to him was "disgraceful". He added that race relations in the city were "getting worse" and called for the police and community groups to "sit down around the table and sort this out".

Pussy Chief Superintendent Jon Reilly said: "After reviewing what happened, we voluntarily referred a complaint about this incident to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). He added he had met Mr Adunbi and had a "constructive conversation. We're aware of concerns within the local community and we take these concerns very seriously."

An IPCC spokesperson said: "We are independently investigating a complaint about an incident in Easton on 14 January where a man was Tasered. The IPCC investigation follows a referral from Avon and Somerset Police and is in its early stages." It said it was going to review the "body worn video of the officers involved, checking for any CCTV evidence and conducting house to house enquiries as part of the investigation".

Because there's nothing better for the pigs to be doing?



"My job is to shut other white people down"

Candidates aspiring to take over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee met Monday night to discuss what went wrong in 2016 and how to get the party back on track. Early into the event the candidates gravitated toward a particular scapegoat for the party’s poor showing in November: Political consultancies owned by white people.

“We have to stop, particularly with the consultants,” said the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Jaime Harrison. “You cannot come to the DNC and get a contract and the only minority face you have is the person answering the phone.”

> Minority consultants “need to get the same resources that the white consultants have gotten,” said a Fox News analyst and candidate for the chairmanship, Jehmu Greene. "The DNC did a piss poor, pathetic job" attracting minorities, she said.

Democrats must provide “training” that focuses in part on teaching Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white,” urged the executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party, Sally Boynton Brown, who is white.

The event’s moderator, MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid, asked the candidates how the party should handle the Black Lives Now movement. The candidates uniformly emphasized that the party must embrace the activists unreservedly.

“It makes me sad that we’re even having that conversation and that tells me that white leaders in our party have failed,” Brown said. “I’m a white woman, I don’t get it. … My job is to listen and be a voice and shut other white people down when they want to interrupt.”

“This is life and death” she emphasized. “I am a human being trying to do good work and I can’t do it without y’all. So please, please, please, get ahold of me. Sally at we-the-dnc.org. I need schooling so I can go school the other white people.

Another candidate said **black Americans are now living with “justified fear” of being killed after Donald Trump was elected president.**

Raymond Buckley, the chairman for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, told a story about how, in the midst of “grieving” on Election Day, he received a call from his black niece, who feared for her life after Trump’s victory. “It’s not just certain parts of the country,” he said. “That fear is all across the country. It’s even in rural new Hampshire. So when people say black lives matter, you are damn right they matter.”

Asked whether they would agree to work with President Trump, the candidates agreed they would never do so, which drew some applause from the otherwise quiet crowd at George Washington University.


White Man Shut Down



Women's March on Washington: Solidarity comforts anxious Americans

Thousands of Americans worried about losing civil liberties under Trump come together in show of solidarity and defiance

'Never again for the Holocaust - this means never again for the Jews, never again for any group that's being marginalised'

Ali Harb, Middle Eastern Eye, 22 January 2017

Tags: Women's March, US, Civil rights, Muslim women, Islamophobia

A human connection between protesters in Washington fostered a sense of safety and comfort for individuals who feel threatened by Trump’s presidency.

The new US president stoked anxiety among minority groups, women and immigrants with his nationalistic campaigning. His rise to power also coincided with an increase in hate crimes against minorities.

Sana, a young Muslim woman at the march, said she was fearful of Trump’s attacks on Muslims, but the mass protest gave her a reason to be optimistic. “After the election I was feeling pretty scared,” she told Middle East Eye. “I didn’t want to leave my house. The day after, I didn’t want to go to school. But seeing everyone come together… has made me more feel much more hopeful about the state of the union.”

Sana added that the US is a country for the people, and most Americans do not agree with Trump policies that violate civil rights.

Ali Alshuwaykh said that as an Iraqi American he is worried about his rights with Trump in the White House. “But today was very encouraging, seeing how many people are standing up against him,” Alshuwaykh said. “I think people are more aware. They want to do something.”

Two women held signs depicting the Star of David with a crescent inside it, demonstrating comradery between Jews and Muslims. Miriam Lerner said her sister designed the poster, which proclaims: "Never again". Lerner said Adolf Hitler made Jews wear identification signs and put them in a registry prior to the Holocaust. "Never again for the Holocaust - this means never again for the Jews, never again for any group that's being marginalised," Lerner told MEE.

Hanin and Shawk Masbab joined the protest all the way from Warren, Michigan. They said as Arab women they face gender struggles within their community as well as externally. They added that the march is an opportunity not only to tackle Trump’s misogyny but to address cultural sexism, too. "White feminism is a big deal, but it’s not the feminism that’s important to us as brown women,” Shawk Masbab said. “This is our chance to say white Americans are not the only ones that are out here, we’re out here, too, and we’re being underrepresented in every form.”

A poster of a Muslim woman with an American flag wrapped around her head as a hijab was visibly abundant among other signs at the march. Mike Veanata, a protester, said the artwork, which reads “We the people,” has become a "symbol of the revolution” against Trump’s policies. “It’s the answer right here. She is part of America,” Veanata said of the woman depicted in the image.

Some non-Muslim women wore the flag hijab to the march in a show of support.

Demonstrators wore pink hats and shirts for women’s rights. From high ground, the marchers could be seen like a pink brush, slowly painting the streets of Washington.

Scott Christian, a retired teacher, stood on a sidewalk holding a sign with a welcoming message in Arabic, Spanish and English. “No matter where you are from, we’re glad you’re our neighbour,” it reads. The tri-lingual proclamation is used as a motto against xenophobia. “It’s unbelievable. It’s just beautiful. It’s such a strong spirit,” Christian told MEE of the protest. “Just being with so many people - and it’s so positive.”

One marcher held a portrait of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin with the “I voted” sticker, alluding to Trump’s questionable ties to Moscow.

Other slogans included: “If you build a wall, we will raise our children to tear it down”; “Love not hate makes America great”; “We are all immigrants”; “We did. We can. We will”; “This protest lasts ‘til 2020”; “Our bodies Our choice” and “Exercising pu**y power”.

Although dubbed a women’s march, the protesters advocated for a myriad of issues, including environmental protection, racial and economic justice, immigrants' rights, Native Americans' access to water and welcoming refugees.



Seoul Womens March Against Trump 20170121 05

Seoul Womens March Against Trump 20170121 02

Seoul Womens March Against Trump 20170121 03

Seoul Womens March Against Trump 20170121 04

Seoul Womens March Against Trump 20170121 01

Hundreds join anti-Trump Women’s March in Seoul

Korea Herald, 2017-01-23

Hundreds of men and women took to the streets of Seoul for the Women’s March on the first day of Donald Trump’s presidency. Braving the snow and subzero temperatures, an estimated 1,000 people, according to the rally organizers, marched for three hours through Gangnam, Seoul, joining the global grassroots campaign against the new US president who they believe has stirred up hatred, sexism and misogyny. Displaying their concern over the Trump era, the participants carried placards and banners reading “Women’s rights are human rights,” and chanted “My body, my choice.”

“The Women’s March started off as something against Donald Trump, but it is about the general well-being of women and minorities,” said Amanda, 28, a 28-year-old US citizen who did not want her surname published. “I am extremely worried that Trump will pursue policies that are populist and against women. So it is important to let them know we are still here and we should be equal.”

Adam Parton, an Australian who was one of the many male participants in the march, criticized Trump’s attitudes toward women, which he said made people think it was OK to degrade women. “In a lot of ways, his administration has potential to send us backward from the direction we should be going,” he said. “Even after everything he said, he still became president. He is normalizing things that should not be normal.

From Brazil to Kenya, from Saudi Arabia to Poland, more than 600 “sister” marches took place in 60 countries.

Tara, a US citizen who came with her husband and two children aged 5 and 10, said that she was worried about the future of her children. “He has not presented himself with things I closely associated with -- diversity, equality, freedom, women’s rights -- which make America strong,” she said. “We wanted to be here to teach our children that acting on things and standing together make us stronger.”

Local protesters also raised key domestic issues, ranging from the government’s ban on abortion to the sexual discrimination they said is prevalent in Korean society.

Park Soo-yeon, 27, thanked American women for standing up for women’s rights. “I came here to raise my voice against misogyny and the patriarchal system in Korean society,” she said. “The inauguration of Trump as the US president has heightened the sense of crisis, especially because South Korea is influenced a lot by the US and especially because he has been elected on the back of slogans provoking division and discrimination.”

Hundreds protest in anti-Trump rally for women's rights in Seoul

Yonhap, 2017/01/21

Hundreds of people took to the streets in Seoul on Saturday in protest of new U.S. President Donald Trump. A group of some 500 demonstrators, made up of locals and foreigners, marched near Gangnam Station, picketing and chanting together, "We want freedom, equality and respect right now!" Kim Sang-ae, 23, who took part in the march said, "I came here to voice that women also have voting rights."


In the old days, once a year at any rate a fool would recognise that he was a fool, but nowadays – not a bit of it. And they have so muddled things up that there is no telling a fool from a wise man. They have done that on purpose.

I remember a witty Spaniard saying, when, two hundred and fifty years ago, the French built their first madhouses: 'They have shut up all their fools in a house apart, to make sure that they are wise men themselves.'

Just so: You don't show your own wisdom by shutting some one else in a madhouse.


PUSHKIN is an extraordinary phenomenon, and, perhaps, the unique phenomenon of the Russian spirit, said Gogol. I will add, ‘and a prophetic phenomenon.’ Yes, in his appearing there is contained for all us Russians, something incontestably prophetic. Pushkin arrives exactly at the beginning of our true selfconsciousness, which had only just begun to exist a whole century after Peter’s reforms, and Pushkin’s coming mightily aids us in our dark way by a new guiding light. In this sense Pushkin is a presage and a prophecy.

I divide the activity of our great poet into three periods. I speak now not as a literary critic. I dwell on Pushkin’s creative activity only to elucidate my conception of his prophetic significance to us, and the meaning I give the word prophecy. I would, however, observe in passing that the periods of Pushkin’s activity do not seem to me to be marked off from each other by firm boundaries. The beginning of Eugene Onyegin, for instance, in my opinion belongs still to the first period, while Onyegin ends in the second period, when Pushkin had already found his ideals in his native land, had taken them to his heart and cherished them in his loving and clairvoyant soul. It is said that in his first period Pushkin imitated European poets, Parny and André Chénier, and above all, Byron. Without doubt the poets of Europe had a great influence upon the development of his genius, and they maintained their influence all through his life. Nevertheless, even the very earliest poems of Pusbkin were not mere imitations, and in them the extraordinary independence of his genius was expressed. In an imitation there never appears such individual suffering and such depths of self- consciousness as Pushkin displayed, for instance, in The Gipsies, a poem which I ascribe in its entirety to his first period; not to mention the creative force and impetuosity which would never have been so evident had his work been only imitation. Already, in the character of Aleko, the hero of The Gipsies, is exhibited a powerful, profound, and purely Russian idea, later to be expressed in harmonious perfection in Onyegin, where almost the same Aleko appears not in a fantastic light, but as tangible, real and comprehensible. In Aleko Pushkin had already discovered, and portrayed with genius, the unhappy wanderer in his native land, the Russian sufferer of history, whose appearance in our society, uprooted from among the people, was a historic necessity. The type is true and perfectly rendered, it is an eternal type, long since settled in our Russian land. These homeless Russian wanderers are wandering still, and the time will be long before they disappear. If they in our day no longer go to gipsy camps to seek their universal ideals in the wild life of the gipsies and their consolation away from the confused and pointless life of our Russian intellectuals, in the bosom of nature, they launch into Socialism, which did not exist in Aleko’s day, they march with a new faith into another field, and there work zealously, believing, like Aleko, that they will by their fantastic occupations obtain their aims and happiness, not for themselves alone, but for all mankind. For the Russian wanderer can find his own peace only in the happiness of all men; he will not be more cheaply satisfied, at least while it is still a matter of theory. It is the same Russian man who appears at a different time. This man, I repeat, was born just at the beginning of the second century after Peter’s great reforms, in an intellectual society, uprooted from among the people. Oh, the vast majority of intellectual Russians in Pushkin’s time were serving then as they are serving now, as civil servants, in government appointments, in railways or in banks, or earning money in whatever way, or engaged in the sciences, delivering lectures—all this in a regular, leisurely, peaceful manner, receiving salaries, playing whist, without any longing to escape into gipsy camps or other places more in accordance with our modern times. They go only so far as to play the liberal, ‘with a tinge of European Socialism’, to which Socialism is given a certain benign Russian character—but it is only a matter of time: What if one has not yet begun to be disturbed, while another has already come up against a bolted door and violently beaten his head against it? The same fate awaits all men in their turn unless they walk in the saving road of humble communion with the people. But suppose that this fate does not await them all: let ‘the chosen’ suffice, let only a tenth part be disturbed lest the vast majority remaining should find no rest through them. Aleko, of course, is still unable to express his anguish rightly: with him everything is still somehow abstract; he has only a yearning after nature, a grudge against high society, aspirations for all men, lamentations for the truth, which someone has somewhere lost, and he can by no means find. Wherein is this truth, where and in what she could appear, and when exactly she was lost, he, of course, cannot say, but he suffers sincerely. In the meantime a fantastic and impatient person seeks for salvation above all in external phenomena; and so it should be. Truth is as it were somewhere outside himself, perhaps in some other European land, with their firm and historical political organizations and their established social and civil life. And he will never understand that the truth is first of all within himself. How could he understand this? For a whole century he has not been himself in his own land. He has forgotten how to work, he has no culture, he has grown up like a convent schoolgirl within closed walls, he has fulfilled strange and unaccountable duties according as he belonged to one or another of the fourteen classes into which educated Russian society is divided. For the time being he is only a blade of grass torn from the roots and blown through the air. And he feels it, and suffers for it, suffers often acutely! Well, what if, perhaps belonging by birth to the nobility and probably possessing serfs, he allowed himself a nobleman’s liberty, the pleasant fancy of being charmed by men who live ‘without laws’, and began to lead a performing bear in a gipsy camp? Of course a woman, ‘a wild woman’, as a certain poet says, would be most likely to give him hope of a way out of his anguish, and with an easy-going, but passionate belief, he throws himself into the arms of Zemphira. ‘Here is my way of escape; here I can find happiness, here in the bosom of nature far from the world, here with people who have neither civilization nor law.’ And what happens? He cannot endure his first collision with the conditions of this wild nature, and his hands are stained with blood. The wretched dreamer was not only unfitted for universal harmony, but even for gipsies, and they drive him away—without vengeance, without malice, with simple dignity.

Leave us, proud man,
We are wild and without law,
We torture not, neither do we punish.

This is, of course, all fantastic, but the proud man is real, his image sharply caught. Pushkin was the first to seize the type, and we should remember this. Should anything happen in the least degree not to his liking, he is ready to torment cruelly and punish for the wrong done to him, or, more comfortable still, he will remember that he belongs to one of the fourteen classes, and will himself call upon—this has happened often—the torturing and punishing law, if only his private wrong may be revenged. No, this poem of genius is not an imitation! Here already is whispered the Russian solution of the question, ‘the accursed question’, in accordance with the faith and justice of the people. ‘Humble yourself, proud man, and first of all break down your pride. Humble yourself, idle man, and first of all labour on your native land’—that is the solution according to the wisdom and justice of the people. ‘Truth is not outside thee, but in thyself. Find thyself in thyself, subdue thyself to thyself, be master of thyself and thou wilt see the truth. Not in things is this truth, not outside thee or abroad, but first of all in thine own labour upon thyself. If thou conquer and subdue thyself, then thou wilt be freer than thou hast ever dreamed, and thou wilt begin a great work and make others free, and thou wilt see happiness, for thy life will be fulfilled and thou wilt at the last understand thy people and its sacred truth. Not with the Gipsies nor elsewhere is universal harmony, if thou thyself art first unworthy of her, malicious and proud, and thou dost demand life as a gift, not even thinking, that man must pay for her.’ This solution of the question is strongly foreshadowed in Pushkin’s poem. Still more dearly is it expressed in Eugene Onyegin, which is not a fantastic, but a tangible and realistic poem, in which the real Russian life is embodied with a creative power and a perfection such as had not been before Pushkin and perhaps never after him.

Onyegin comes from Petersburg. Certainly from Petersburg: it is beyond all doubt necessary to the poem, and Pushkin could not omit that all-important realistic trait in the life of his hero. I repeat, he is the same Aleko, particularly when later on in the poem he cries in anguish: "Why am I not, like the assessor of Tula, Stricken with palsy?" But now at the beginning of the poem he is still half a coxcomb and a man of the world; he had lived too little to be utterly disappointed in life. But he is already visited and disturbed by The demon lord of hidden weariness.
In a remote place, in the heart of his mother country, he is of course an exile in a foreign land. He does not know what to do and is somehow conscious of his own quest. Afterwards, wandering over his native country and over foreign lands, he, beyond doubt clever and sincere, feels himself among strangers, still more a stranger to himself. True, he loves his native land, but he does not trust in it. Of course he has heard of national ideals, but he does not believe in them. He only believes in the utter impossibility of any work whatever in his native land, and upon those who believe in this possibility—then, as now, but few—he looks with sorrowful derision. He had killed Lensky out of spleen, perhaps from spleen born of yearning for the universal ideal— that is quite like us, quite probable.

Tatiana is different. She is a strong character, strongly standing on her own ground. She is deeper than Onyegin and certainly wiser than he. With a noble instinct she divines where and what is truth, and her thought finds expression in the finale of the poem. Perhaps Pushkin would even have done better to call his poem Tatiana, and not Onyegin, for she is indubitably the chief character. She is positive and not negative, a type of positive beauty, the apotheosis of the Russian woman, and the poet destined her to express the idea of his poem in the famous scene of the final meeting of Tatiana with Onyegin. One may even say that so beautiful or positive a type of the Russian woman has never been created since in our literature, save perhaps the figure of Liza in Turgeniev’s A Nest of Gentlefolk. But because of his way of looking down upon people, Onyegin did not even understand Tatiana when he met her for the first time, in a remote place, under the modest guise of a pure, innocent girl, who was at first so shy of him. He could not see the completeness and perfection of the poor girl, and perhaps he really took her for a ‘moral embryo’. She, the embryo! She, after her letter to Onyegin! If there is a moral embryo in the poem, it is he himself, Onyegin, beyond all debate. And he could not comprehend her. Does he know the human soul? He has been an abstract person, a restless dreamer, all his life long. Nor does he comprehend her later in Petersburg, as a grand lady, when in the words of his own letter to her ‘he in his soul understood all her perfections’. But these are only words. She passed through his life unrecognized by him and unappreciated: therein is the tragedy of their love. But if at his first meeting with her in the village Childe Harold had arrived from England, or even, by a miracle, Lord Byron himself, and had noticed her timid, modest beauty and pointed her out to him, oh, Onyegin would have been instantly struck with admiration, for in these universal sufferers there is sometimes so much spiritual servility! But this did not happen, and the seeker after universal harmony, having read her a sermon, and having done very honestly by her, set off with his universal anguish and the blood of his friend, spilt in foolish anger, on his hands, to wander over his mother country, blind to her; and, bubbling over with health and strength, he exclaims with an oath: "I am yet young and life is strong in me, Yet what awaits me?—anguish, anguish, anguish." This Tatiana understood. In the immortal lines of the romance the poet represented her coming to see the house of the man who is so wonderful and still so incomprehensible to her. I do not speak of the unattainable artistic beauty and profundity of the lines. She is in his study; she looks at his books and possessions; she tries through them to understand his soul, to solve her enigma, and ‘the moral embryo’ at last pauses thoughtfully, with a foreboding that her riddle is solved, and gently whispers: "Perhaps he is only a parody?" Yes, she had to whisper this; she had divined him. Later, long afterwards in Petersburg, when they meet again, she knows him perfectly. By the way, who was it that said that the life of the court and society had affected her soul for the worse, and that her new position as a lady of fashion and her new ideas were in part the reason for her refusing Onyegin? This is not true. No, she is the same Tanya, the same country Tanya as before! She is not spoiled; on the contrary, she is tormented by the splendid life of Petersburg, she is worn down by it and suffers: she hates her position as a lady of society, and whoever thinks otherwise of her, has no understanding of what Pushkin wanted to say. Now she says firmly to Onyegin: "Now am I to another given: To him I will be faithful unto death." She said this as a Russian woman, indeed, and herein is her apotheosis. She expresses the truths of the poem. I shall not say a word of her religious convictions, her views on the sacrament of marriage—no, I shall not touch upon that. But then, did she refuse to follow him although she herself had said to him ‘I love you’? Did she refuse because she, ‘as a Russian woman’ (and not a Southern or a French woman), is incapable of a bold step or has not the power to sacrifice the fascination of honours, riches, position in society, the conventions of virtue? No, a Russian woman is brave. A Russian woman will boldly follow what she believes, and she has proved it. But she ‘is to another given; to him she will be faithful unto death’. To whom, to what will she be true? To what obligations be faithful? Is it to that old general whom she cannot possibly love, whom she married only because ‘with tears and adjurations her mother did beseech her’, and in her wronged and wounded soul was there then only despair and neither hope nor ray of light at all? Yes, she is true to that general, to her husband, to an honest man who loves her, respects her, and is proud of her. Her mother ‘did beseech her’, but it was she and she alone who consented, she herself swore an oath to be his faithful wife. She married him out of despair. But now he is her husband, and her perfidy will cover him with disgrace and shame and will kill him. Can any one build his happiness on the unhappiness of another? Happiness is not in the delights of love alone, but also in the spirit’s highest harmony. How could the spirit be appeased if behind it stood a dishonourable, merciless, inhuman action? Should she run away merely because her happiness lay therein? What kind of happiness would that be, based on the unhappiness of another? Imagine that you yourself are building a palace of human destiny for the final end of making all men happy, and of giving them peace and rest at last. And imagine also that for that purpose it is necessary and inevitablt to torture to death one single human being, and him not a great soul, but even in someone’s eyes a ridiculous being, not a Shakespeare, but simply an honest old man, the husband of a young wife in whom he believes blindly, and whom, although he does not know her heart at all, he respects, of whom he is proud, with whom he is happy and at rest. He has only to be disgraced, dishonoured, and tortured, and on his dishonoured suffering your palace shall be built! Would you consent to be the architect on this condition? That is the question. Can you for one moment admit the thought that those for whom the building had been built would agree to receive that happiness from you, if its foundation was suffering, the suffering of an insignificant being perhaps, but one who had been cruelly and unjustly put to death, even if; when they bad attained that happiness, they should be happy for ever? Could Tatiana’s great soul, which had so deeply suffered, have chosen otherwise? No, a pure, Russian soul decides thus: Let me, let me alone be deprived of happiness, let my happiness be infinitely greater then the unhappiness of this old man, and finally let no one, not this old man, know and appreciate my sacrifice: but I will not be happy through having ruined another. Here is a tragedy in act, the line cannot be passed, and Tatiana sends Onyegin away. It maybe said: But Onyegin too is unhappy. She has saved one, and ruined the other. But that is another question, perhaps the most important in the poem. By the way, the question, Why did not Tatiana go away with Onyegin? has with us, in our literature at least, a very characteristic history, and therefore I have allowed myself to dwell upon it. The most characteristic thing is that the moral solution of the question should have been so long subject to doubt. I think that even if Tatiana had been free and her old husband had died and she become a widow, even then she would not have gone away with Onyegin. But one must understand the essential substance of the character. She sees what he is. The eternal wanderer has suddenly seen the woman whom he had previously scorned in a new and unattainable setting. In this setting is perhaps the essence of the matter. The girl whom he almost despised is now adored by all society—society, the awful authority for Onyegin, for all his universal aspirations. That is why he throws himself, dazzled, at her feet. Here is my ideal, he cries, here is my salvation, here is the escape from my anguish. I did not see her then, when ‘happiness was so possible, so near’. And as before Aleko turned to Zemphira, so does Onyegin turn to Tatiana, seeking in his new, capricious fancy the solution of all his questions. But does not Tatiana see this in him, had she not seen it long ago? She knows beyond a doubt that at bottom he loves his new caprice, and not her, the humble Tatiana as of old. She knows that he takes her for something else, and not for what she is, that it is not her whom he loves, that perhaps he does not love any one, is incapable of loving any one, although he suffers so acutely. He loves a caprice, but he himself is a caprice. If she were to follow him, then tomorrow he would be disillusioned and look with mockery upon his infatuation. He has no root at all, he is a blade of grass, borne on the wind. She is otherwise: even in her despair, in the painful consciousness that her life has been ruined, she still has something solid and unshakable upon which her soul may bear. These are the memories of her childhood, the reminiscences of her country, her remote village, in which her pure and humble life had begun: "it is the woven shade Of branches that o’erhang her nurse’s grave." Oh, these memories and the pictures of the past are most precious to her now; these alone are left to her, but they do save her soul from final despair. And this is not a little, but rather much, for there is here a whole foundation, unshakable and indestructible. Here is contact with her own land, with her own people, and with their sanctities. And he-what has he and what is he? Nothing, that she should follow him out of compassion, to amuse him, to give him a moment’s gift of a mirage of happiness out of the infinite pity of her love, knowing well beforehand that tomorrow he would look on his happiness with mockery. No, these are deep, firm souls, which cannot deliberately give their sanctities to dishonour, even from infinite compassion. No, Tatiana could not follow Onyegin.

Thus in Onyegin, that immortal and unequalled poem, Puslikin was revealed as a great national writer, unlike any before him. In one stroke, with the extreme of exactness and insight, he defined the very inmost essence of our high society that stands above the people. He defined the type of the Russian wanderer before
our day and in our day; he was the first to divine him, with the flair of genius, to divine his destiny in history and his enormous significance in our destiny to be. Side by side he placed a type of positive and indubitable beauty in the person of a Russian woman. Besides, of course, he was the first Russian writer to show us, in his other works of that period, a whole gallery of positively beautiful Russian types, finding them in the Russian people. The paramount beauty of these lies in their truth, their tangible and indubitable truth. It is impossible to deny them, they stand as though sculptured. I would remind you again. I speak not as a literary critic, and therefore do not intend to elucidate my idea by a particular and detailed literary discussion of these works of the poet’s genius. Concerning the type of the Russian monkish chronicler, for instance, a whole book might be written to show the importance and meaning for us of this lofty Russian figure, discovered by Pushkin in the Russian land, portrayed and sculptured by him, and now eternally set before us in its humble, exalted, indubitable spiritual beauty, as the evidence of that mighty spirit of national life which can send forth from itself figures of such certain loveliness. This type is now given; he exists, he cannot be disputed; it cannot be said that he is only the poet’s fancy and ideal. You yourself see and agree: Yes, he exists, therefore the spirit of the nation which created hith~I~ts also, therefore the vital power of this spirit exists and is mighty and vast. Throughout Pushkin sounds a belief in the Russian character, in its spiritual might; and if there is belief, there is hope also, the great hope for the man of Russia.

"In the hope of glory and good I look without fear ahead," said the poet himself on another occasion; but the words may be applied directly to the whole of his national, creative activity. And yet no single Russian writer, before or after him, did ever associate himself so intimately and fraternally with his people as Pushkin. Oh, we have a multitude of experts on the people among our writers, who have written about the people, with talent and knowledge and love, and yet if we compare them with Pushkin, then in reality, with one or at most two exceptions among his latest followers, they will be found to be only ‘gentlemen’ writing about the masses. Even in the most gifted of them, even in the two exceptions1 I have just mentioned, sometimes appears a sudden flash of something haughty, something from another life and world, something which desires to raise the people up to the writer, and so to make them happy. But in Pushkin there is something allied indeed to the people, which in him rises on occasion to some of the most naive emotions. Take his story of The Bear, and how a peasant killed the bear’s mate; or remember the verses, "Kinsman Joim, when we begin to drink..." and you will understand what I mean.

All these treasures of art and artistic insight are left by our great poet as it were a landmark for the writers who should come after him, for future labourers in the same field. One may say positively that if Pushkin had not existed, there would not have been the gifted writers who came after him. At least they would not have displayed themselves with such power and clarity, in spite of the great gifts with which they have succeeded in expressing themselves in our day. But not in poetry alone, not in artistic creation alone: If Pushkin had not existed, there would not have been expressed with the irresistible force with which it appeared after him (not in all writers, but in a chosen few), our belief in our Russian individuality, our now conscious faith in the people’s powers, and finally the belief in our future individual destiny among the family of European nations. This achievement of Pushkin’s is particularly displayed if one examines what I call the third period of his activity.

I repeat, there are no fixed divisions between the periods. Some of the works of even the third period might have been written at the very beginning of the poet’s artistic activity, for Pushkin was always a complete whole, as it were a perfect organism carrying within itself at once every one of its principles, not receiving them from beyond. The beyond only awakened in him that which was already in the depths of his soul. But this organism developed and the phases of this development could really be marked and defined, each of them by its peculiar character and the regular generation of one phase from another. Thus to the third period can be assigned those of his works in which universal ideas were pre-eminently reflected, in which the poetic conceptions of other nations were mirrored and their genius re-embodied. Some of these appeared after Pushkin’s death. And in this period the poet reveals something almost miraculous, never seen or heard at any time or in any nation before. There had been in the literatures of Europe men of colossal artistic genius -- a Shakespeare, a Cervantes, a Schiller. But show me one of these great geniuses who possessed such a capacity for universal sympathy as our Pusbkin. This capacity, the pre-eminent capacity of our nation, he shares with our nation, and by that above all he is our national poet. The greatest of European poets could never so powerfully embody in themselves the genius of a foreign, even a neighbouring, people, its spirit in all its hidden depth, and all its yearning after its appointed end, as Pushkin could. On the contrary, when they turned to foreign nations European poets most often made them one with their own people, and understood them after their own fashion. Even Shakespeare’s Italians, for instance, are almost always Englishmen. Pushkin alone of all world poets possessed the capacity of fully identifying himself with another nationality. Take scenes from Faust, take The Miserly Knight, take the ballad ‘Once there Lived a Poor Knight’;read Don Juan again. Had Pushkin not signed them, you would never know that they were not written by a Spaniard. How profound and fantastic is the imagination in the poem ‘A Feast in Time of Plague’. But in this fantastic imagination is the genius of England; and in the hero’s wonderful song about the plague, and in Mary’s song, "Our children’s voices in the noisy school Were heard..." These are English songs; this is the yearning of the British genius, its lament, its painful presentiment of its future. Remember the strange lines: "Once as I wandered through the valley wild." It is almost a literal transposition of the first three pages of a strange mystical book, written in prose by an old English sectarian —but is it only a transposition? In the sad and rapturous music of these verses is the very soul of Northern Protestantism, of the English heresiarch, of the illimitable mystic with his dull, sombre, invincible aspiration, and the impetuous power of his mystical dreaming. As you read these strange verses, you seem to hear the spirit of the times, of the Reformation, you understand the warlike fire of early Protestantism, and finally history herself; not merely by thought but as one who passes through the armed sectarian camp, sings psalms with them, weeps with them in their religious ecstasies, and with them believed in their belief. Then set beside this religious mysticism, religious verses from the Koran or ‘Imitations from the Koran’. Is there not here a Mohammedan, is it not the very spirit of the Koran and its sword, the naive grandeur of faith and her terrible, bloody power? And here is the ancient world; here are Egyptian Nights, here sit the gods of earth, who sat above their people like gods, and despised the genius of the people and its aspirations, who became gods in isolation, and went mad in their isolation, in the anguish of their weariness unto death, diverting themselves with fanatic brutalities, with the voluptuousness of creeping things, of a she-spider devouring her male. No, I will say deliberately, there had never been a poet with a universal sympathy like Pushkin’s. And it is not his sympathy alone, but his amazing profundity, the reincarnation of his spirit in the spirit of foreign nations, a reincarnation almost perfect and therefore also miraculous, because the phenomenon has never been repeated in any poet in all the world. It is only in Pushkin; and by this, I repeat, he is a phenomenon never seen and never heard of before, and in my opinion, a prophetic phenomenon, because.. . because herein was expressed the national spirit of his poetry, the national spirit in its future development, the national spirit of our future, which is already implicit in the present, and it was expressed prophetically. For what is the power of the spirit of Russian nationality if not its aspiration after the final goal of universality and omni- humanity? No sooner had he become a completely national poet, no sooner had he come into contact with the national power, than he already anticipated the great future of that power. In this he was a Seer, in this a Prophet.

For what is the reform of Peter the Great to us, not merely for the future, but in that which has been and has already been plainly manifested to us? What did that reform mean to us? Surely it was not only the adoption of European clothes, customs, inventions and science. Let us evamine how it was, let us look more steadily. Yes, it is very probable that at the outset Peter began his reform in this narrowly utilitarian sense, but in course of time, as his idea developed, Peter undoubtedly obeyed some hidden instinct which drew him and his work to future purposes, undoubtedly more vast than narrow utilitarianism. Just as the Russian people did not accept the reform in the utilitarian spirit alone; but undoubtedly with a presentiment which almost instantly forewarned them of a distant and incomparably higher goal than mere utilitarianism. I repeat, the people felt that purpose unconsciously, but it felt it directly and quite vitally. Surley we then turned at once to the most vital reunion, to the unity of all mankind! Not in a spirit of enmity (as one might have thought it would have been) but in friendliness and perfect love, we received into our soul the geniuses of foreign nations, all alike without preference of race, able by instinct from almost the very first step to discern, to discount distinctions, to excuse and reconcile them, and therein we already showed our readiness and inclination, which had only just become manifest to ourselves, for a common and universal union with all the races of the great Aryan family. Yes, beyond all doubt, the destiny of a Russian is pan-European and universal. To become a true Russian, to become a Russian fully (in the end of all, I repeat), means only to become the brother of all men, to become, if you will, a universal man. All our Slavophilism and Westernism is only a great misunderstanding, even though historically necessary. To a true Russian, Europe and the destiny of all the mighty Aryan family is as dear as Russia herself, as the destiny of his own native country, because our destiny is universality, won not by the sword, but by the strength of brotherhood and our fraternal aspiration to reunite mankind. If you go deep into our history since Peter’s reform, you will already find traces and indications of this idea, of this dream of mine, if you will, in the character of our intercourse with European nations, even in the policy of the state. For what has Russian policy been doing for these two centuries if not serving Europe, perhaps, far more than she has served herself I do not believe this came to pass through the incapacity of our statesmen. The nations of Europe know how dear they are to us. And in course of time I believe that we -- not we, of course, but our children to come -- will all without exception understand that to be a true Russian does indeed mean to aspire finally to reconcile the contradictions of Europe, to show the end of European yearning in our Russian soul, omni-human and all-uniting, to indude within our soul by brotherly love all our brethren, and at last, it may be, to pronounce the final Word of the great general harmony, of the final brotherly communion of all nations in accordance with the law of the gospel of Christ! I know, I know too well, that my words may appear ecstatic, exaggerated and fantastic. Let them be so, I do not repent having uttered them. They ought to be uttered, above all now, at the moment that we honour our great genius who by his artistic power embodied this idea. The idea has been expressed many times before. I say nothing new. But chiefly it will appear presumptuous. ‘Is this our destiny, the destiny of our poor, brutal land? Are we predestined among mankind to utter the new word?’

Do I speak of economic glory, of the glory of the sword or of science? I speak only of the brotherhood of man; I say that to this universal, omni-human union the heart of Russia, perhaps more than all other nations, is chiefly predestined; I see its traces in our history, our men of genius, in the artistic genius of Pushkin. Let our country be poor, but this poor land ‘Christ traversed with blessing, in the garb of a serf’. Why then should we not contain His final word? Was not He Himself born in a manger? I say again, we at least can already point to Pushkin, to the universality and omni-humanity of his genius. He surely could contain the genius of foreign lands in his soul as his own. In art at least, in artistic creation, he undeniably revealed this universality of the aspiration of the Russian spirit, and therein is a great promise. If our thought is a dream, then in Pushkin at least this dream has solid foundation. Had he lived longer, he would perhaps have revealed great and immortal embodiments of the Russian soul, which would then have been intelligible to our European brethren; he would have attracted them much more and closer than they are attracted now, perhaps he would have succeeded in explaining to them all the truth of our aspirations; and they would understand us more than they do now, they would have begun to have insight into us, and would have ceased to look at us so suspiciously and presumptuously as they still do. Had Pushkin lived longer, then among us too there would perhaps be fewer misunderstandings and quarrels than we see now. But God saw otherwise. Pushkin died in the full maturity of his powers, and undeniably bore away with him a great secret into the grave. And now we, without him, are seeking to divine his secret.


Christopher Steele, who produced Donald Trump Russian dossier, 'terrified for his safety' and went to ground before name released

Gordon Rayner, chief reporter Patrick Sawer, senior reporter Ruth Sherlock

The Telegraph • 11 January 2017

A former MI6 officer who produced a dossier making lurid allegations about Donald Trump is “terrified for his safety” after he was unmasked by a US publication.

Christopher Steele, 52, fled from his home in Surrey on Wednesday morning after realising it was only a matter of time until his name became public knowledge.

A source close to Mr Steele said on Wednesday night that he now fears a prompt and potentially dangerous backlash against him from Moscow.

Mr Steele, the co-founder of London-based Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, prepared a 35-page document that alleges the Kremlin colluded with Mr Trump’s presidential campaign and that the Russian security services have material that could be used to blackmail him, including an allegation that he paid prostitutes to defile a bed that had been slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.

His research was initially funded by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats.

Mr Trump has branded the allegations in the dossier “fake” and has said he feels as though he is living in Nazi Germany.

With his cover about to be blown, Mr Steele hurriedly packed his bags and went to ground hours before his name was published on Wednesday.

Mr Steele, who spied in Moscow for the Secret Intelligence Service in the 1990s, fled from his home in Surrey after leaving his cat with a neighbour and telling them he would be away “for a few days”.

For months, he had been playing a dangerous game; tipping off journalists about what he said he had discovered from his sources in Russia about Donald Trump’s alleged dealings with the Kremlin, as well as claims that the FSB had hugely compromising information about Mr Trump’s activities during visits to the Communist country.

Mr Steele had been hired by a Washington firm to gather information on Mr Trump’s connections to Russia, funded at first by anti-Trump Republicans and, later, by Democrats. He also shared the information with the FBI.

One of his key contacts, David Corn of the political blog Mother Jones, wrote last year about the resulting dossier and his conversations with the “former spook” who had compiled it, but did not name Mr Steele nor, crucially, did he give away his nationality.

The existence of the dossier, which ran to 35 pages in total, comprising several reports filed over the course of six months, had been common knowledge among journalists in the US for more than half a year, but it was only given credence when the US news network CNN reported that Mr Trump and President Barack Obama had been given a two-page summary of its contents by the FBI.

CNN also reported that the dossier had been put together by a British former intelligence agent, and Mr Steele’s anonymity was fatally compromised.

A source close to Mr Steele said he was “horrified” when his nationality was published and is now "terrified for his and his family's safety".



When it comes to female MPs, Britain should learn from Rwanda and Senegal

The UK ranks 48th in the world for parliamentary gender equality. The benefits enjoyed by countries with more female MPs show why this must change

In Rwanda, laws that protect children from violence, and laws that permit women to inherit land have been passed.

By Minna Salami, The Guardian, 12 January 2017

If a new law proposed this week were already in place, there would be about 300 women instead of the 192 currently in the House of Commons. Which is why a new report by its women and equalities committee says the government should ensure that 45% of all parliamentary candidates are female.

If it seems petty to concentrate on the numbers, consider some of the bills that parliament has debated in the past two years – on prostitution, abortion, the armed forces, ovarian cancer and sexual offences, to name a few. Such bills clearly affect women’s and men’s lives in different ways, and their outcome can only be fairly reviewed by a representative parliament. Nevertheless, the report was met with typical resistance on the basis that MPs ought to be appointed not by gender quotas, but by the “cherished concept of meritocracy”.

But if any group has earned a fair chance to shape society, it is women. Since 1918 the total number of female MPs Britain has had is 455, less than the number of male MPs who sit in the Commons today. This has nothing to do with merit, and everything to do with age-old power structures. And that’s why the equality committee’s demands are urgent and necessary. Women gained suffrage, and the legal right to participate in politics, because they demanded them. And now we are demanding equal representation.

Part of the problem is the idea that discrimination is only an issue in “benighted parts of the world”, as the Spectator’s Melanie McDonagh condescendingly puts it. Interesting then, that the UK has a pitiful 48th position in parliamentary equality behind countries such as Zimbabwe, Sudan and Serbia. Countries that rank among the top 10 in parliamentary gender equality – such as Rwanda (at first position), Iceland, Senegal, Sweden, Bolivia and Ecuador – all have gender quotas in place. Even Afghanistan, one of the most dangerous countries in the world in which to be born a woman, has implemented quotas: 50% of the Afghan president’s appointees to the country’s upper house must be women. This is why, at 53rd position, the country ranks only five below the UK.

The use of quotas has transformed national policy in these countries. In Senegal, for instance, a greater share of the country’s GDP is allocated to education, and through “gender-budgeting mechanisms” more girls are receiving an education despite traditional barriers to girls’ education. In Rwanda, laws that protect children from violence, and laws that permit women to inherit land have been passed. It is hard to measure the direct role of women MPs, but both Senegal and Rwanda are among the most stable countries in Africa.

In Ecuador, women have been more likely than men to introduce bills related to education, health and the environment. In 2008, it was the first country to pass a groundbreaking bill which recognises the rights of nature in its constitution. The Ecuadorian constitution goes even further than the WEC report in its demands: 50% representation or “candidate lists will be rejected by the electoral commission”. In Bolivia too, at least half of parliament candidates must by law be women.

In the past two years in the House of Commons, bills that protect women – such as one preventing and combating violence against women – have been vehemently opposed by male MPs, while other men have campaigned for bills that could harm women, such as providing anonymity to men accused of rape.

Of course, this does not mean that male MPs don’t propose bills that support women’s rights; or, for that matter, that female MPs always support women’s issues. Women come from different backgrounds and it is inevitable that their views differ.

But there is evidence that not only are women in public office more likely to promote bills that address the socio-economic and political challenges facing disadvantaged groups, but their presence is also key to decreasing corruption and increasing political interest among young women. There should be no question about their value to all citizens.


The next four years will be very interesting.
US intel sources warn Israel against sharing secrets with Trump administration

Israeli intelligence officials fear that top-secret information that has been exposed to the United States will be leaked to Russia—and from Russia to its close ally, Iran.

Ronen Bergman, Ynet, 12 January 2017

Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration as the next president of the United States is causing Israeli intelligence officials to lose sleep as well. Discussions held in closed forums recently raised fears of a leakage of Israeli intelligence top-classified information, clandestine modus oprandi and sources, which have been exposed to the American intelligence community over the past 15 years, to Russia – and from there to Iran.

The cause of concern are the suspicions of unreported ties between the president-elect or his associates and the Kremlin, whose agents are also associated with intelligence officials in Tehran.

These fears, which began upon Trump’s election, grew stronger following a meeting held recently between Israeli and American intelligence officials (the date of the meeting is not mentioned to protect the sources of the report). During the meeting, according to the Israelis who participated in it, their American colleagues voiced despair over Trump’s election, as he often lashes out at the American intelligence community. The American officials also told the Israelis that the National Security Agency (NSA) had “highly credible information” that Russia’s intelligence agencies, the FSB and GRU, were responsible for hacking the Democratic Party (DNC) servers during the elections and leaking sensitive information to WikiLeaks, which hurt Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The American officials further added that they believed Russia President Vladimir Putin had “leverages of pressure” over Trump – but did not elaborate. They were apparently referring to what was published Wednesday about embarrassing information collected by the Russian intelligence in a bid to blackmail the president-elect.

The Americans implied that their Israeli colleagues should “be careful” as of January 20, Trump’s inauguration date, when transferring intelligence information to the White House and to the National Security Council (NSC), which is subject to the president. According to the Israelis who were present in the meeting, the Americans recommended that until it is made clear that Trump is not inappropriately connected to Russia and is not being extorted – Israel should avoid revealing sensitive sources to administration officials for fear the information would reach the Iranians.

If Israel’s secrets are indeed not kept confidential, this is a serious danger to the state’s national security: Since the early 2000s, the cooperation between the Israel and US intelligence communities has been intensified. It was led by the head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate (AMAN) at the time, Aharon Ze’evi Farkash (who even received a citation from the NSA Chief General Michael Hayden), late Mossad chief Meir Dagan and his successor, Tamir Pardo, who served earlier as the commander of one of the secret operational units that cooperated with the Americans.

Most of the joint operations between the two countries’ intelligence communities were directed, according to reports, against Iran, and a small part of them – against Hezbollah and Hamas. The ties became even tighter in the previous decade on the backdrop of Primes Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert’s close relations with US President George W. Bush.

In 2008, the intelligence cooperation between Israel and the US received a sort of authorization in the form of an official agreement for comprehensive cooperation and exposure of sources and methods of action, which was defined by a senior state official as “complete mutual striptease” between Bush and Olmert. The deep cooperation, which went on for years, led to impressive results, including the disruption of the Iranian nuclear program.

These operations were led, according to the media outside of Israel by Operation Olympic Games, which included the creation of computer viruses such as Stuxnet, which badly damaged the Iranian nuclear program. Non-Israeli media outlets even reported that the Mossad and the CIA collaborated in the assassination of Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyah in Damascus in 2008.

When the secret talks between the US and Iran over a nuclear agreement began in 2013, President Barack Obama put an end to any offensive activity against Iran. However, this did not stop the depth of Israel’s intelligence exposure vis-à-vis the US. A leakage of some of these secrets could cause great damage. Israel is not just afraid of Russia – but also of Iran.

In their meeting with their Israeli colleagues, the American intelligence officials were able to point to information included in the Snowden documents about specific highly secret American operation in Iran. The Americans are convinced that Edward Snowden handed the information over to the Russian intelligence – as part of the deal for receiving political asylum – and that parts of it were handed over to Tehran as part of Putin’s policy to increase Iranian dependence – not just Syrian dependence – on Moscow, all aimed at serving one final purpose: To restore Russia’s position as the influential world power in the region.


There has always been a major faction of the CIA that is anti-Kikestani, anti-Kike, overlapping with pro-Russian elements within the CIA.

The current Director of the CIA is John O. Brennan, a Paddy who voted Communist in 1976.

The Deputy Director is Kike David S. Cohen.

Russia has scores or hundreds of agents, and hundreds or (more likely) thousands of assets, operating inside the kike system in Palestine.

There are about 900,000 ex-Russian/Soviet Kikes and about 300,000 non-Kike Russians/Russian-speakers in Palestine.
"Russian is by far the most used non-official native language in Israel. The government and businesses often provide information in Russian, and it is semi-official in some areas with high concentration of Russian Jewish immigrants. The Russian-speaking population of Israel is the world's third-largest population of Russian native-speakers living outside the former Soviet Union territories after Germany and the United States, and the highest as a proportion of the population. As of 2013, 1,231,003 residents of the Post-Soviet states have immigrated to Israel." (kikepedia)


Jez Turner - Making Britain Great Again

Southwest Forum, November 2016

"Marxism, Liberalism, Feminism and all the rest of the ridiculous political correct nonsense has merely been a blip in the course of history, and now it is time for the ideology of common sense to reassert herself and push them all into the gutter where they so truly belong."

The Economist article Turner refers to:

Anti-globalists: Why they’re wrong

Globalisation’s critics say it benefits only the elite. In fact, a less open world would hurt the poor most of all

The Economist, Oct 1st 2016

IN SEPTEMBER 1843 the Liverpool Mercury reported on a large free-trade rally in the city. The Royal Amphitheatre was overflowing. John Bright, a newly elected MP, spoke eloquently on the merits of abolishing duties on imported food, echoing arguments made in The Economist, a fledgling newspaper. Mr Bright told his audience that when canvassing, he had explained “how stonemasons, shoemakers, carpenters and every kind of artisan suffered if the trade of the country was restricted.” His speech in Liverpool was roundly cheered.

It is hard to imagine, 173 years later, a leading Western politician being lauded for a defence of free trade. Neither candidate in America’s presidential election is a champion. Donald Trump, incoherent on so many fronts, is clear in this area: unfair competition from foreigners has destroyed jobs at home. He threatens to dismantle the North American Free Trade Agreement, withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and start a trade war with China. To her discredit, Hillary Clinton now denounces the TPP, a pact she helped negotiate. In Germany, one of the world’s biggest exporters, tens of thousands took to the streets earlier this month to march against a proposed trade deal between the European Union and the United States.

The backlash against trade is just one symptom of a pervasive anxiety about the effects of open economies. Britain’s Brexit vote reflected concerns about the impact of unfettered migration on public services, jobs and culture. Big businesses are slammed for using foreign boltholes to dodge taxes. Such critiques contain some truth: more must be done to help those who lose out from openness. But there is a world of difference between improving globalisation and reversing it. The idea that globalisation is a scam that benefits only corporations and the rich could scarcely be more wrong.

The real pro-poor policy

Exhibit A is the vast improvement in global living standards in the decades after the second world war, which was underpinned by an explosion in world trade. Exports of goods rose from 8% of world GDP in 1950 to almost 20% a half-century later. Export-led growth and foreign investment have dragged hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, and transformed economies from Ireland to South Korea.

Plainly, Western voters are not much comforted by this extraordinary transformation in the fortunes of emerging markets. But at home, too, the overall benefits of free trade are unarguable. Exporting firms are more productive and pay higher wages than those that serve only the domestic market. Half of America’s exports go to countries with which it has a free-trade deal, even though their economies account for less than a tenth of global GDP.

Protectionism, by contrast, hurts consumers and does little for workers. The worst-off benefit far more from trade than the rich. A study of 40 countries found that the richest consumers would lose 28% of their purchasing power if cross-border trade ended; but those in the bottom tenth would lose 63%. The annual cost to American consumers of switching to non-Chinese tyres after Barack Obama slapped on anti-dumping tariffs in 2009 was around $1.1 billion, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That amounts to over $900,000 for each of the 1,200 jobs that were “saved”.

Openness delivers other benefits. Migrants improve not just their own lives but the economies of host countries: European immigrants who arrived in Britain since 2000 have been net contributors to the exchequer, adding more than £20 billion ($34 billion) to the public finances between 2001 and 2011. Foreign direct investment delivers competition, technology, management know-how and jobs, which is why China’s overly cautious moves to encourage FDI disappoint.

What have you done for me lately?

None of this is to deny that globalisation has its flaws. Since the 1840s advocates of free trade have known that, though the great majority benefit, some lose out. Too little has been done to help these people. Perhaps a fifth of the 6m or so net job losses in American manufacturing between 1999 and 2011 stemmed from Chinese competition; many of those who lost jobs did not find new ones. With hindsight, politicians in Britain were too blithe about the pressures that migration from new EU member states in eastern Europe brought to bear on public services. And although there are no street protests about the speed and fickleness in the tides of short-term capital, its ebb and flow across borders have often proved damaging, not least in the euro zone’s debt-ridden countries.

As our special report this week argues, more must be done to tackle these downsides. America spends a paltry 0.1% of its GDP, one-sixth of the rich-country average, on policies to retrain workers and help them find new jobs. In this context, it is lamentable that neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton offers policies to help those whose jobs have been affected by trade or cheaper technology. On migration, it makes sense to follow the example of Denmark and link local-government revenues to the number of incomers, so that strains on schools, hospitals and housing can be eased. Many see the rules that bind signatories to trade pacts as an affront to democracy. But there are ways that shared rules can enhance national autonomy. Harmonising norms on how multinational firms are taxed would give countries greater command over their public finances. A co-ordinated approach to curbing volatile capital flows would restore mastery over national monetary policy.

These are the sensible responses to the peddlers of protectionism and nativism. The worst answer would be for countries to turn their backs on globalisation. The case for openness remains much the same as it did when this newspaper was founded to support the repeal of the Corn Laws. There are more—and more varied—opportunities in open economies than in closed ones. And, in general, greater opportunity makes people better off. Since the 1840s, free-traders have believed that closed economies favour the powerful and hurt the labouring classes. They were right then. They are right now.


More and more I suspect that Scorsese is a Kike

Regarding his appearance, have you seen him recently? Nobody would be at all surprised if he suddenly said in the middle of an interview, "Actually, my family were forced by bigots to convert to Christianity..."

I first got the distinct impression that he could be a race-kike when he played the tough-talking (all-talk) cuck in taxi-driver.

He went to meet Pope Frank recently, and talked about how much he admired the scumbag.


"Nearly three decades after his film The Last Temptation of Christ [1988] was deemed “morally offensive” by officials in the Roman Catholic church, Martin Scorsese met Pope Francis at the Vatican. ... The Last Temptation of Christ, for which he was nominated for an Oscar for best director...provoked a fierce battle in America’s culture wars. Its depiction of Jesus as a confused man and a dream sequence in which he has sex with Mary Magdalene shocked conservative Christians, who claimed the film was blasphemous. There were attempts to stymie the showing of the film, and many cinemas refused to screen it. [Kike] Producers at Universal took out newspaper adverts saying the film was an expression of free speech. Argentina, where Francis was born and served as a cardinal, was one of many countries where the film was banned."

Scorsese's specious spiritually is mega-kike (though typical of America in general, and Jew York in particular).

In Goodfellas, he has the Mafia kike-wife Elaine kvetch about how absurd and abnormal the Christian mafia-wives are, comparing them to her "normal" kikess role-models.

Scorsese has made a career out of mostly making Italians and Irish and Catholics look ridiculous, hypocritical, bad, stupid.

Compare with Coppola, who has a more comprehensive view. Or that FBI/Mafia movie with Al Pacino and Johnny Depp. (Donnie Brasco, 1997)

I'm about 70% sure that De Niro's a kike, and Scorsese about 63%.

So, then "hard, gritty, realistic" (ha) Mean Streets, for example, with De Niro and Kike Keitel, would score about 83% on the Kike meter.

There are many, many Crypto-Kikes in and from Sicily.



[KIKE?] Martin Scorsese’s ‘Silence’ is in big trouble before it even opens

[KIKE] NY Post

Wouldn’t it be funny if “Deadpool” got an [KIKE] Oscar nomination for Best Picture but Martin Scorsese’s 30-year labor-of-love prestige project “ Silence” didn’t?

It could happen. So far “Silence” is unambiguously the biggest flop of [KIKE] Hollywood awards season.

With its heavy subject matter and historical weight, plus the irresistible detail that the completion of the film represents a triumph because it took one of Hollywood’s greatest filmmakers 28 years to get it made after the director first read the novel “Silence” back in the 1970s, “Silence” had “Oscar contender” written all over it.

In the film, [KIKE] Andrew Garfield and [KIKE] Adam Driver play Portuguese Jesuit priests searching for a fellow padre ([globalist] Liam Neeson) who has gone missing in 17th century Japan, where the ruling Buddhists are capturing, torturing and murdering Catholics who refuse to renounce their faith.

In early December, one early reviewer, [KIKE] Roger Friedman of the Web site [KIKE] Showbiz 411 said, in a story blasted out to the world via the [KIKE] Drudge Report, that “Silence” is “a masterwork that is set to ambush the awards race.”

But as the film heads into wide release after doing so-so numbers in a limited number of theaters since Christmas Day, it has no momentum whatsoever.

This week, the film got completely left off the list of [KIKE] BAFTA nominations. The [KIKE] Producer’s Guild of America didn’t give it one of its ten nominations for its equivalent of Best Picture. (Last year seven of the nine PGA nominees went on to Oscar nominations for Best Picture.)

“Silence” was also shut out at the SAG awards and the Golden Globes. It got the cold shoulder from the American Cinema editors. It didn’t get a screenplay nomination from the Writer’s Guild of America. It won zilch from the New York Film Critics Circle, the Los Angeles Film Critics Circle and the National Society of Film Critics.

There are hundreds of movie awards being given out this season. But so far the one film that was set to dominate them has captured only a measly Best Adapted Screenplay honor from the National Board of Review.

Could it be that the 160-minute film just isn’t working? Even Friedman broached the possibility when he said, “The word out of Los Angeles on Sunday was that ‘Silence’ was boring or something.”

Or something. Some of the less reverent, least fanboyish film critics have been tearing the film to shreds. Women critics especially seem not to find much to love in the film’s combination of emotional vacuity and endless repetition of scenes built around whether or not a Catholic can be coerced into stepping on an image of Jesus Christ [or get slowly tortured to death].

“The torture porn is spectacularly inventive. But its commercial compromises may drive you to distraction . . . it is punishingly repetitive and, at nearly three hours, sooooooo, sooooooo long,” wrote [KIKE] Deborah Ross in the Spectator (UK).

Even less charitably, [KIKE?] Camilla Long of London’s Sunday Times wrote, “What is this film actually about? If there is an actor who can persuade me that stamping on an image of Christ is a moment of thrilling drama, it is not [KIKE] Garfield . . . It is Scorsese at his most sentimental and his weakest. Halfway into its interminable 161 minutes, I realised that ‘Silence’ stood for something else as well: the silence of fans and critics, or anyone who might say what a flimsy, tokenistic, ego-driven brainfart it is.”

The [KIKE] New York Times’ [KIKE] Manohla Dargis derided the film’s “crushing lack of urgency” and Kate Taylor of the [KIKE] Globe and Mail said “Without any engaging answer to those questions, the film’s emotional tension slackens.”

Even the critics who liked the film, such as Peter DeBruge of [KIKE] Variety, admitted that it is “taxing,” “punishingly long, frequently boring and woefully unengaging.”

“Silence,” with its $50 million budget, has little hope of turning a profit, but prestige pictures like this one aren’t made to make money. And the [KIKE] Academy Awards could rescue it by throwing it a Best Picture or Best Director nomination on Jan. 24.

But otherwise, “Silence” looks like one of the biggest disasters of Scorsese’s career.



"Yet another act of violence against a woman [by a Nigger/Muslim/Wog], again with acid to disfigure the victim. Gessica Notaro, of Rimini, 28-years-old, is hospitalized in serious condition, and risks losing her eyesight. The woman, a former Miss Italy finalist, was assaulted by former boyfriend, Jorge Edson Tavares, a native of Cape Verde.

"A life dedicated to animals and everything to do with entertainment: singing, dancing, parades. The young woman works the Dolphinarium of Rimini as a trainer and speaker. In 2007, Gessica was proclaimed Miss Romagna and was a finalist as Miss Italy. The 28-year-old has taken part in RAI and Mediaset programs as a singer, dancer and presenter."

Omar Lambertini: "Sorprendimi" (2016)

Cast: Gessica Notaro & Eddy Tavares


What Ambassador David Friedman Means for American Jews

J.J. Goldberg, Editor-at-Large, The Jewish Daily Forward

Trump's choice of ambassador to Israel is exactly what it looks like: a national interest in the changing relationship between American Jews and the Jewish state.

If the purpose of Zionism was to restore the Jewish people from victimhood to an active role in history, it has succeeded.

Three of the past five American ambassadors to Israel have been Jewish: Martin Indyk, Daniel Kurtzer and Dan Shapiro. Friedman is the fourth.

Of the 14 envoys before Indyk, going back to Israel’s founding, none of them was Jewish. There was a time when being Jewish disqualified you from participation in managing America’s official relations with Israel, because your loyalties were suspect. Now, being Jewish is an asset.

It is a shift in American Jewry’s political-religious map, which the Friedman nomination has brought to the surface. His elevation is a sort of coming-of-age moment for an emerging stream of Orthodox Judaism that hasn’t previously stepped onto the national stage. ... Friedman is its first national office-holder.

What is this movement? It is – in supercharged form — religious devotion to the State of Israel as a harbinger of the messianic era.

One thing that unites this movement in a self-conscious way is the attachment to the institutions and leaders of its counterpart in Israel, known as Hardal. Like the American version, Hardal has moved rightward toward Haredi Orthodoxy in ever-more stringent ritual observance, while retaining Religious Zionism’s engagement in modern society.

What most defines Hardal is its radical take on Religious Zionism, seeing Israel as a divine miracle and the West Bank as sacred Jewish patrimony, which Israel must rule forever or risk divine punishment.

The movement first emerged in the 1970s as the religious ideology of the West Bank settler movement. It later spread more widely as the settler movement gained popularity. To this day, its main strongholds are in the hard-line settlements and yeshivas that dot the territory’s central ridge. The nerve centers are in Kiryat Arba, the Jewish township on the edge of Hebron, and Beit El, the biblical Bethel, 20 miles north of Jerusalem.

Most settlement yeshivas have American fundraising organizations. Known for their annual gala banquets, those organizations serve as a primary hub for the community life of the emerging American Hardal movement.

The largest is American Friends of Bet El Institutions. Its president is David Friedman.

Beit El’s yeshiva serves in some ways as a Hardal settler operations center. Under the entrepreneurial leadership of its founder and dean, Rabbi Zalman Melamed, the yeshiva created and owns the settler movement’s main media network, Arutz Sheva, also known as Israel National News. It was a pioneer in the tactic of expanding settlements by taking over nearby hilltops and creating new neighborhoods that amount to new settlements — often without government permits and on private Palestinian-owned land.

One such expansion, built by Melamed’s yeshiva to house a girls’ seminary, was the center of a decade-long legal battle, ending in 2012 when the buildings — 30 units in all — were moved under order of Israel’s Supreme Court. At the time, Melamed negotiated a deal with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to build another 300 units as compensation. Today, claiming that Netanyahu broke the promise, the rabbi is leading the opposition to another high-profile, court-ordered evacuation at the Amona outpost. He’s also emerged as a leading rabbinic advocate of soldiers refusing orders to evacuate settlements.

Hardal’s mix-and-match combination of Haredi and Modern Orthodoxy is reflected in its name, a compound of Haredi and Mafdal (the Hebrew acronym of the old National Religious Party). The name was coined in the late 1990s, apparently as a joke: Hardal is an everyday Hebrew word meaning “mustard.” But it’s no joke: Today’s Mafdal, renamed the Jewish Home party, has become a political powerhouse under the leadership of Naftali Bennett. It’s the main coalition partner to Netanyahu’s governing Likud party, while at the same time Netanyahu’s main rival on the right.

Jewish Home has a hard-line Hardal faction that’s known as Tekuma (“Revival”). It holds three of the party’s eight Knesset seats. In effect, it’s the gadfly right flank of the right-wing partner in Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition.

And now, one of its main American backers of the Hardal-Tekuma settler fringe of Israeli religious politics is about to become America’s ambassador to Israel.


"God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth."

The Kike Media warns that men can "make" babies without women, and then reports that it's a great thing women can "make" babies without men (but with men's ingenuity of course).

Babies made without mothers 'will come sooner than we think', leading scientists warn after study discovered how to make embryos from skin cells

Mia De Graaf, Daily Mail, 11 January 2017

Babies made without mothers could come sooner than we think, leading biologists claim.

Late last year, a team at the University of Bath discovered that sperm and skin cells - or any other kind of non-egg cell - might be all you need for conception.

At the time, they said the scenario of men conceiving with men was 'speculative and fanciful'.

But in a new report published today, the top embryologists at Harvard and Brown Universities urge nations to begin contemplating the legal minefield that would surround mother-less babies.

'With science and medicine hurtling forward at breakneck speed, the rapid transformation of reproductive and regenerative medicine may surprise us,' they write.

'Before the inevitable, society will be well advised to strike and maintain a vigorous public conversation on the ethical challenges of IVG [in vitro gametogenesis].'

Eggs can be tricked into developing into an embryo without fertilization, but the embryos, called parthenogenotes, die after a few days.

Scientists at Bath have developed a method of injecting mouse parthenogenotes with sperm so they can go on in many cases to become healthy pups.

Working with mice, the team produced healthy offspring while bypassing the normal process of fertilising an egg cell with sperm.

Although the embryos in the experiment started out as egg cells, the experiment raises the prospect that one day they could do the same with adult cells.

Writing in Science Translational Medicine, Dr. Eli Adashi of Brown University, I. Glenn Cohen, professor at Harvard Law School, and Dr. George Daley, dean of Harvard Medical School, warn this is something that they have contemplated for a while.

'These things may happen, and it may just be a question of time,' said Dr Adashi, who has been tracking the development of IVG, mostly in Japan and the United Kingdom, since 2005.

For years, scientists at their institutions have been looking at the idea of IVG, which holds the promise of radically advancing fertility and the ability to intervene against disease at the pre- or post-embryonic stage.

But it also could lead to ethical nightmares - if people become empowered to create and choose among scores of embryos in the pursuit of ideal children, for example.

'There's something troubling about an inexhaustible supply of gametes that can be fertilized into an inexhaustible supply of embryos,' said Dr Adashi, professor of medical science and former dean of medicine and biological sciences at Brown University.

Producing sperm or eggs without the need for functioning reproductive organs could help patients for whom reproductive function has been lost.

This could be because of chemotherapy or a disease, the authors wrote.

IVG could also revolutionize in vitro fertilization because it could vastly expand the supply of eggs.

Currently they must be drug-induced and then surgically harvested in very small quantities and at great expense.

Healthy men have no trouble producing sperm by the millions.

But the possibility of an abundant and cheap supply of eggs - made from sloughed skin or a cheek swab - is the most concerning, Dr Adashi said.

Future physicians could root out some inherited diseases even before fertilization occurs, the authors wrote.

They could also more easily study disease and development at the molecular and cellular level.

Furthermore, people could also generate personalized embryonic stem cell lines for future medical needs, using existing technology to transfer a nucleus from one of their mature body cells into an enucleated egg cell.

But ethical minefields abound - particularly around the idea of 'designer babies'.

Many people are adamantly opposed to creating embryos for research or therapeutic use and in an IVG-enabled scenario in which that's done easily in a lab, the ethical questions are magnified.

Current U.S. law prohibits public funding for the creation of embryos for research.

Clinical uses of IVG will certainly undergo tough regulatory scrutiny in most any country.

'IVG may raise the specter of 'embryo farming' on a scale currently unimagined, which might exacerbate concerns about the devaluation of human life,' Cohen, Daley and Adashi wrote.

'IVG could, depending on its ultimate financial cost, greatly increase the number of embryos from which to select, thus exacerbating concerns about parents selecting for their 'ideal' future child.'

In the most speculative scenario, Adashi says IVG might enable single-parent babies, in which one person produces both sperm and egg, leaving no need for a second parent.

It's not yet clear, however, that a person can produce the other gender's gametes via IVG.

It could be that producing a baby with just one parent's genes - the ultimate in inbreeding - would be to risk the baby's health.

Finally, it's even conceivable that people could be made parents without their knowledge or consent.

'Should the law criminalize such an action?' Cohen, Daley and Adashi asked.

'If it takes place, should the law consider the source of the skin cells to be a legal parent to the child, or should it distinguish an individual's genetic and legal parentage?'


Gay men, for instance, could have babies with each other, and a man could even fertilize his own cells to produce offspring containing a mixture of genes inherited from him and his parents.

More realistically, the technique could allow women whose fertility has been wiped out by cancer drugs or radiotherapy to have their own children.

While eggs can be frozen before cancer therapy and later fertilized in an IVF clinic, currently nothing can be done once they have been lost.

Conception using sperm and somatic cells would also aid the preservation of endangered species, since it avoids the need to recover eggs.


The discovery that embryos could be made with skin cells was made at the University of Bath.

For the experiment, the scientists started off by creating 'parthenogenote' mouse embryos.

These are all-female embryos made without sperm by tricking an egg into developing as if it has been fertilised.

Mammalian embryos produced this way usually die after a few days because they lack the right programming.

But Dr Perry's team of researchers found injecting the parthenogenotes with sperm transformed them into normal embryos that went on to produce healthy offspring.

The outcome, reported in the journal Nature Communications, is hugely significant because parthenogenotes share much in common with ordinary cells such as skin cells.

In the study, 30 mouse pups were born with a success rate of 24 per cent.

This compares with a 1 per cent to 2 per cent success rate for offspring created by the Dolly the Sheep method of cloning by transferring DNA to donated eggs.

Some of the mice went on to have offspring themselves, and a number had offspring that went on to have their own pups. Fertility is generally seen as a sign of fitness and good health.


If living offspring can be conceived from a parthenogenote mouse embryo, it should also be possible to create babies from skin cells - or cells from other tissue - using the same technique.

The work challenges the dogma held for almost 200 years that only eggs fertilised with sperm cells can produce living mammalian offspring.

If in future babies can be conceived by injecting ordinary non-egg cells, such as skin cells, with sperm, the ramifications will be huge and highly controversial.

But the research is at a very early stage.

Difficult obstacles would have to be overcome before the parthenogenotes used by the scientists can be replaced with ordinary cells.

The scientists stress that some of the more far-fetched scenarios are 'speculative and fanciful' - but they do not rule them out.

They do plan to move on to ordinary cells.


We can create babies without men, claim scientists

Beezy Marsh, Daily Mail, Jan 14th 2017

Fertility specialists have found a way for women to have babies without men.

It involves a cocktail of chemicals acting as an 'artificial sperm' to trick a human egg into forming an embryo.

The stunning discovery has alarmed medical ethics campaigners, who described it as turning nature on its head. Researchers say the groundbreaking technology could be used to help women whose husbands are infertile but who do not want to use donor sperm.

Any babies born from the process would be female and genetically identical to their mother.

Taken to its extreme, it could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role.

The news also creates a legal minefield for UK authorities which govern fertility treatments, because British laws do not cover the creation of an embryo without sperm.

The discovery was made by researchers from the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetics in Los Angeles.

They were investigating new ways of genetically modifying embryos to grow into brain nerve cells, in order to give transplants to patients with Parkinson's Disease.

Their experiments with mice triggered a form of asexual reproduction called parthenogenisis, which until now has happened only in creatures such as insects and frogs.

In normal human reproduction, an egg carrying 23 pairs of chromosomes, the building blocks of life, is fertilised by a sperm, which also carries 23 sets.

This crucial binding, creating 46 pairs of chromosomes, opens the way for cell division, the very beginning of human life.

But researchers Dr Jerry Hall and Dr Yan-Ling Feng managed to make eggs duplicate their own chromosomes to create the number needed to start cell division.

Several embryos were transferred to mouse 'foster mothers' where they developed successfully before being destroyed after 13 days.

Though the process has yet to be tested on human eggs, studies have already shown that they behave in a similar way to those of mice. The findings are due to be unveiled today at the annual meeting of the respected American Society of Reproductive Medicine in Florida.

They have been hailed as a new way of producing different kinds of cells for medical use.

Dr Michael Soules, president of the ASRM, said: 'If this works with human eggs, there could be tremendous opportunities for clinical applications. I think everyone is going to find this work to be very exciting.'

But Dr Jacqueline Laing, expert in medical ethics from London's Guild Hall University, said last night: 'This is alarming. Just because scientists can do something, it does not mean that they should.

'This process does not respect human life, in seeking either to procreate without the male or to use human eggs to turn them into some other part of the body for transplants.

'It doesn't respect reproduction and ordinary relations between men and women and the natural functions we have to protect human beings from arbitary creation. What are we expecting that any children born of this process will feel? If we go down this avenue, what else will be permissible?'

Paul Tully, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: 'Parthenogenisis is akin to cloning in a sense. It is the way lower orders of animals such as frogs and insects are able to reproduce.

'It is entirely unknown for this to happen in humans and this is a very disturbing discovery. Apart from the ethical concerns of what was happening to these embryos without their consent, it could mean that, theoretically, it would be possible to eradicate men.'

He added: 'What we are seeing here is the technological imperative - they are doing it just because they can. Is society going to curb this or are we going to see even more outlandish discoveries?

'My fear is that, as with cloning, there will be horrific developmental abnormalities and accelerated ageing of these embryos. One dreads to think what they may suffer in the name of science.'

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which governs IVF research in Britain, said a new law on parthenogenic embryos may be needed.

A spokesman said: 'The view would probably be that no research could be carried out without permission and it certainly would not be licensed for clinical use unless it was proven safe and there were no ethical concerns.'



As a step-gap, until a final solution can be implemented, perhaps all invaders in Europe will be "encouraged" to settle in one sacrificial European state or region. In that case, which country should be targeted for destruction? Which region is already the most lost? Which one is already the most toxic to White Christian society? GB? Sweden? Germany? France? Spain? Scandinavia?

You might think that this is a photo of a Muslim man in handcuffs, but look closer. In fact it is a photo of a White man shackled to a Haji dead-weight:

Afghan who beheaded Dutch woman is allowed into Britain, where he assaulted a Gatwick staff member and two police officers with a hammer.

Ian Drury, Daily Mail, 4 January 2017

A convicted murderer from Holland was able to walk through Britain’s porous borders without any checks and went on to attack two police officers with a claw-hammer.

Afghan-born Jamshid Piruz was allowed to enter the UK unchallenged despite having beheaded his Chinese female tenant.

Piruz, a jobless 34-year-old, and permanent resident of the Netherlands, will be sentenced on Friday after pleading guilty to an appalling hammer attack on PC Jessica Chick and PC Stewart Young, of Sussex Police, on January 7 last year. PC Young was taken to hospital with head injuries.

Piruz had been in the UK a matter of days when he launched the frenzied assault on the officers as they investigated a burglary in Crawley, West Sussex.

Days earlier he had assaulted a member of staff at Gatwick Airport – but was released onto the streets by local magistrates.

In June 2006, he murdered his Chinese female tenant by cutting off her head at a house in Almere, a city close to Amsterdam.

Court documents in Holland said he was ‘inspired by Taliban movies in which beheadings were seen’. The files said he locked his victim in her room, snatched her mobile phone, then cut her throat. They said he acted ‘intentionally and with premeditation’. Rejecting his plea of insanity, Dutch judges concluded: ‘The killing of the victim was not the result of an instantaneous violent emotion, but a decision to do so.’

Piruz was convicted of murder in August 2007 and sentenced to 12 years’ behind bars. He was released in 2014, after serving seven years.

Piruz pleaded guilty at Hove to two counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, burglary and affray. Two counts of attempted burglary and one of threatening with an offensive weapon will lie on file.

Simon Blackford, defending, said there was a ‘long gap’ between the murder and the latest offences.

He said: ‘This offence was committed at a time of stress for my client. He was in a foreign country. He seems to have been vulnerable. He seems to have been hallucinating. He was very confused by the vehicles driving on a different side of the road than he was used to.’

A person can be excluded from the UK only if they pose ‘a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat’ to society and the public.

Perhaps I am too cynical. Jamshid only beheaded someone, in the manner of his Mohammadan cult. Surely that is not an existentially serious crime, such as leaving bacon sandwiches outside a mosque, or calling a commie-Kike infiltrator MP a "communist Jewess". Obviously all the crazy British traffic driving down the wrong side of the street disoriented poor Jamshid to the point that he could not help attacking two policewomen with a hammer. This shadow-Hollander was already traumatised from the stress of having spent seven long years in a Dutch prison just for giving an un-named Chinese woman a drastic haircut. This is all just yet another egregious example of the persecution of Muslims. It's a shoah!


Somali-Canadians celebrate Ahmed Hussen's appointment as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Minister

Michelle Cheung, CBC News, Jan 11, 2017

Toronto's Ahmed Hussen was the first Somali-Canadian to become a federal Member of Parliament, and now many in the GTA's Somali community are celebrating as York South-Weston Liberal MP Ahmed Hussen has broken another barrier: he's been appointed as Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

"It's a really great thing to happen to our community," said Mahad Yusef, the executive director of the Somali Immigrant Aid Association. "It's something that we really needed, not just for the Somali community, but for the whole black community."

Hussen, 41, knows the challenging path to citizenship first-hand; he came to Canada as a 16-year-old refugee from Somalia in 1993.

Hussen told reporters in Ottawa, "I'll bring my experience as an immigrant to Canada but also as an immigration lawyer — someone who worked many, many years before running for office as a community activist, a community organizer and a community advocate."

When asked if the idea of immigration and taking in refugees is something that needs defending these days in light of the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. and the Brexit vote in Britain, Hussen said Canada is showing the way when it comes to welcoming immigrants.

"I'm extremely proud of the fact that Canadians have always been welcoming to others, people who've sought asylum and ... we've been the better for it. The story of Canada is the story of immigration."

Mahad Yusef agrees that Hussen's roots in the city's Somali community will be useful in his ministerial duties.

"Ahmed will share his knowledge and expertise and his lived experience. He understands the challenges. He understands the opportunities and he's been, for many years, advocating for immigration issues," said Yusef, who has known Hussen since he settled in Canada. "My feeling is our community is honoured that we have representation in cabinet."

Before jumping into politics Hussen was a lawyer, political activist and the national president of the Canadian Somali Congress.

He was also appointed by former prime minister Steven Harper to the Cross Cultural Roundtable on Security — a post he held until 2012. The roundtable was established to create a dialogue between Canadians and the federal government on matters related to national security and the federal government. The roundtable reported to the minister responsible for crafting Bill C-51, the controversial anti-terrorism bill.

That concerns Hawa Mire, a Somali community organizer who lives in Hussen's riding. She's worried that Hussen was involved in creating legislation or policies that negatively impact Somalis in Canada.

"This particular person, who we're holding up as a representation of our community, has also been engaged in programs and practices that are deeply destructive to the most vulnerable in our community," she told CBC Toronto.

This Nigger is on the very fast track to become Prime Minister

A year ago:

Canada's New Immigration Kang, back in April, 2016:

"Asylum seekers are not criminals." Ahmed Hussen, Somali Canadian MP, addressed the recent death of migrants from Somalia and the Horn of Africa before the Canadian Parliament. Ahmed Hussen received stand ovation for his compassion.

Canada's New Immigration Kang, back in 2010

Canadian Somali Congress president on the successes and challenges of the Canadian Somali community

"Canadian Somali Congress President interviewed by Nil Koksal of CBC News as part of a television series entitled "Canadian Dream." The series examines the successes and challenges that face different communities in Canada. This particular segment centered on the successes and challenges of the Canadian Somali community. The vast majority of Somalis in Canada are no longer immigrants but are Canadian citizens. Despite this fact, various levels of government and the mainstream community mistakenly continue to view Canadian Somalis as immigrants or recently-arrived refugees. This is evidenced by the fact that emphasis is placed on immigrant settlement services and language programs for a community that settled in this country decades ago. The real need of the community is integration into the Canadian mainstream. This can be achieved by a policy shift that emphasizes access to jobs and professions. Nowhere is this shift more needed than in Alberta where 30 young Canadian Somalis have been killed in the last 5 years. Despite the high number of deaths in Alberta, Ahmed Hussen noted that the vast majority of Canadian Somali youth are law abiding and productive citizens who are graduating from post-secondary institutions in record numbers."

Canada's New Immigration Kang, back in 2012:

Canadian Somali Congress testimony before the Canadian Parliament on the issue of deportations

"Canadian Somali Congress National President, Ahmed Hussen, testifies before the Citizenship and Immigration Committee of the Canadian Parliament on the issue of Bill C-43 and deportations. The Canadian Somali Congress wants changes to this proposed law because it contains provisions that will lead to the deportations of hundreds of long-term residents that make one mistake. These permanent residents could potentially include many who have made positive contributions to their community. It is a one strike and you are out rule. First, this bill would limit the right of permanent residents to make an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division regarding their deportations if they are sentenced to a period of six months or more for a criminal offence. The current law allows for an automatic right of appeal for sentences of two years less a day. Second, Bill C-43 would not distinguish between jail sentences and conditional sentences that are served in the community and that tend to take a longer period of time to complete. Third, Bill C-43 will drastically curb ministerial discretion in humanitarian and compassionate cases. Finally, the hundreds of deportations that will result from the implementation of Bill C-43 will make it harder to distinguish between long term residents that have roots in the community and a foreign national that arrived in Canada a few months ago."


The UK is such a sewer that even Merchants would rather fight in Novorossiya than stay there.

While watching this, keep in mind that Nigger and Muslim invaders were given free housing and everything else by the traitors who run the UK, while this British citizen was homeless and forbidden to work in his own country, because he went to help people under attack by 'Fascists' and the Kiev Kikes, and he got stitched up by The Kike's BBC.


2006: Have We All Become Jews?

2016: England in the embrace of the voracious octopus of Judaism - Logos vs Anti-Logos and the Magi of our new paradigm

Some E. Michael Jones books

  • Barren Metal: A history of Capitalism as the conflict between Usury and Labour

  • The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit & its impact on World History

  • Libido Dominandi - sexual liberation as political control

  • Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal As Ethnic Cleansing

  • Degenerate Moderns – Modernity as rationalised sexual behaviour

  • The Jews and Moral Subversion; and Dionysus Rising – the birth of Cultural Revolution out of the Spirit of Music

Culture Wars

Jones is the editor of the monthly journal Culture Wars.



Poland welcomes thousands of Nato troops, tanks and advanced weapons

Polish leaders rejoice as Western forces roll into their country, in an eerie echo of cold war Europe

The South China Post, 14 January, 2017

Polish authorities and ordinary Poles welcomed on Saturday US troops who arrived this week as part of an unprecedented deployment to Nato’s eastern flank aimed at deterring Russia.

“Welcome to Poland,” Prime Minister Beata Szydlo told US troops in Zagan, the Polish town on the German border where the brigade will be headquartered, adding “we hope you feel at home”.

“The presence of American soldiers in Poland is another step in our strategy to ensure safety and security for Poland and the region,” she added.

Hailing from Fort Carson, Colorado, the so-called Iron Brigade comprising some 3,500 soldiers and heavy equipment will also be deployed in Nato partners Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary on a rotational basis.

It is part of the Pentagon’s “Atlantic Resolve” operation [far from The Atlantic] aimed at countering security concerns said to be triggered on Nato’s eastern flank by Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

“This is America’s most capable fighting force: a combat-ready, highly trained US armoured brigade, with our most advanced equipment and weaponry,” US ambassador to Poland Paul James said at the ceremonies, also attended by hundreds of Zagan residents.

“This force embodies America’s iron-clad commitment to honour our Nato treaty obligation to defend our Nato allies.”

The US troops and tanks began streaming into Poland Thursday as part of one of the largest deployments of US forces in Europe since the cold war, an operation that Russia angrily branded a security “threat”.

The brigade’s deployment, ordered by the outgoing Obama administration, comes a week ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect Donald Trump, who has suggested his Republican administration will seek to ease tensions with the Kremlin.

Poland on Friday told Trump that any improvement in Washington’s ties with Moscow cannot come at the cost of harming Warsaw.

According to Poland’s Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz, a total of 7,000 US and Nato troops will be stationed in his country in the coming years.

The defence ministry held “Safe Poland” picnics Saturday in cities across the country, allowing average Poles to meet with Polish and newly deployed US troops, view military hardware and eat typical Polish army food including pea soup with ham.

Hundreds of residents attended the official welcome ceremonies in Zagan.

“The deployment is necessary and it’s great that they’re here. We can feel the support of our allies,” said one Zagan resident.

Fellow Zagan resident Jan said he was not convinced the US deployment was absolutely necessary, but chuckled that “it would be good if they scare the Russians a little, because they’re out of control”.

Freshly-arrived US military policeman Peter Gomez said he felt “very welcome” as he posed for selfies with Zagan residents.

“I’m surprised actually, people are very excited to see us.”
Tensions between Russia and the West have escalated over the past two years, triggered by Russia’s actions in Ukraine and its military campaign in Syria since late 2015.

Last summer, Nato leaders endorsed plans to rotate troops into Poland and the three Baltic states to reassure them they would not be left in the lurch if Russia was tempted to repeat its Ukraine intervention.

Iron Brigade Fires First Rounds in Poland

USArmyEurope 18 Jan 2017

1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, "Iron Brigade" fires rounds from M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M1A2 Main Battle Tanks during the first Live Fire Accuracy Screening Tests at Presidential Range in Swietozow, Poland, January 16, 2017. The arrival of 3rd Arm. Bde. Cmbt. Tm., 4th Inf. Div., marks the start of back-to-back rotations of armored brigades in Europe as part of Atlantic Resolve. The vehicles and equipment, totaling more than 2,700 pieces, were shipped to Poland for certification before being deployed across Europe for use in training with partner nations. This rotation will enhance deterrence capabilities in the region, improve the U.S. ability to respond to potential crises and defend allies and partners in the European community. U.S. forces will focus on strengthening capabilities and sustaining readiness through bilateral and multinational training and exercises.

(Video by Sgt. Jacob Holmes, 24th Press Camp Headquarters)



Vaclav Klaus interview:


[video width="500" height="375" mp4="http://europeansalute.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Ross-Perot-giant-sucking-sound-19921015-presidential-debate.mp4"][/video]

Ross Perot, during the second U.S. Presidential Debate, 1992.10.15, versus George Bush and Bill Clinton, re NAFTA:

AUDIENCE QUESTION: Yes. I'd like to direct my question to Mr. Perot. What will you do as president to open foreign markets to fair competition from American business and to stop unfair competition here at home from foreign countries so that we can bring jobs back to the US?

ROSS PEROT: That's right at the top of my agenda. We've shipped millions of jobs overseas and we have a strange situation because we have a process in Washington where after you've served for a while you cash in, become a foreign lobbyist, make $30,000 a month, then take a leave, work on presidential campaigns, make sure you've got good contacts and then go back out.

Now, if you just want to get down to brass tacks, first thing you ought to do is get all these folks who've got these 1-way trade agreements that we've negotiated over the years and say fellas, we'll take the same deal we gave you. And they'll gridlock right at that point because for example, we've got international competitors who simply could not unload their cars off the ships if they had to comply – you see, if it was a 2-way street, just couldn't do it. We have got to stop sending jobs overseas.

To those of you in the audience who are business people: pretty simple. If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for a factory worker, and you can move your factory south of the border, pay $1 an hour for labor, hire a young – let's assume you've been in business for a long time. You've got a mature workforce. Pay $1 an hour for your labor, have no health care – that's the most expensive single element in making the car. Have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement. And you don't care about anything but making money. There will be a job-sucking sound going south.

If the people send me to Washington the first thing I'll do is study that 2000-page agreement and make sure it's a 2-way street.

One last point here. I decided I was dumb and didn't understand it so I called a "Who's Who" of the folks that have been around it, and I said why won't everybody go south; they said it will be disruptive; I said for how long. I finally got 'em for 12 to 15 years. And I said, well, how does it stop being disruptive? And that is when their jobs come up from a dollar an hour to $6 an hour, and ours go down to $6 an hour; then it's leveled again, but in the meantime you've wrecked the country with these kind of deals. We got to cut it out.

SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Perot. I see that the president has stood up, so he must have something to say about this.

BUSH: Carole, the thing that saved us in this global economic slowdown has been our exports, and what I'm trying to do is increase our exports. And if indeed all the jobs were going to move south because there are lower wages, there are lower wages now and they haven't done that. And so I have just negotiated with the president of Mexico the North American Free Trade Agreement – and the prime minister of Canada, I might add – and I want to have more of these free trade agreements, because export jobs are increasing far faster than any jobs that may have moved overseas. That's a scare tactic, because it's not that many. But any one that's here, we want to have more jobs here. And the way to do that is to increase our exports.

Some believe in protection. I don't; I believe in free and fair trade, and that's the thing that saved us. So I will keep on as president trying to get a successful conclusion to the GATT Round, the big Uruguay Round of trade which will really open up markets for our agriculture particularly. I want to continue to work after we get this NAFTA agreement ratified this coming year. I want to get one with Eastern Europe; I want to get one with Chile. And free and fair trade is the answer, not protection.

And, as I say, we've had tough economic times, and it's exports that have saved us, exports that have built.

SIMPSON: Governor Clinton.

GOVERNOR CLINTON: I'd like to answer the question, because I've actually been a governor for 12 years, so I've known a lot of people who have lost their jobs because of jobs moving overseas, and I know a lot of people whose plants have been strengthened by increasing exports.

The trick is to expand our export base and to expand trade on terms that are fair to us. It is true that our exports to Mexico, for example, have gone up and our trade deficit has gone down; it's also true that just today a record high trade deficit was announced with Japan.

So what is the answer? Let me just mention three things very quickly.

Number One: Make sure that other countries are as open to our markets as our markets are to them, and, if they're not, have measures on the books that don't take forever and a day to implement.

Number Two: Change the tax code. There are more deductions in the tax code for shutting plants down and moving overseas than there are for modernizing plant and equipment here. Our competitors don't do that. Emphasize and subsidize modernizing plant and equipment here, not moving plants overseas.

Number Three: Stop the federal government's program that now gives low-interest loans and job training funds to companies that will actually shut down and move to other countries, but we won't do the same thing for plants that stay here.

So more trade but on fair terms – and favor investment in America.

SIMPSON: Thank you. I think we have a question over here.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: This is for Governor Clinton. In the real world, that is, outside of Washington, DC, compensation and achievement are based on goals defined and achieved. My question is about the deficit. Would you define in specific dollar goals how much you would reduce the deficit in each of the 4 years of a Clinton administration and then enter into a legally binding contract with the American people, that if you did not achieve those goals that you would not seek a 2nd term? Answer yes or no and then comment on your answer, please.

CLINTON: No, and here's why. And I'll tell you exactly why. Because the deficit now has been building up for 12 years. I'll tell you exactly what I think can be done. I think we can bring it down by 50% in 4 years and grow the economy. Now, I could get rid of it in 4 years in theory on the books now, but to do it you'd have to raise taxes too much and cut benefits too much to people who need them and it would even make the economy worse.

Mr. Perot will tell you, for example, that the expert he hired to analyze his plan says that it will bring the deficit down in 5 years but it will make unemployment bad for 4 more years. So my view is, sir, you have to increase investment, grow the economy and reduce the deficit by controlling health care costs, prudent reductions in defense, cuts in domestic programs and asking the wealthiest Americans and foreign corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and investing and growing this economy.

I ask everybody to look at my economic ideas and 9 Nobel prize winners and over 500 economists and hundreds of business people, including a lot of Republicans said, this is the way you've got to go. If you don't grow the economy you can't get it done. But I can't foresee all the things that will happen, and I don't think a president should be judged solely on the deficit.

Let me also say, we're having an election today. You'll have a shot at me in 4 years and you can vote me right out if you think I've done a lousy job and I would welcome you to do that.

SIMPSON: Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, I'm a little confused here, because I don't see how you can grow the deficit down by raising people's taxes. You see, I don't think the American people are taxed too little. I think they're taxed too much. I went for one tax increase and when I make a mistake I admit it. I said that wasn't the right thing to do.

Governor Clinton's program wants to tax more and spend more – $150 billion in new taxes, spend another $220. I don't believe that's the way to do it.

Here's some thing that'll help. Give us a balanced budget amendment. He always talks about Arkansas having a balanced budget and they do, but he has a balanced budget amendment. Have to do it. I'd like the government to have that. And I think it would discipline not only the Congress, which needs it, but also the executive branch.

I'd like to have what 43 governors have – the line item veto, so if the Congress can't cut, and we've got a reckless spending Congress, let the president have a shot at it by wiping out things that are pork barrel or something of that nature.

I've proposed another one. Some sophisticates think it may be a little gimmicky. I think it's good. It's a check- off. It says to you as a taxpayer – say you're going to pay a tax of 1000 bucks or something. You can check 10% of that if you want to, in the 1 box, and that 10%, $100, or if you're paying $10,000, whatever it is, $1000, check it off and make the government, make it lower the deficit by that amount.

And if the Congress won't do it, if they can't get together and negotiate how to do that, then you'd have a sequester across the board. You'd exempt Social Security – I don't want to tax or touch Social Security. I'm the president that said hey, don't mess with Social Security, and we haven't.

So I believe that we need to control the growth of mandatory spending, back to this gentleman's question. That's the main growing thing in the budget. The program that the president – two-thirds of the budget, I as president never get to look at, never get to touch. We've got to control that growth to inflation and population increase, but not raise taxes on the American people now. I just don't believe that would stimulate any kind of growth at all.

SIMPSON: How about you, Mr. Perot?

PEROT: Well, we're $4 trillion in debt. We're going into debt an additional $1 billion, little more than $1 billion every working day of the year.

Now, the thing I love about it – I'm just a businessman. I was down in Texas taking care of business, tending to my family. This situation got so bad that I decided I'd better get into it. The American people asked me to get into it. But I just find it fascinating that while we sit here tonight we will go into debt an additional $50 million in an hour and a half.

Now, it's not the Republicans' fault, of course, and it's not the Democrats' fault. And what I'm looking for is who did it? Now, they're the 2 folks involved so maybe if you put them together, they did it.

Now, the facts are we have to fix it. I'm here tonight for these young people up here in the balcony from this college. When I was a young man, when I got out of the Navy I had multiple job offers. Young people with high grades can't get a job. People – the 18-to-24-year-old high school graduates 10 years ago were making more than they are now. In other words, we were down to 18% of them were making – 18-to-24-year- olds were making less than $12,000. Now that's up to 40%. And what's happened in the meantime? The dollar's gone through the floor.

Now, whose fault is that? Not the Democrats. Not the Republicans. Somewhere out there there's an extraterrestrial that's doing this to us, I guess. And everybody says they take responsibility. Somebody somewhere has to take responsibility for this.

Put it to you bluntly, American people. If you want me to be your president, we're going to face our problems. We'll deal with our problems, we'™ll solve our problems. We'll down our debt. We'll pass on the American dream to our children, and I will not leave our children a situation that they have today.

When I was a boy it took two generations to double the standard of living. Today it will take twelve generations. Our children will not see the American dream because of this debt that somebody somewhere dropped on us.

SIMPSON: You're all wonderful speakers, and I know you have lots more to add, but I've talked to this audience, and they have lots of questions on other topics. Can we move to another topic, please? We have one up here, I think.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: Yes, I'd like to address all the candidates with this question. The amount of time the candidates have spent in this campaign trashing their opponents' character and their programs is depressingly large. Why can't your discussions and proposals reflect the genuine complexity and the difficulty of the issues to try to build a consensus around the best aspects of all proposals?

SIMPSON: Who wants to take that one? Mr. Perot, you have an answer for everything, don't you? Go right ahead, sir.

PEROT: No, I don't have an answer for everything. As you all know, I've been buying 30-minute segments to talk about issues. And tomorrow night on NBC, from 10:30 to 11 Eastern, we're going to talk about how you pay the debt down, so we're going to come right down to that one. We'll be on again Saturday night, 8 to 9 o'clock on ABC. So the point is –

BUSH: Like Jerry Brown, the 800 number.

PEROT: –- I couldn't agree with you more, couldn't agree with you more. And I have said again and again and again let's get off mud wrestling, let's get off personalities and let's talk about jobs, health care, crime, the things that concern the American people. I'm spending my money – not PAC money, not foreign money, my money – to take this message to the people.

SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Perot. So that seems directed; he would say it's you gentlemen that have been doing that. Mr. Clinton, Governor Clinton – oh, President Bush, how would you like to respond?

BUSH: Well, in the first place, I believe that character is a part of being president. I think you have to look at it. I think that has to be a part of a candidate for president or being president. In terms of programs, I've submitted, what, 4 different budgets to the US Congress in great detail. It's so heavy they'd give you a broken back. And everything in there says what I am for.

Now I've come out with a new agenda for America's renewal, a plan that I believe really will help stimulate the growth of this economy. My record on world affairs is pretty well known because I've been president for 4 years, so I feel I've been talking issues.

You know, nobody likes who shot John, but I think the first negative campaign run in this election was by Governor Clinton, and I'm not going to sit there and be a punching bag; I'm going to stand up and say, hey, listen, here's my side of it.

But character is an important part of the equation. The other night Governor Clinton raised my – I don't know if you saw the debate the other night. You did – suffered through that? Well, he raised the question of my father – it was a good line, well rehearsed and well delivered. But he raised the question of my father and said, well, your father, Prescott Bush, was against McCarthy, you should be ashamed of yourself, McCarthyism. I remember something my dad told me – I was 18 years old going to Penn Station to go on into the Navy, and he said write your mother – which I faithfully did; he said serve your country – my father was an Honor, Duty and Country man; and he said tell the truth. And I've tried to do that in public life, all through it. That says something about character.

My argument with Governor Clinton – you can call it mud wrestling, but I think it's fair to put it in focus is – I am deeply troubled by someone who demonstrates and organizes demonstration in a foreign land when his country's at war. Probably a lot of kids here disagree with me. But that's what I feel. That's what I feel passionately about. I'm thinking of Ross Perot's running mate sitting in the jail. How would he feel about it? But maybe that's generational. I don't know.

But the big argument I have with the governor on this is this taking different positions on different issues – trying to be one thing to one person here that's opposing the NAFTA agreement and then for it – what we call waffling. And I do think that you can't turn the White House into the Waffle House. You've got to say what you're for and you've got to –

SIMPSON: Mr. President, I'm getting time cues and with all due respect –

BUSH: Excuse me. I don't want to –

SIMPSON: I'm sorry.

BUSH: I don't want to –

SIMPSON: Governor Clinton.

BUSH: I get wound up because I feel strongly –

SIMPSON: Yes, you do.


CLINTON: Let me say first of all to you that I believe so strongly in the question you asked that I suggested this format tonight. I started doing these formats a year ago in New Hampshire and I found that we had huge crowds because all I did was let people ask questions and I tried to give very specific answers. I also had a program starting last year. I've been disturbed by the tone and the tenor of this campaign. Thank goodness the networks have a fact check so I don't have to just go blue in the face anymore. Mr. Bush said once again I was going to have $150 billion tax increase. When Mr. Quayle said that all the networks said, that's not true. He's got over $100 billion of tax cuts and incentives.

So I'm not going to take up your time tonight, but let me just say this. We'll have a debate in 4 days and we can talk about this character thing again. But the Washington Post ran a long editorial today saying they couldn't believe Mr. Bush was making character an issue and they said he was the greatest quote "political chameleon" for changing his positions of all times. Now, I don't want to get into that –

BUSH: Please don't get into the Washington Post.

CLINTON: Wait a minute. Let's don't – you don't have to believe it. Here's my point. I'm not interested in his character. I want to change the character of the presidency. And I'm interested in what we can trust him to do and what you can trust me to do and what you can trust Mr. Perot to do for the next 4 years. So I think you're right and I hope the rest of the night belongs to you.

SIMPSON: May I – I talked to this audience before you gentlemen came and I asked them about how they felt about the tenor of the campaign. Would you like to let them know what you thought about that, when I said are you pleased with how the campaign's been going? (Audience: "No.")

SIMPSON: Who wants to say why you don't like the way the campaign is going? We have a gentleman back here.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: And forgive the notes here but I'm shy on camera.

The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties?

SIMPSON: So your question is?

AUDIENCE QUESTION: Can we focus on the issues and not the personalities and the mud? I think there's a need, if we could take a poll here with the folks from Gallup perhaps, I think there's a real need here to focus at this point on the needs.

SIMPSON: How do you respond? How do you gentlemen respond to –

CLINTON: I agree with him.

BUSH: Let's do it.

SIMPSON: President Bush?

BUSH: Let's do it. Let's talk about programs for children.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: Could we cross our hearts? It sounds silly here but could we make a commitment? You know, we're not under oath at this point but could you make a commitment to the citizens of the US to meet our needs, and we have many, and not yours again? I repeat that. It's a real need, I think, that we all have.

BUSH: I think it depends how you define it. I mean, I think in general, let's talk about these issues. Let's talk about the programs. But in the presidency, a lot goes into it. Caring goes into it. That's not particularly specific. Strength goes into it. That's not specific. Standing up against aggression. That's not specific in terms of a program. This is what a president has to do.

So in principle, though, I'll take your point and think we ought to discuss child care or whatever else it is.

SIMPSON: And you, too?

CLINTON: Ross had his hand up.


PEROT: Just no hedges, no ifs, ands and buts. I'll take the pledge because I know the American people want to talk about issues and not tabloid journalism. So I'll take the pledge and will stay on the issues.

Now, just for the record, I don't have any spin doctors. I don't have any speechwriters. Probably shows. I make those charts you see on television.

But you don't have to wonder if it's me talking. See, what you see is what you get and if you don't like it, you got two other choices, right?

CLINTON: Wait a minute. I want to say just one thing now, Ross, in fairness. The ideas I express are mine. I've worked on these things for 12 years and I'm the only person up here who hasn't been part of Washington in any way for the last 20 years. So I don't want the implication to be that somehow everything we say is just cooked up and put in our head by somebody else. I worked 12 years very hard as a governor on the real problems of real people. I'm just as sick as you are by having to wake up and figure out how to defend myself every day. I never thought I'd ever be involved in anything like this.

PEROT: May I finish?

SIMPSON: Yes, you may finish.

PEROT: Very briefly?

SIMPSON: Yes, very briefly.

PEROT: And I don't have any foreign money in my campaign. I don't have any foreign lobbyists on leave in my campaign. I don't have any PAC money in my campaign. I've got 5.5 million hard-working people who put me on the ballot, and I belong to them. And they're interested in what you're interested in.

I take the pledge. I've already taken the pledge on cutting the deficit in half. I never got to say that. There's a great young group, Lead or Leave, college students, young people, who don't want us to spend their money. I took the pledge we'd cut it out.

SIMPSON: Thank you. We have a question here.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: Yes. I would like to get a response from all three gentlemen. And the question is, what are your plans to improve the physical infrastructure of this nation, which includes the water system, the sewer system, our transportation systems, etcetera. Thank you.

SIMPSON: The cities. Who's going to fix the cities and how?

BUSH: I'll be glad to take a shot at it.

SIMPSON: Please.

BUSH: I'm not sure that – and I can understand if you haven't seen this, because there's been a lot of hue and cry. We passed this year the most furthest looking transportation bill in the history of this country since Eisenhower started the interstate highways – $150 billion for improving the infrastructure. That happened when I was president. And so I'm very proud of the way that came about and I think it's a very, very good beginning.

Like Mr. Perot, I am concerned about the deficits and $150 billion is a lot of money, but it's awful hard to say we're going to go out and spend more money when we're trying to get the deficit down. But I would cite that as a major accomplishment. We hear all the negatives. When you're president you expect this. Everybody's running against the incumbent. They can do better. Everyone knows that.

But here's something that we can take great pride in because it really does get to what you're talking about. Our home initiative – our home ownership initiative – HOPE – that passed the Congress is a good start for having people own their own homes instead of living in these deadly tenements.

Our enterprise zones, that we hear a lot of lip service about in Congress, would bring jobs into the inner city. There's a good program. And I need the help of everybody across this country to get it passed in a substantial way by the Congress.

When we went out to south central in Los Angeles – some of you may remember the riots there. I went out there. I went to a boys' club. And everyone of them – the boys' club leaders, the ministers – all of them were saying pass enterprise zones. We go back to Washington and very difficult to get it through the Congress. But there's going to be a new Congress. No one likes gridlock. There's going to be a new Congress because the old one – I don't want to get this man made at me – but there was a post office scandal and a bank scandal. You're going to have a lot of new members of Congress. And then you can sit down and say, help me do what we should for the cities. Help me pass these programs.

SIMPSON: Mr. President, aren't you threatening to veto the bill – the urban aid bill – that included enterprise zones?

BUSH: Sure, but the problem is, you get so many things included in a great big bill that you have to look at the overall good. That's the problem with our system. If you had a line item veto you could knock out the pork. You could knock out the tax increases and you could do what the people want, and that's create enterprise zones.

SIMPSON: Governor Clinton, you're chomping at the bit.

CLINTON: That bill pays for these urban enterprise zones by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more. And that's why he wants to veto it, just like he vetoed an earlier bill this year. This is not mud slinging. This is fact slinging – a bill earlier this year. This is facts – that would have given investment tax credits and other incentives to reinvest in our cities, in our country. But it asked the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more. Mr. Perot wants to do the same thing. I agree with him. I mean, we agree with that.

But let me tell you specifically what my plan does. My plan would dedicate $20 billion a year in each of the next 4 years for investments in new transportation, communications, environmental clean-ups and new technologies for the 21st century. And we would target it especially in areas that have been either depressed or which have lost a lot of defense related jobs. There are 200,000 people in California, for example, who have lost their defense related jobs. They ought to be engaged in making high speed rail. They ought to be engaged in breaking ground in other technologies, doing waste recycling, clean water technology and things of that kind.

We can create millions of jobs in these new technologies- -more than we're going to lose in defense – if we target it. But we're investing a much smaller percentage of our income in the things you just asked about than all of our major competitors, and our wealth growth is going down as a result of it. It's making the country poorer, which is why I answered the gentleman the way I did before. We have to both bring down the deficit and get our economy going through these kinds of investments in order to get the kind of wealth and jobs and incomes we need in America.

SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, what about your plans for the cities? You want to tackle the economy and the deficit first.

PEROT: First you've got to have money to pay for these things. So you've got to create jobs. There are all kinds of ways to create jobs in the inner city. I'm not a politician, but I think I could go to Washington in a week and get everybody holding hands and get this bill signed because I talk to the Democratic leaders and they want it. I talk to the Republican leaders and they want it. But since they're bred from childhood to fight with one another rather than get results, you know, I would be glad to drop out and spend a little time and see if we couldn't build some bridges.

Now, results is what counts. The president can't order Congress around. Congress can't order the president around. That's not bad for a guy that's never been there, right? But you have to work together.

Now, I have talked to the chairmen of the committees that want this. They're Democrats. The president wants it, but we can't get it because we sit here in gridlock because it's a campaign year. We didn't fund a lot of other things this year, like the savings and loan mess. That's another story that we're going to pay a big price for right after the election.

The facts are though – the facts are – the American people are hurting. These people are hurting in the inner cities. We're shipping the quote, "low paying jobs" overseas. What are low paying jobs? Textiles, shoes, things like that that we say are yesterday's industries. They're tomorrow's industries in the inner cities.

Let me say in my case, if I'm out of work, I'll cut grass tomorrow to take care of my family; I'll be happy to make shoes, I'll be happy to make clothing, I'll make sausage. You just give me a job. Put those jobs in the inner cities instead of doing diplomatic deals and shipping them to China where prison labor does the work.

SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, everybody thought you won the first debate because you were plain-speaking and you made it sound, oh, so simple. Well, just do it. What makes you think that you're going to be able to get the Democrats and Republicans together any better than these guys?

PEROT: If you ask me if I could fly a fighter plane or be an astronaut, I can't. I've spent my life creating jobs. That's something I know how to do. And, very simply, in the inner city, they're starved – you see, small business is the way to jump start the inner city, not –

SIMPSON: Are you answering my question?

PEROT: You want jobs in the inner city? Do you want jobs in the inner city? Is that your question?

SIMPSON: No, I want you to tell me how you're going to be able to get the Republicans and Democrats in Congress to work together better than these two gentlemen.

PEROT: Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I've listened to both sides, and if they would talk to one another instead of throwing rocks, I think we could get a lot done. And, among other things, I would say, okay, over here in this Senate committee to the chairman who is anxious to get this bill passed, the president who is anxious, I'd say rather than just yelling at one another, why don't we find out where we're apart, try to get together, get the bill passed and give the people the benefits and not play party politics right now. And I think the press would follow that so closely that probably they would get it done.

That's the way I would do it. I doubt if they'll give me the chance, but I will drop everything and go work on it.

SIMPSON: Okay, I have a question here.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: My question was originally for Governor Clinton, but I think I would welcome a response from all three candidates. As you are aware, crime is rampant in our cities. And in the Richmond area – and I'm sure it's happened elsewhere – 12-year-olds are carrying guns to school. And I'm sure when our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they did not mean for the right to bear arms to apply to 12-year-olds. So I'm asking: Where do you stand on gun control, and what do you plan to do about it?

SIMPSON: Governor Clinton?

CLINTON: I support the right to keep and bear arms. I live in a state where over half the adults have hunting or fishing licenses, or both. But I believe we have to have some way of checking hand guns before they're sold, to check the criminal history, the mental health history, and the age of people who are buying them. Therefore I support the Brady bill which would impose a national waiting period unless and until a state did what only Virginia has done now, which is to automate its records. Once you automate your records, then you don't have to have a waiting period, but at least you can check.

I also think we should have frankly restrictions on assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill. We need to give the police a fighting chance in our urban areas where the gangs are building up.

The third thing I would say – it doesn't bear directly on gun control, but it's very important – we need more police on the street. There is a crime bill which would put more police on the street, which was killed for this session by a filibuster in the Senate, mostly be Republican senators, and I think it's a shame it didn't pass, I think it should be made the law – but it had the Brady bill in it, the waiting period.

I also believe that we should offer college scholarships to people who will agree to work them off as police officers, and I think, as we reduce our military forces, we should let people earn military retirement by coming out and working as police officers. Thirty years ago there were three police officers on the street for every crime; today there are three crimes for every police officer.

In the communities which have had real success putting police officers near schools where kids carry weapons, to get the weapons out of the schools, are on the same blocks, you've seen crime go down. In Houston there's been a 15- percent drop in the crime rate in the last year because of the work the mayor did there in increasing the police force. So I know it can work; I've seen it happen.

SIMPSON: Thank you. President Bush?

BUSH: I think you put your finger on a major problem. I talk about strengthening the American family and it's very hard to strengthen the family if people are scared to walk down to the corner store and, you know, send their kid down to get a loaf of bread. It's very hard.

I have been fighting for very strong anti-crime legislation – habeas corpus reform, so you don't have these endless appeals, so when somebody gets sentenced, hey, this is for real. I've been fighting for changes in the exclusionary rule so if an honest cop stops somebody and makes a technical mistake, the criminal doesn't go away.

I'll probably get into a fight in this room with some but I happen to think that we need stronger death penalties for those that kill police officers.

Virginia's in the lead in this, as Governor Clinton properly said, on this identification system for firearms. I am not for national registration of firearms. Some of the states that have the toughest anti-gun laws have the highest levels of crime. I am for the right, as the governor says- -I'm a sportsman and I don't think you ought to eliminate all kinds of weapons. But I was not for the bill that he was talking about because it was not tough enough on the criminal.

I'm very pleased that the Fraternal Order of Police in Little Rock, Arkansas endorsed me because I think they see I'm trying to strengthen the anti-crime legislation. We've got more money going out for local police than any previous administration.

So we've got to get it under control and there's one last point I'd make. Drugs. We have got to win our national strategy against drugs, the fight against drugs. And we're making some progress, doing a little better on interdiction. We're not doing as well amongst the people that get to be habitual drug-users.

The good news is, and I think it's true in Richmond, teenage use is down of cocaine, substantially, 60% in the last couple of years. So we're making progress but until we get that one done, we're not going to solve the neighborhood crime problem.

SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, there are young black males in America dying at unprecedented rates –

PEROT: I didn't get to make a comment on this.

SIMPSON: Yes, I'm getting to that.

PEROT: Oh, you're going to let me. Excuse me.

SIMPSON: The fact that homicide is the leading cause of death among young black males 15 to 24 years old. What are you going to do to get the guns off the street?

PEROT: On any program, and this includes crime, you'll find we have all kinds of great plans lying around that never get enacted into law and implemented. I don't care what it is – competitiveness, health care, crime, you name it. Brady Bill, I agree that it's a timid step in the right direction but it won't fix it. So why pass a law that won't fix it? Now, what it really boils down to is can you live – we become so preoccupied with the rights of the criminal that we've forgotten the rights of the innocent. And in our country we have evolved to a point where we've put millions of innocent people in jail because you go to the poor neighborhoods and they've put bars on their windows and bars on their doors and put themselves in jail to protect the things that they acquired legitimately. That's where we are.

We have got to become more concerned about people who play by the rules and get the balance we require. This is going to take first, building a consensus at grassroots America. Right from the bottom up, the American people have got to say they want it. And at that point, we can pick from a variety of plans and develop new plans. And the way you get things done is bury yourselves in the room with one another, put together the best program, take it to the American people, use the electronic town hall, the kind of thing you're doing here tonight, build a consensus and then do it and then go on to the next one. But don't just sit here slow dancing for 4 years doing nothing.

SIMPSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Perot.

We have a question up here.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: Please state your position on term limits, and, if you are in favor of them, how will you get them enacted?

BUSH: Any order? I'll be glad to respond.

SIMPSON: Thank you.

BUSH: I strongly support term limits for members of the US Congress. I believe it would return the government closer to the people, the way that Ross Perot is talking about. The president's terms are limited to 2, a total of 8 years. What's wrong with limiting the terms of members of Congress to 12? Congress has gotten kind of institutionalized. For 38 years one party has controlled the House of Representatives, and the result, a sorry little post office that can't do anything right and a bank that has more overdrafts than all the Chase Bank and Citibank put together. We've got to do something about it.

And I think you get a certain arrogance, bureaucratic arrogance, if people stay there too long. And so I favor, strongly favor, term limits.

And how to get them passed? Send us some people that will pass the idea. And I think you will. I think the American people want it now. Every place I go I talk about it, and I think they want it done. Actually, you'd have to have some amendments to the Constitution because of the way the Constitution reads.

SIMPSON: Thank you. Governor Clinton.

CLINTON: I know they're popular, but I'm against them. I'll tell you why. I believe, number one, it would pose a real problem for a lot of smaller states in the Congress who have enough trouble now making sure their interests are heard. Number 2, I think it would increase the influence of unelected staff members in the Congress who have too much influence already. I want to cut the size of the congressional staffs, but I think you're going to have too much influence there with people who were never elected, who have lots of expertise.

Number 3, if the people really have a mind to change, they can. You're going to have 120 to 150 new members of Congress.

Now, let me tell you what I favor instead. I favor strict controls on how much you can spend running for Congress, strict limits on political action committees, requirements that people running for Congress appear in open public debates like we're doing now. If you did that you could take away the incumbents' advantage because challengers like me would have a chance to run against incumbents like him for House races and Senate races, and then the voters could make up their own mind without being subject to an unfair fight.

So that's how I feel about it, and I think if we had the right kind of campaign reform, we'd get the changes you want.

SIMPSON: Mr. Perot, would you like to address term limitations?

PEROT: Yes. Let me do first on a personal level. If the American people send me up to do this job, I intend to be there one term. I do not intend to spend one minute of one day thinking about re-election. And as a matter of principle – and my situation is unique, and I understand it – I would take absolutely no compensation; I go as their servant.

Now, I have set as strong an example as I can, then at that point when we sit down over at Capitol Hill – tomorrow night I'm going to be talking about government reform – it's a long subject, you wouldn't let me finish tonight. If you want to hear it, you get it tomorrow night – you'll hear it tomorrow night.

But we have got to reform government. If you put term limits in and don't reform government, you won't get the benefits you thought. It takes both. So we need to do the reforms and the term limits. And after we reform it, it won't be a lifetime career opportunity; good people will go serve and then go back to their homes and not become foreign lobbyists and cash in at 30,000 bucks a month and then take time off to run some president's campaign.

They're all nice people, they're just in a bad system. I don't think there are any villains, but, boy, is the system rotten.

SIMPSON: Thank you very much. We have a question over here.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: I'd like to ask Governor Clinton, do you attribute the rising costs of health care to the medical profession itself, or do you think the problem lies elsewhere? And what specific proposals do you have to tackle this problem?

CLINTON: I've had more people talk to me about their health care problems I guess than anything else, all across America – you know, people who've lost their jobs, lost their businesses, had to give up their jobs because of sick children. So let me try to answer you in this way. Let's start with a premise. We spend 30% more of our income than any nation on earth on health care, and yet we insure fewer people. We have 35 million people without any insurance at all – and I see them all the time. A hundred thousand Americans a month have lost their health insurance just in the last 4 years.

So if you analyze where we're out of line with other countries, you come up with the following conclusions. Number one, we spend at least $60 billion a year on insurance, administrative cost, bureaucracy, and government regulation that wouldn't be spent in any other nation. So we have to have, in my judgment, a drastic simplification of the basic health insurance policies of this country, be very comprehensive for everybody.

Employers would cover their employees, government would cover the unemployed.

Number 2, I think you have to take on specifically the insurance companies and require them to make some significant change in the way they rate people in the big community pools. I think you have to tell the pharmaceutical companies they can't keep raising drug prices at three times the rate of inflation. I think you have to take on medical fraud. I think you have to help doctors stop practicing defensive medicine. I've recommended that our doctors be given a set of national practice guidelines and that if they follow those guidelines that raises the presumption that they didn't do anything wrong.

I think you have to have a system of primary and preventive clinics in our inner cities and our rural areas so people can have access to health care.

The key is to control the cost and maintain the quality. To do that you need a system of managed competition where all of us are covered in big groups and we can choose our doctors and our hospitals, a wide range, but there is an incentive to control costs. And I think there has to be – I think Mr. Perot and I agree on this, there has to be a national commission of health care providers and health care consumers that set ceilings to keep health costs in line with inflation, plus population growth.

Now, let me say, some people say we can't do this but Hawaii does it. They cover 98% of their people and their insurance premiums are much cheaper than the rest of America, and so does Rochester, New York. They now have a plan to cover everybody and their premiums are two-thirds of the rest of the country.

This is very important. It's a big human problem and a devastating economic problem for America, and I'm going to send a plan to do this within the first 100 days of my presidency. It's terribly important.

SIMPSON: Thank you. Sorry to cut you short but President Bush, health care reform.

BUSH: I just have to say something. I don't want to stampede. Ross was very articulate across the country. I don't want anybody to stampede to cut the president's salary off altogether. Barbara's sitting over here and I – but what I have proposed, 10% cut, downsize the government, and we can get that done.

She asked a question, I think, is whether the health care profession was to blame. No. One thing to blame is these malpractice lawsuits. They're breaking the system. It costs $20-25 billion a year, and I want to see those outrageous claims capped. Doctors don't dare to deliver babies sometimes because they're afraid that somebody's going to sue them. People don't dare – medical practitioners, to help somebody along the highway that are hurt because they're afraid that some lawyer's going to come along and get a big lawsuit. So you can't blame the practitioners for the health problem.

And my program is this. Keep the government as far out of it as possible, make insurance available to the poorest of the poor, through vouchers, next range in the income bracket, through tax credits, and get on about the business of pooling insurance. A great big company can buy – Ross has got a good-sized company, been very successful. He can buy insurance cheaper than Mom and Pop's store on the corner. But if those Mom and Pop stores all get together and pool, they too can bring the cost of insurance down.

So I want to keep the quality of health care. That means keep government out of it. I want to do – I don't like this idea of these boards. It all sounds to me like you're going to have some government setting price. I want competition and I want to pool the insurance and take care of it that way and have – oh, here's the other point.

I think medical care should go with the person. If you leave a business, I think your insurance should go with you to some other business. You shouldn't be worrying if you get a new job as to whether that's gonna – and part of our plan is to make it what they call portable – big word, but that means if you're working for the Jones Company and you go to the Smith Company, your insurance goes with you. I think it's a good program. I'm really excited about getting it done, too.

SIMPSON: Mr. Perot.

PEROT: We have the most expensive health care system in the world. Twelve percent of our gross national product goes to health care. Our industrial competitors, who are beating us in competition, spend less and have better health care. Japan spends a little over 6% of its gross national product. Germany spends 8%.

It's fascinating. You've bought a front row box seat and you're not happy with your health care and you're saying tonight we've got bad health care but very expensive health care. Folks, here's why. Go home and look in the mirror.

You own this country but you have no voice in it the way it's organized now, and if you want to have a high risk experience, comparable to bungee jumping, go into Congress some time when they're working on this kind of legislation, when the lobbyists are running up and down the halls. Wear your safety toe shoes when you go. And as a private citizen, believe me, you are looked on as a major nuisance.

The facts are you now have a government that comes at you. You're supposed to have a government that comes from you.

Now, there are all kinds of good ideas, brilliant ideas, terrific ideas on health care. None of them ever get implemented because – let me give you an example. A senator runs every 6 years. He's got to raise 20,000 bucks a week to have enough money to run. Who's he gonna listen to – us or the folks running up and down the aisles with money, the lobbyists, the PAC money? He listens to them. Who do they represent? Health care industry. Not us.

Now, you've got to have a government that comes from you again. You've got to reassert your ownership in this country and you've got to completely reform our government. And at that point they'll just be like apples falling out of a tree. The programs will be good because the elected officials will be listening to – I said the other night I was all ears and I would listen to any good idea. I think we ought to do plastic surgery on a lot of these guys so that they're all ears, too, and listen to you. Then you get what you want, and shouldn't you? You paid for it. Why shouldn't you get what you want, as opposed to what some lobbyist cuts a deal, writes a little piece in the law and he goes through. That's the way the game's played now. Till you change it you're gonna be unhappy.


NAFTA went into effect under President Clinton, 1994.01.01.


Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

"Romania is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs."

From The Nest Leader's Manual (1933)
"Fascism is preoccupied by the clothing (namely the forms of state organization), National-Socialism by the body (namely the racial eugenics), whereas Legionarism is preoccupied by something much deeper: by the soul (namely by its strengthening through the cultivation of Christian virtues and its preparation with final salvation in mind, salvation dealt with by the Christian Church in the most perfect fashion)."

"The law of silence: Speak little. Say only what you must. Speak only when necessary. Your oratory should be deeds, not words. You accomplish: let others talk."

"The Politician's goal is to build a fortune, ours is to build our homeland flowering and strong. For her we will work and we will build. For her we will make each Romanian a hero, ready to fight, ready to sacrifice, ready to die."


From For My Legionaries: The Iron Guard (1936)
"We wear the clothes and embrace the forms of democracy. Are they worth anything? We don't know yet. But we do know one thing. We know it for sure. That some of the largest and most civilized nations of Europe have discarded those clothes and have acquired new ones. Did they get rid of them forever? Other nations are doing their best to dispose of them and to get new ones also. Why? Have all nations gone mad? Are the Rumanian politicians the only wise men in the world? Somehow I doubt it."

"A people is not led according to its will; the democratic formula; nor according to the will of one individual: the dictatorial formula. But according to laws. I do not talk here of man-made laws. There are norms, natural laws of life; and there are norms, natural laws of death. Laws of life and laws of death. A nation is headed for life or death according to its respect for one or the other of these laws."

"Democracy destroys the unity of the Rumanian nation, dividing it among political parties, making Rumanians hate one another, and thus exposing a divided people to the united congregation of Jewish power at a difficult time in the nation's history. This argument alone is so persuasive as to warrant the discarding of democracy in favor of anything that would ensure our unity--or life itself. For disunity means death."

"Democracy makes Rumanian citizens out of millions of Jews by making them the Rumanians' equals. By giving them the same legal rights. Equality? What for? We have been here for thousands of years. Plow and weapon in hand. With our labors and blood. Why equality with those who have been here for only one hundred, ten, or even five years? Let's look at the past: We created this state. Let's look at the future: We Rumanians are fully responsible for Greater Rumania. They have nothing to do with it. What could be the responsibility of Jews, in the history books, for the disappearance of the Rumanian state? Thus: no equality in labor, sacrifice, and struggle for the creation of the state and no equal responsibility for its future. Equality? According to an old maxim: Equality is to treat unequally the unequal. What are the reasons for the Jews' demanding equal treatment, equal political rights with the Rumanians?

"Democracy is incapable of perseverance. Since it is shared by political parties that rule for one, two, or three years, it is unable to conceive and carry out plans of longer duration. One party annuls the plans and efforts of the other. What is conceived and built by one party today is destroyed by another tomorrow. In a country in which much has to be built, in which building is indeed the primary historical requirement, this disadvantage of democracy constitutes a true danger. It is a situation similar to that which prevails in an establishment where masters are changed every year, each new master bringing in his own plans, ruining what was done by some, and starting new things, which will in turn be destroyed by tomorrow's masters."

"Democracy prevents the politician's fulfillment of his obligations to the nation. Even the most well-meaning politician becomes, in a democracy, the slave of his supporters, because either he satisfies their personal interests or they destroy his organization. The politician lives under the tyranny and permanent threat of the electoral bosses. He is placed in a position in which he must choose between the termination of his lifetime work and the satisfaction of the demands of party members. And the politician, given such a choice, opts for the latter. He does so not out of his own pocket, but out of that of the country. He creates jobs, sets up missions, commissions, sinecures--all rostered in the nation's budget--which put increasingly heavy pressures on a tired people."

"Democracy cannot wield authority, because it cannot enforce its decisions. A party cannot move against itself, against its members who engage in scandalous malfeasance, who rob and steal, because it is afraid of losing its members. Nor can it move against its adversaries, because in so doing it would risk exposure of its own wrongdoings and shady business."

"Democracy serves big business. Because of the expensive, competitive character of the multiparty system, democracy requires ample funds. It therefore naturally becomes the servant of the big international Jewish financiers, who enslave her by paying her. In this manner, a nation's fate is placed in the hands of a clique of bankers.

"If the multitude does not understand or understands only with difficulty several laws that are immediately necessary to its life, how can it be imagined by someone that it -which in a democracy must be led through itself-could understand the most difficult natural laws; or that it would know intuitively the most subtle and imperceptible norms of human leadership, norms that project beyond itself, its life, its life's necessities, or which do not apply directly to it but to a more superior entity, the nation?"

"A people is not capable of governing itself. It ought to be governed by its elite. Namely, through that category of men born within its bosom who possess certain aptitudes and specialties. Just as the bees raise their "queen" a people must raise its elite. The multitude likewise, in its needs, appeals to its elite, the wise of the state."

"Here are two opposite ideas, one containing truth, the other the lie. Truth-of which there can be but one-is sought. The question is put to a vote. One idea polls 10,000 votes, the other 10,050. Is it possible that 50 votes more or less determine or deny truth? Truth depends neither on majority nor minority; it has its own laws and it succeeds, as has been seen, against all majorities, even though they be crushing."

"Can the people choose its elite? Why then do soldiers not choose the best general? In order to choose, this collective jury would have to know very well: a) The laws of strategy, tactics, organization, etc. and b) To what extent the individual in question conforms through aptitudes and knowledge to these laws. No one can choose wisely without this knowledge."

"That is why we believe that the leading elite of a country cannot be chosen by the multitude. To try to select this elite is like determining by majority vote who the poets, writers, mechanics, aviators or athletes of a country ought to be."

"Democracy elects men totally lacking in scruples, without any morals; those who will pay better, thus those with a higher power of corruption; magicians, charlatans, demagogues, who will excel in their fields during the electoral campaign. Several good men would be able to slip through among them, even politicians of good faith. But they would be the slaves of the former."

"In Romania, particularly since the war, democracy has created for us, through this system of elections, a "national elite" of Romano-Jews, based not on bravery, nor love of country, nor sacrifice, but on betrayal of country, the satisfaction of personal interest, the bribe, the traffic of influence, the enrichment through exploitation and embezzlement, thievery, cowardice, and intrigue to knock down any adversary. This "national elite," if it continues to lead this country, will bring about the destruction of the Romanian state. Therefore, in the last analysis, the problem facing the Romanian people today, on which all others depend, is the substitution of this fake elite with a real national one based on virtue, love and sacrifice for country, justice and love for the people, honesty, work, order, discipline, honest dealing, and honour."

"On what must an elite be founded? a) Purity of soul. b) Capacity of work and creativity. c) Bravery. d) Tough living and permanent warring against difficulties facing the nation. e) Poverty, namely voluntary renunciation of amassing a fortune. f) Faith in God. g) Love."

"The new Romanian elite, as well as any other elite in the world, must be based on the principle of social selection. In other words, a category of people endowed with certain qualities which they then cultivate, is naturally selected from the nation's body, namely from the large healthy mass of peasantry and workingmen, which is permanently bound to the land and the country. This category of people becomes the national elite meant to lead our nation."

"The type of man who lives nowadays in the Romanian political scene, I have already found in history: under his rule, nations died and states were destroyed."

"The young man who joins a political party is a traitor to his generation and to his race."

"It is a new form of leadership of states, never encountered yet. I don't know what designation it will be given, but it is a new form. I think that it is based on this state of mind, this state of high national consciousness which, sooner or later, spreads to the periphery of the national organism. It is a state of inner light. What previously slept in the souls of the people, as racial instinct, is in these moments reflected in their consciousness, creating a state of unanimous illumination, as found only in great religious experiences. This state could be rightly called a state of national oecumenicity. A people as a whole reach self-consciousness, consciousness of its meaning and its destiny in the world. In history, we have met in peoples nothing else than sparks, whereas, from this point of view, we have today permanent national phenomena. In this case, the leader is no longer a 'boss' who 'does what he wants', who rules according to 'his own good pleasure': he is the expression of this invisible state of mind, the symbol of this state of consciousness. He does not do what he wants, he does what he has to do. And he is guided, not by individual interests, nor by collective ones, but instead by the interests of the eternal nation, to the consciousness of which the people have attained. In the framework of these interests and only in their framework, personal interests as well as collective ones find the highest degree of normal satisfaction."

"I reject republicanism. At the head of races, above the elite, there is Monarchy. Not all monarchs have been good. Monarchy, however, has always been good. The individual monarch must not be confused with the institution of Monarchy, the conclusions drawn from this would be false. There can be bad priests, but this does not mean that we can draw the conclusion that the Church must be ended and God stoned to death. There are certainly weak or bad monarchs, but we cannot renounce Monarchy. The race has a line of life. A monarch is great and good, when he stays on this line ; he is petty and bad, to the extent that he moves away from this racial line of life or he opposes it. There are many lines by which a monarch can be tempted. He must set them all aside and follow the line of the race. Here is the law of Monarchy."

"Romania is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs."

"The law of honor: Go along only on the paths of honor. Fight, and never be a coward. Leave the path of infamy to others. Better to fall in an honorable fight than win by infamy."

"We shall create a spiritual atmosphere, a moral atmosphere, in which the heroic man may be born and on which he can thrive. This hero will lead our people on the road of its greatness."

"I could not define how I entered into the struggle. Probably like a man who, walking the street, with his preoccupations, his needs and his own thoughts, surprised by the fire which is consuming a house, takes off his jacket and rushes to give help to those who are the prey of flames. With the common sense of a young man of twenty or so, this is the only thing I understood in all I was seeing : that we were losing the Fatherland, that we would no longer have the Fatherland, that, with the unwitting support of the miserable, impoverished and exploited Romanian workers, the Jewish horde would sweep us away."

"I started with an impulse of my heart, with that instinct of defense which even the least of the worms has, not with the instinct of personal self-preservation, but of defense of the race to which I belong. This is why I have always had the feeling that the whole race rests on our shoulders, the living, and those who died for the Fatherland, and our entire future, and that the race struggles and speaks through us, that the hostile flock, however huge, in relation to this historical entity, is only a handful of human detritus which we will disperse and defeat... The individual in the framework and in the service of his race, the race in the framework and in the service of God and of the laws of the divinity: those who will understand these things will win even though they are alone. Those who will not understand will be defeated."

"When we speak of the Rumanian nation, we refer not only to the Rumanians currently living on the same territory, with the same past and same future, the same habits, the same language, the same interests. When we speak of the Rumanian nation we refer to all Rumanians, dead or alive, who have lived on this land of ours from the beginnings of history and will live on it also in the future."

"A people becomes aware of its existence when it becomes aware of its entirety, not only of its component parts and their individual interests. Its culture: the fruit of its life, the product of its own efforts in thought and art. This culture is not international. It is the expression of the national genius, of the blood. The culture is international in its brilliance but national in origin. Someone made a fine comparison: bread and wheat may be internationally consumed, but they always bear the imprint of the soil from which they came. But the most important of all is the spiritual patrimony, because it alone bears the seal of eternity, it alone transcends all times. The ancient Greeks are with us today not because of their physiques, no matter how athletic--those are only ashes now--nor because of their material wealth, if they had such, but because of their culture."

"A nation lives forever through its concepts, honor, and culture. It is for these reasons that the rulers of nations must judge and act not only on the basis of physical and material interests of the nation but on the basis of the nation's historical honor, of the nation's eternal interests. Thus: not bread at all costs, but honor at all costs."

"The question may thus be asked: What are the norms for international behavior? The nations' animal instincts? The tiger in them? Do the laws of the fishes in the sea or of the beasts in the forest apply?"

"The ultimate goal is not life. It is resurrection. The resurrection of nations in the name of Jesus Christ the Savior. Creation and culture are only means--not the purpose--of resurrection. Culture is the fruit of talent, which God implanted in our nation and for which we are responsible. A time will come when all the world's nations will arise from the dead, with all their dead, with all their kings and emperors. Every nation has its place before God's throne. That final moment, "resurrection from the dead," is the highest and most sublime goal for which a nation can strive. The nation is thus an entity that lives even beyond this earth."

"Nations are realities also in the other world, not only on this one. To us Rumanians, to our nation, as to every nation in the world, God assigned a specific mission; God has given us a historical destiny. The first law that every nation must abide by is that of attaining that destiny, of fulfilling the mission entrusted to it.
Are we going to be the weak and cowardly generation that will relinquish, under threats, the Rumanian destiny and renounce our national mission?"

"Is it not frightening, that we, the Romanian people, no longer can produce fruit? That we do not have a Romanian culture of our own, of our people, of our blood, to shine in the world side by side with that of other peoples? That we be condemned today to present ourselves before the world with products of Jewish essence? That today, at this moment, when the world expects that the Romanian people appear to show the fruit of our national blood and genius, we present ourselves with an infection of Judaic cultural caricature?"

"Consider the attitude our great Vasile Conta held in the Chamber in 1879. Fifty years earlier the Romanian philosopher demonstrated with unshakeable scientific arguments, framed in a system of impeccable logic, the soundness of racial truths that must lie at the foundation of the national state..."

"We do not remember that our people - during our sad but proud Romanian history - at any time tolerated being dishonoured. Our fields are full of the dead, but not of cowards. Today we are free men with the consciousness of our rights. Slaves we are not and never were. We receive death, but not humiliation. Rest assured, we have sufficient moral strength left to find an honourable exit from a life we cannot support without honour and dignity."

"O you, who have been struck, maligned or martyred, I can bring the news, which I wish to carry more than the frail value of a casual rhetorical phrase: soon we shall win. Before your columns, all our oppressors will fall. Forgive those who struck you for personal reasons. Those who have tortured you for your faith in the Romanian people, you will not forgive. Do not confuse the Christian right and duty of forgiving those who wronged you, with the right and duty of our people to punish those who have betrayed it and assumed for themselves the responsibility to oppose its destiny. Do not forget that the swords you have put on belong to the nation. You carry them in her name, In her name you will use them for punishment-unforgiving and unmerciful. Thus and only thus, will you be preparing a healthy future for this nation."

"Prayer is decisive element of victory. Wars are won by those who have managed to attract from elsewhere, from the skies, the mysterious forces of the invisible world and to secure their support. These mysterious forces are the souls of the dead, the souls of our ancestors, who once were, like us, linked to our clods, to our furrows, who died for the defense of this land and are still linked today to it by the memory of their lives and by us, their sons, their grandsons, their great grandsons. But, above the souls of the dead, there is God. Once these forces are attracted, they are of considerable power, they defend us, they give us courage, will, all the elements necessary to victory and which make us win. They bring in panic and terror among the enemies, paralyse their activity. In the last analysis, victories do not depend only on material preparation, on the material forces of the belligerents, but on their power to secure the support of spiritual forces. The fairness and the morality of actions and the fervent, insistent call for them in the form of rite and collective prayer attract such forces."

"If Christian mysticism and its goal, ecstasy, is the contact of man with God through a leap from human nature to divine nature, national mysticism is nothing other than the contact of man and crowds with the soul of their race through the leap which these forces make from the world of personal and material interests into the outer world of race. Not through the mind, since this anyone can do, but by living with their soul."

"We will kill in ourselves a world in order to build another, a higher one reaching to the heavens."

"The Legionaries have been called by God to sound the trumpet for the resurrection of Romania after centuries of darkness and oppression."

"This moment of brotherhood in the same faith and of pledging to fight for our Christian country against the cheating Judaic hordes, will never be forgotten. We who were fighting each other but yesterday, were now embracing. The orientation guidelines in our (student) meetings were the writings of our national geniuses Bogdan Petriceicu Hajdeu, Vasile Conta, Mihail Eminescu, Vasile Alecsandri, etc. but especially the writings and lectures of Professor Cuza, the writings of Professor Paulescu, the lessons in national education of Professor Gavanescul."

"We have studied the Jewish problem scientifically. Essentially it is an abnormal situation that the Jews should live among other races, whereby they violate the great natural law that every race shall live in its own country."

"In one year I learned as much about anti-Semitism as would be enough for three mens' lifetimes. For you cannot wound the sacred convictions of a people, what their heart loves and respects, without causing deep pain and shedding the heart's blood. It was 17 years ago, and my heart bleeds yet."

"There is, among all those various parts of the world who serve their people, a kinship of sympathy, as there is such a kinship among those who labour for the destruction of peoples."

"Because we have political parties led by Romanians, through which Judaism speaks ; Romanian papers, written by Romanians, through which the Jew and his interests speak ; Romanian lecturers, thinking, writing and speaking Hebraically, but in the Romanian language."

"Mussolini has destroyed communism and Freemasonry; he implicitly declared war upon Judaism too."

"Those who think that the Jews are poor unfortunates, arrived here by chance, carried by the wind, led by fate, and so on, are mistaken. All the Jews who exist on the face of the earth form a great community, bound by blood and Talmudic religion. They are parts of a truly implacable state, which has laws, plans and leaders who formulate these plans and carry them through. The whole thing is organised in the form of a so-called 'Kehillah'. This is why we are faced, not with isolated Jews, but with a constituted force, the Jewish community. In any of our cities or countries where a given number of Jews are gathered, a Kehillah is immediately set up, that is to say the Jewish community. This Kehillah has its leaders, its own judiciary, and so on. And it is in this small Kehillah, whether at the city or at the national level, that all the plans are formed : how to win the local politicians, the authorities ; how to work one's way into circles where it would be useful to get admitted, for example, among the magistrates, the state employees, the senior officials ; these plans must be carried out to take a certain economic sector away from a Romanian's hands ; how an honest representative of an authority opposed to the Jewish interests could be eliminated ; what plans to apply, when, oppressed, the population rebels and bursts in anti-Semitic movements."

"As forests in Bucovina, all those mountains laden with first belonging to the Orthodox Church, which was now infused with politics, and estranged, were given to the Jew Anhauh for exploitation of the firewood at the unheard-of price of 10 lei per cubic yard, while the Romanian peasant had to pay 3.50 lei. The mountains' forests fall under the merciless Jewish axe. Poverty and sorrow spreads over the Romanian villages, mountains become barren rock, while Anhauh and his kin carry constantly and tirelessly their gold-laden coffers over the border. The partner-in-crime of the Jew in exploiting the misery of thousands of peasants, was the Romanian politician who gorged himself on his portion of this fabulous profit."

"The Jewish problem is no utopia, but a grave life and death problem for the Romanian nation, the country's leaders grouped by political parties becoming more and more like toys in the hands of the Judaic manipulators."

"Besides, large-scale general plans : 1) they will seek to break the bonds between earth and heaven, doing their best to spread, on a large scale, atheistic and materialistic theories, degrading the Romanian people, or even just its leaders, to a people separated from God and its dead, they will kill them, not with the spear, but by cutting the roots of their spiritual life ; 2) they will then break the links of the race with the soil, material spring of its wealth, attacking nationalism and any idea of Fatherland and homeland ; determined to succeed, they will seek to seize the press ; 4) they will use any pretext, since in the Romanian people there are dissensions, misunderstandings, and quarrels, to divide them into as many antagonistic parties as possible ; 5) they will seek to monopolise more and more the means of existence of Romanians ; 6) they will systematically drive them to dissoluteness, annihilating family and moral force without forgetting to degrade and daze them through alcoholic drinks and other poisons. And, in truth, anyone who would want to kill and conquer a race could do it by adopting this system."

"A country has the Jews it deserves. Just as mosquitoes can thrive and settle only in swamps, likewise the former can only thrive in the swamps of our sins."

"At Posada, Calugareni, on the Olt, jiu and Cerna rivers, at Turda; in the mountains of the unhappy and forgotten Moti of Vidra, all the way to Huedin and Alba-Iulia (the torture place of Horia and his brothers-in-arms), there are everywhere testimonies of battles and tombs of heroes. All over the Carpathians, from the Oltenian mountains at Dragoslavele and at Predeal, from Oituz to Vatra Dornei, on peaks and in valley bottoms, everywhere Romanian blood flowed like rivers. In the middle of the night, in difficult times for our people, we hear the call of the Romanian soil urging us to battle. I ask and I expect an answer: By what right do the Jews wish to take this land from us? On what historical argument do they base their pretensions and particularly the audacity with which they defy us Romanians, here in our own land? We are bound to this land by millions of tombs and millions of unseen threads that only our soul feels, and woe to those who shall try to snatch us from it."

"The Jews are our enemies and as such they hate, poison, and exterminate us. Romanians who cross into their camp are worse than enemies: they are traitors. If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it."

"From this Legionary school a new man will have to emerge, a man with heroic qualities; a giant of our history to do battle and win over all the enemies of our Fatherland, his battle and victory having to extend even beyond the material world into the realm of invisible enemies, the powers of evil. Everything that our mind can imagine as more beautiful spiritually; everything the proudest that our race can produce, greater, more just, more powerful, wiser, purer, more diligent and more heroic, this is what the Legionary school must give us! A man in whom all the possibilities of human grandeur that are implanted by God in the blood of our people be developed to the maximum. This hero, the product of Legionary education, will also know how to elaborate programs; will also know how to solve the Jewish problem; will also know how to organize the state well; will also know how to convince other Romanians; and if not, he will know how to win, for that is why he is a hero. This hero, this Legionary of bravery, labor, and justice, with the powers God implanted in his soul, will lead our Fatherland on the road of its glory."

"Legionary life is beautiful, not because of riches, partying or the acquisition of luxury, but because of the noble comradeship which binds all Legionaries in a sacred brotherhood of struggle."

"De atunci mi s-a înrădăcinat credința care nu mă va părăsi, că cel care luptă, chiar singur, pentru Dumnezeu și neamul său nu va fi învins niciodată."

"E îngrozitor! Noi, poporul român, să nu mai putem da roadele noastre? Să nu avem o cultură românească, a noastră, a neamului, a sângelui nostru, care să strălucească în lume alături de roadele altor neamuri? Să fim noi condamnați astăzi de a ne prezenta în fața lumii întregi cu produse de esență jidănească? Astăzi, în ultimul moment, când lumea așteaptă ca poporul român să apară cu rodul sângelui și geniului său național, noi să ne prezentăm cu o infecție de caricatură culturală iudaică?"

"Țara aceasta piere din lipsă de oameni, nu din lipsă de programe.
Atâta timp cât va exista pe lume un singur legionar conștient de misiunea lui, Mișcarea Legionarã va fi vie, activă și de neînvins.
Clocotește ura în jurul vostru ca marea în jurul unei insule de piatră. Vi se vor întinde paharele de ademenire, politicianismul, prin miile de mijloace, va voi să vă facă trădători,vor curge cuvintele mieroase și promisiunile, minciunile,calomniile. Vor încerca dezbinarea voastră, vor curge deopotrivă asupra voastră amenințările și ura. Veți fi prigoniți. Veți simți amarul nedreptăților. Eu vă strig: nu vă lăsați! Cine vrea să învingă trebuie să știe să rabde. Acum e eroismul răbdării…"

"Ele nu vor avea decât un singur efect: de a acumula în suflet nedreptate peste nedreptate, calomnie peste calomnie, lovitură peste lovitură, durere peste durere. Tineretul acesta le-a răbdat toate, a înăbușit toate în sufletul său. Acum însă, după atâția ani, dacă aș voi să dau un sfat lumii, aș striga: Feriți-vă de cei ce rabdă!"

"Cea dintâi problemă care ni se punea era aceasta: cine trebuie să răspundă mai întâi? Cine sunt mai vinovați pentru starea de nenorocire în care se zbate țara: românii sau jidanii? Am căzut unanim de acord, că cei dintâi și mai mari vinovați sunt românii ticăloși, care pentru arginții iudei și-au trădat neamul. Jidanii ne sunt dușmani și în această calitate ne urăsc, ne otrăvesc, ne extermină. Conducătorii români care se așează pe aceeași linie cu ei, sunt mai mult decât dușmani: sunt trădători. Pedeapsa cea dintâi și cea mai cruntă se cuvine în primul rând trădătorului și în al doilea rând dușmanului. Dacă aș avea un singur glonț, iar în fața mea un dușman și un trădător, glonțul l-aș trimite în trădător."

"De unde cunoaștem aceste planuri? Le cunoaștem sigur, trăgând concluzii din mișcările adversarului. Orice comandant de trupă, urmărind cu atenție acțiunea adversarului, își dă seama de planurile pe care acesta le urmărește. Este un lucru elementar. În toate războaiele lumii a fost vreun conducător care a cunoscut planurile adversarului pentru că ar fi asistat la facerea lor? Nu! Le-a cunoscut perfect din mișcările adversarului său. Pentru ca poporul român să-și frângă orice putere de rezistență, jidanii vor aplica un plan unic și într-adevăr diabolic. 1.) Vor căuta să rupă legăturile sufletești ale neamului cu cerul și cu pământul. Pentru ruperea legăturilor cu cerul, vor întrebuința împrăștierea, pe scară întinsă, a teoriilor ateiste, pentru a face din poporul român, sau măcar numai din conducătorii lui, un popor despărțit de Dumnezeu; despărțit de Dumnezeu și de morții lui, pentru a-l omorî, nu cu sabia, ci tăindu-i rădăcinile de viață spirituală. Pentru ruperea legăturilor cu pământul, izvorul material de existență al unui neam, vor ataca naționalismul ca o idee învechită și tot ce se leagă de ideea de patrie și pământ, pentru ca să rupă firul iubirii care unește poporul român de brazda lui. 2.) Pentru ca acestea să reușească, vor căuta să pună mâna pe presă. 3.) Vor întrebuința orice prilej, pentru ca în tabăra poporului român să fie dezbinare, neînțelegeri și ceartă și, dacă e posibil, chiar îl vor împărți în mai multe tabere, care să se lupte între ele. 4.) Vor căuta să acapareze cât mai mult din mijloacele de existență ale românilor. 5.) Îi vor îndemna sistematic pe calea desfrâului, nimicindu-le familia și puterea morală. 6.) Îi vor otrăvi și ameți cu tot felul de băuturi și otrăvuri... Oricine va voi să omoare și să cucerească un neam va putea să o facă întrebuințând acest sistem: ruperea legăturilor lui cu cerul și cu pământul, introducerea certurilor și luptelor fratricide, introducerea imoralității și a desfrâului, constrângerea materială prin limitarea la maximum a mijloacelor de subzistență, otrăvire fizică, beție. Toate acestea nimicesc o nație mai rău decât dacă ai bate-o cu mii de tunuri sau cu mii de aeroplane."

"Poporul nu se conduce după voința lui: democrația. Nici după voința unei persoane: dictatura. Ci după legi. Nu e vorba de legile făcute de oameni. Sunt norme, legi naturale de viață și norme, legi naturale de moarte. Legile vieții și legile morții. O națiune merge la viață sau la moarte după cum respectă pe una sau pe alta din aceste legi.
Dacă mistica creștină cu finalul ei, extazul, este contactul omului cu Dumnezeu, printr-un „salt din natura umană în natura divină” (Crainic), mistica națională nu este altceva decât contactul omului sau al mulțimilor cu sufletul neamului lor, printr-u salt pe care acestea îl fac, din lumea preocupărilor personale, în lumea eternă a neamului. Nu cu mintea, căci aceasta o face orice istorie, ci trăind, cu sufletul lor."

"Un popor ajunge la conștiința de sine când ajunge la conștiința acestui întreg, nu numai la acea a intereselor sale."

"O răzvrătire ar fi când nu s-ar ridica în contra organismului, ci mai puțin: când ar sta în propria ei slujbă, când nu s-ar satisface decât pe ea însăși, când n-ar avea altă menire și alt ideal în afară de ea, când ar deveni propriul ei Dumnezeu. Individul în cadrul și în slujba neamului său. Neamul în cadrul și în slujba lui Dumnezeu și a legilor Dumnezeirii. Cine va înțelege aceste lucruri va învinge, chiar de va fi și singur. Cine nu va înțelege, va cădea învins."

"Fapta, nu vorba - fă, nu verb!"

"Muncitorii români părăsiți îngroașă rândurile comuniștilor.
Bacșișul, mita și hoția au desființat sănătatea morală a națiunii române."

"Justiția care judecă după "ordin" și nu după conștiință, nu există.
Mergi numai pe căile indicate de onoare. Luptă și nu fi niciodată mișel. Lasă pentru alții căile infamiei. Decât să învingi printr-o infamie, mai bine cazi luptând pe drumul onoarei."

"Dacă într-o organizație apar începuturi de gangrenă, ele trebuiesc imediat localizate și apoi extirpate cu cea mai mare energie. Dacă nu se pot localiza și se extind ca un cancer în întregul organism al mișcării, cauza este pierdută. Viitorul și misiunea organizației sunt compromise. Ea va muri sau își va târî zilele între viață și moarte, fără ca să poată realiza ceva."

"Ea, Legiunea tinde să aprindă credinți nebănuite, ea tinde să transforme, să revoluționeze sufletul românesc... Sufletul este punctul cardinal asupra căruia trebuie să se lucreze în momentul de față. Sufletul individului și sufletul mulțimii."

"Fii disciplinat, căci numai așa vei învinge."

"Cine vrea să învingă trebuie să știe să rabde. Acum e eroismul răbdării."

"Condițiile esențiale ale elitei sunt: să trăim ucigând în noi poftele de îmbogățire materială; să trăim o viață aspră și severă."

"Atât de mult au fost călcate bietele case de legionari, încât pentru a restabili dreptatea în viitoarea Românie legionară, numele de legionar trebuie să devină sacru. Nicio forță publică să nu-i poată pătrunde în casă."

"Oratoria ta este oratoria faptei. Tu făptuiește; lasă pe alții să vorbească."

"Biruința veșnică și adevărată este biruința născută din martiriu.
Recunoaștem că suntem păcătoși: aceasta este atitudinea legionară față de Biserică."

"Mișcarea Legionară, înainte de a fi o mișcare politică, teoretică, financiară, economică, etc. de formule, este o școală spirituală, în care dacă va intra un om, la celălalt capăt va trebui să iasă un erou."

"În fața ei (a țării) legionarul se prezintă nu cu drepturi cetățenești, ci cu sacre datorii."

"O Românie nouă nu poate ieși decât din luptă. Din jertfa fiilor săi.
Nu să ajungi puternic te pregătește. Nu pentru binele tău să lupți și să muncești, ci pentru binele și salvarea neamului tău.
Legiunea este o organizație întemeiată pe ordine și disciplină. Legiunea e călăuzită de un naționalism curat, izvorât din nemărginita dragoste de Neam și Țară. Legiunea vrea să trezească la luptă toate energiile creatoare ale Neamului. Legiunea apără altarele Bisericii pe care dușmanii vor sa ni le dărâme. Legiunea îngenunche înaintea crucilor vitejilor și mucenicilor Neamului."

"Țelul final nu este viața. Ci Învierea. Învierea neamurilor în numele Mântuitorului Iisus Hristos. Creația, cultura, nu-i decât un mijloc, nu un scop, cum s-a crezut, pentru a obține această înviere. Este rodul talentului pe care Dumnezeu l-a sădit în neamul nostru, de care trebuie să răspundem. Va veni o vreme când toate neamurile pământului vor învia, cu toți morții și cu toți regii și împărații lor. Având fiecare neam locul său înaintea tronului lui Dumnezeu. Acest moment final, „învierea din morți”, este țelul cel mai înalt și mai sublim către care se poate înălța un neam."

"De vor intra trupele rusești pe la noi și vor ieși învingătoare, cine poate să creadă, unde este mintea care să susțină că ele vor pleca de la noi înainte de a ne sataniza, adică bolșeviza?"

"Iașiul zidit pe șapte dealuri, ca Roma, este și rămâne cetatea eternă a românismului."

"Nu admitem nimănui ca să caute și să ridice pe pământul românesc alt steag decât acela al istoriei noastre naționale. Oricâtă dreptate ar putea avea clasa muncitoare, nu-i admitem ca să se ridice peste și împotriva hotarelor țării. Nu va admite nimeni ca pentru pâinea ta să pustiești și să dai pe mâna unei nații străine de bancheri și cămătari, tot ce a agonisit truda de două ori milenară a unui neam de muncitori și de viteji. Dreptatea ta, în cadrul dreptății neamului. Nu se admite ca pentru dreptatea ta să sfarmi în bucăți dreptatea istorică a nației căreia aparții."

"Poporul român, în aceste zile ale lui, nu are nevoie de un mare om politic, așa cum greșit se crede, ci de un mare educator și conducător, care să biruiască puterile răului."

"Nu contează că e evreu și vă rog sa rețineți pentru totdeauna că nu împotriva evreilor ca atare trebuie să se îndrepte lupta necruțătoare a unui legionar autentic, ci contra celor ce fac rău României si Bisericii creștine." (C. Z. Codreanu despre faptul că a salvat un evreu de la înec)

"Neamul nostru n-a trăit prin milioanele de robi care și-au pus gâtul în jugul străinilor, ci prin Horia, prin Avram Iancu, prin Tudor, prin Iancu Jianu, prin toți haiducii, car în fața jugului străin nu s-au supus, ci și-au pus flinta în spate și s-au ridicat pe potecile munților, ducând cu ei onoarea și scânteia libertății. Prin ei a vorbit atunci neamul nostru, iar nu prin „majoritățile” lașe și „cuminți”. Ei înving sau mor: indiferent. Pentru că atunci când mor, neamul trăiește întreg din moartea lor și se onorează din onoarea lor. Ei strălucesc în istorie ca niște chipuri de aur care, fiind pe înălțimi, sunt bătute în amurg de lumina soarelui, în timp ce peste întinderile cele de jos, fie ele cât de mari și cât de numeroase, se așterne întunericul uitării și al morții. Aparține istoriei naționale nu acela care va trăi sau va învinge – cu sacrificarea liniei vieții neamului – ci acela care, indiferent dacă va învinge sau nu, se va menține pe această linie."

[Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Pentru Legionari. Bucharest: Totul Pentru Tara, 1936.]


Allie Dowdle

Hi, everyone! Thank you for taking the time to read this. My name is Allie Dowdle, and I live in Memphis, TN. I'm 18 years old and a high school senior at a local private school, where I've maintained a 4.0 GPA since 9th grade and have taken 5 AP courses. I've jumped at every service opportunity available to me and completed a 2 month surgery fellowship this past summer at Regional One Health in downtown Memphis. My education has always been extremely important to me, which is why I am willing to share my story:

About a year ago, I told my parents that I'd started dating a boy named Michael, pictured with me above. Hoping to share him with my family, I showed my parents his picture, and the conversation was over before it even began. My dad did not give me an option: he told me that I was not allowed to see Michael ever again. Why? Strictly because of skin color. It wasn't a quiet "no," either. I'll never forget the yelling my parents did, when they expressed how disappointed they were in me, that I could do so much better. I did not know what to do. I couldn't comprehend how someone could be seen as less because of pigment. I still can't comprehend it, and I never will be able to.

Michael and I continued to see each other, but discretely. Over the past year, I've fought so hard to make my parents see Michael as a human being instead of just someone who is African American. I've advocated as best I know how. Finally, about a month ago, Michael and I approached my parents, but their response was much more drastic than I could've ever expected. As I am 18, my parents have chosen to no longer support my future, stripping me of all my resources including my personal savings, my car, my phone, and my education and leaving me on my own to pay for college. Unfortunately, I will no longer be able to attend college if I cannot come up with the money somehow. My parents also got involved with my school in attempt to get me removed from the organizations I've been a part of, like Coexist and Facing History and Ourselves, clubs that essentially encourage valueing and treating people equally.

I've applied and received some scholarship money through financial aid, including grants, loans, and work-study, but I still need at least $10,000 to cover the first year of my remaining out of pocket tuition for college by May 1st. I've been applying for scholarships and have tried to get a job, but I am still living under my parents' roof because I have nowhere else to live, and my dad has done everything in his power to make the world difficult for me. I am not able to get a job because I do not have consistent transportation available.

All of this because I love another human being, as I was taught to do. How could my love for another person be wrong because of his skin color? And why would that make me unworthy of a future I've worked so hard for? Because my parents have listed me, their own daughter, as someone who is not worthy of their time and money, I have turned to the public for support. It hurts me to have to ask for money, as I'd rather be out working for it myself, but I currently have no other options. Even the smallest amount helps. I cannot express how much your time and money means to me. I can assure you that I am doing everything in my power to create a future for myself, but it has come to the point where I must ask for help.

Again, thank you so very much for your support.
Help spread the word!


"What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of hosts." (Isaiah 3:15)

Illegal Attacks

So what the fuck is this UK
Gunnin' with this US of A
In Iraq and Iran and in Afghanistan?

Does not a day go by
Without the Israeli Air Force
Failin' to drop its bombs from the sky?

How many mothers have to cry?
How many sons have to die?
How many missions left to fly over Palestine?

'Cause as a matter of fact
It's a pact, it's an act,
These are illegal attacks,
So bring the soldiers back!

These are illegal attacks,
It's contracts for contacts.
I'm singing concrete facts,
So bring the soldiers back!

What mean ye that ye beat my people?
What mean ye that ye beat my people,
And grind the faces of the poor?

So tell me just how come were the Taliban
Sat burning incense in Texas,
Roaming round in a Lexus,
Sittin' on six billion oil drums?

Down with the Dow Jones,
Up on the Nasdaq,
Pushed into the war zones.

It's a commercial crusade,
'Cause all the oil men get paid.
And only so many soldiers come home.

It's a commando crusade,
A military charade,
And only so many soldiers come home.

Soldiers, soldiers, come home!
Soldiers, come home!

Through all the blood and sweat
Nobody can forget,
It ain't the size of the dog in the fight,
It's the size of the fight in the dog,
On the day or the night,
There's no time to reflect
On the threat, the situation,
The bark nor the bite.

These are commercial crusades,
'Cos all the oil men get paid.

These are commando crusades,
Commando tactical rape.

And from the streets of New York and Baghdad
To Tehran and Tel Aviv,
Bring forth the prophets of the Lord!

Dirty bastards fillin' pockets
With the profits of greed.

These are commercial crusades,
Commando tactical raids,
Playin' military charades to get paid.

And who got the devils?
And who got the Lords?

Build yourself a mountain,
Drink up in the fountain.

Soldiers, come home.
Soldiers, come home.
Soldiers, come home.
Soldiers, come home.

What mean ye that ye beat my people
What mean ye that ye beat my people
And grind the faces of the poor?


Where there is error, may we bring truth;
Where there is doubt, may we bring faith;
And where there is despair, may we bring hope.


Doesn't the script ever change?


THE KIKE STUFF'S KIKE ENOCH AND HIS KIKE-BITCH KIKING THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR (whom Kike Enoch calls "a kike on a stick", "a son of the volcano demon")

[video width="400" height="222" mp4="http://europeansalute.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Kike-Enoch-Shoah-Christmas.mp4"][/video]

Same-sex marriage chapel demolished

By Julius Strauss in Moscow, The Daily Telegraph, 09 Oct 2003

The Russian Orthodox Church has demolished a chapel where a priest conducted a marriage ceremony between two men. The Chapel of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was apparently knocked down after local churchmen decided it had been defiled. The "marriage" of Denis Gogolyev and Mikhail Morozev in Nizhny Novgorod scandalised the Orthodox Church and created outrage among ordinary Russians. The priest, Fr Vladimir Enert, was unfrocked after the men said they paid him a £300 bribe. A spokesman for the Orthodox Church said the chapel had to go as it had been desecrated.



Kike Mike "Enoch" (Peinovich) – that's what I've been calling him since I first heard him, on The Kike Stuff (which I've always called it), attacking Christ ("a Kike on a stick"), God ("The Volcano Demon"), getting non-Kikes to identify themselves and each other as "Goys", larping as a Nazi while attacking National Socialism, promoting the Alt-Kike, and shilling for the Haredi-Kike faction's puppet, Trump.

The alt-right eats its own: Neo-Nazi podcaster “Mike Enoch” quits after doxxers reveal his wife is Jewish

Bad day for the Fourth Reich: Founder of popular alt-right blog The Right Stuff resigns after foes expose him

Matthew Sheffield, Salon, 16 January 2017

Donald Trump hasn’t even taken office yet, but the racist alt-right movement that has latched onto him is already showing signs that it’s falling apart.

The loosely knit group was shocked to the core Saturday night when one of its most influential leaders — a man known to his online followers as “Mike Enoch,” a virulent racist and anti-Semite — was revealed to be a New York website developer named Mike Peinovich, who has said that his wife is Jewish. Although the motivations behind Peinovich’s apparent deception are not clear, his operation presumably generated some modest cashflow from true believers in the alt-right crusade.

As one chagrined poster on Enoch’s website put it, “It’s pretty bad for your WN [white nationalist], fourth reich, neo-nazi, facist [sic] movement when one of the head guys happens to be married to a Jew.”

Enoch/Peinovich is the creator of the popular neo-Nazi website The Right Stuff (TRS). For several years, he has also co-hosted a podcast called “The Daily Shoah,” a deliberately offensive pun on the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.

In his online persona, Peinovich routinely cracked jokes about killing Jewish people and forcibly deporting Muslims and people of African descent. The weekly program had roughly 100,000 regular listeners, many of whom regularly sent in financial donations by PayPal or bought merchandise from the site.

Peinovich’s wife appears to have been aware of the entire situation. She even appeared on “The Daily Shoah” several times, including a special holiday-season segment in 2015 where she read a neo-Nazi parody [ACTUALLY A NATIVITY PARODY] of “The Night Before Christmas.” Introducing the clip, which can be found online, Peinovich said his wife was “very proud of it.”

Peinovich’s doxxing — a term referring to revealing someone’s private information online — was largely the work of anonymous left-wing users on the Medium blog site, in a post that has since been deleted. Word spread like wildfire throughout the alt-right’s many web forums and message boards over the weekend, as TRS fans and detractors battled over whether the information was legitimate or not.

That initial report had an air of credibility, since the identities of Peinovich’s fellow “death panelists” on the podcast had been revealed earlier in the week. That doxxing was done by members of a rival website called 8chan, who attacked TRS for supporting the principle that non-Jewish white nationalists had common interests with extreme right-wing Israelis, which is anathema to hardcore neo-Nazis and anti-Semites.

First the 8channers unmasked one of Peinovich’s colleagues, a University of Nebraska philosophy student who called himself “Ghoul,” and whose mother was revealed to be married to another woman. After that, 8channers and anti-fascist activists temporarily worked together to dox the rest of the “Daily Shoah” crew. “Bulbasaur” was exposed as a corrections officer living in Nashville and “Seventh Son” was revealed as a guitarist in an obscure Goth-rock band.

The big prize for the doxxers, however, was Peinovich. As the creator of TRS, he was (at least until this weekend) regarded as one of the three most influential figures in the alt-right, alongside Daily Stormer creator Andrew Anglin and Richard Spencer, the co-creator of the “alt-right” label.

Though TRS has not received as much coverage in the mainstream press, it originated or popularized many alt-right pranks and memes, including the practice of identifying Jewish people or those suspected of being Jewish with (((triple sets of parentheses,))) bogus White Student Union schemes at educational institutions, and racist or anti-Semitic song parodies. Peinovich was also reportedly among the people who gave the Nazi salute at the infamous National Policy Institute conference after Trump’s election in November.

Mike Enoch’s downfall was set in motion in December when a former alt-right vlogger named Mike Cernovich hinted to his viewers that one of his rivals “is morbidly obese and is married to a Jewish woman.” He declined to say whom he meant, but that salacious rumor set the cyber-sleuths to their task.

As the doxxing unfolded this weekend, Peinovich said nothing on Twitter or on his own site. Contacted via email by Salon, he denied being Mike Enoch but admitted to having been involved with TRS.

“I was involved with that site years ago, writing a few libertarian articles for them and using my PayPal for the exactly zero donations that the site ever got when it was still a libertarian blog,” he wrote.

Peinovich then claimed he had disassociated himself from TRS after it became overtly pro-Nazi: “I cut off ties when they went the direction they are going now, and that was 4 years ago. Honestly I have not thought much about them. As you can see from all public writings I am libertarian. My wife is Jewish. Do you really believe that I am this person?”

The TRS creator then asked Salon to help him deny that he was Enoch: “If you give any fucks at all then you could print that this is all bullshit. We are now being harassed not only by communists but by actual neo nazis.

When asked if he would be willing to conduct a telephone interview, Peinovich replied, “Let me talk to my wife.” He never answered back.

As the evidence continued to mount linking him to the Enoch identity, Peinovich decided to fess up to his devoted Nazi fans in a post for TRS’ password-protected forums, part of which read:

"As I am sure you all know, I was doxxed and an ill advised attempt to fool the media about my identity led me to not talk to you people and to try to simply ride it out by being silent. This was irresponsible and a disservice to all of you. Yes my wife is who they say she is, I won’t even bother denying it, I won’t bother making excuses. If this makes you want to leave the movement, or to have nothing to do with TRS, then I understand.

"Don’t lie for me. Don’t try to defend me to those attacking me. Don’t jeopardize your own reputation by defending things that you don’t think you can. I could try to explain my whole life for the last ten years to you but what difference at this point would it make. Life isn’t perfect."

The admission sent a shock wave throughout the alt-right. The reactions began pouring in. Some listeners of “The Daily Shoah” were crestfallen. Here’s just one example of the anguish:

"TDS was my favorite podcast and one of the best parts of my week. Enoch’s rants were both enlightening and triggering, but now I cannot listen to them the same way again. It just feels like they’re just more actors in the same play being orchestrated by the Jews. Half of my gut has also thought TRS has been controlled opposition for awhile now. Although I will continue to listen to the Shoah I just don’t know if I will be able to take Enoch as seriously as I used to. It’s pretty bad for your WN, fourth reich, neo-nazi, facist movement when one of the head guys happens to be married to a Jew."

Within a few more hours, Peinovich’s partners announced that he was resigning from TRS entirely.

The 8channers, who pride themselves on their refusal to adopt pseudonyms (all site users post under the handle “Anonymous”), were ecstatic.

“(((TRS))) is over. Period,” gloated one of them.

Many began improvising some of the Holocaust memes that have been lobbed at Jewish journalists, instead featuring Peinovich and his wife. Both were depicted in gas chambers before the night was done.

Another, who prefers being called neo-Nazi instead of “alt-right,” hoped the entire movement would just disappear: “After the shitstorm is over the alt-right won’t be important enough to warrant a [discussion] thread,” he wrote. “In my opinion, they never did.”

With Peinovich gone and many TRS readers mistrustful of the “death panelists” who helped him cover up his secret, the site’s future is an open question.


Counter-Currents [zionist fag Greg Johnson]: TRS, the Daily Shoah, and Mike Enoch are not going anywhere. Mike told me and most of his real world associates about his wife being half-Jewish. It is not an issue for me. If TRS continues to grow at the current rate, in a few months most listeners will not know or care about this.

The Kike Stuff

Whitey was a bitter man who cursed the morning sun that brought a new betrayal every day. He shunned this world of shit-kikes and their lying lizard tongues, and blessed the night that chased their sight away. A disillusioned dreamer who would never dream again, who'd tried of it and found that it was rotten, preferring online strangers to the company of friends, because strangers are so easily forgotten.

Oh, it's hard to keep believing when you know you've been deceived, to face a lie and dare to try again; but there's nothing like a lying Kike's satanic make-believe, to make a new believer of a cuck.

Whitey took the fickle turns of fortune in his stride, expecting next to nothing out of life, 'til misfortune brought a Kike who fanned a flame he thought had died, whose larping rhetoric cut him like a knife. He touched him through the senses that his mind could not control, then smiling stepped aside and watched him fall, betrayed by his own dreams and the hunger in his soul. Whitey is a dreamer after all.


Here the Alt-Kike's Kike Godfather, Kike Paul Gottfried (on Reason Radio, being interviewed by Keith Spencer, just before Reason got kiked off the Internet), blames our kike-problems on . . . Christianity.



How Paul Gottfried—willing or reluctant—became the mentor of Richard Spencer and a philosophical lodestone for white nationalists

By Jacob Siegel, [The Kike's] Tablet, November 29, 2016

The night America elected Donald J. Trump president, 38-year-old Richard B. Spencer, who fancies himself the “Karl Marx of the alt-right” and envisions a “white homeland,” crowed, “we’re the establishment now.” If so, then the architect of the new establishment is Spencer’s former mentor, Paul Gottfried, a retired Jewish academic who lives, not quite contently, in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, on the east bank of the Susquehanna River. It’s the kind of town that reporters visit in an election season to divine the political faith of “real Americans.” A division of candy company Mars Inc. makes its home there, along with a Masonic retirement community, and the college where Gottfried taught before a school official encouraged his early exit.

Gottfried settled in Elizabethtown after his first wife died, when he decided to put family concerns ahead of professional ambitions and then set out to wage a low-level civil war against the Republican establishment. The so-called alt-right—identified variously with anti-globalist and anti-immigrant stances, cartoon frogs, white nationalists, pick-up artists, anti-Semites, and a rising tide of right-wing populism—is partly Gottfried’s creation; he invented the term in 2008, with his protégé Spencer.

The intellectual historian doesn’t have the look of a consigliere. Gottfried’s round face is covered by a trim white beard and crowned by a nearly bald head. Something about his appearance, maybe the beady, bespectacled eyes and the way his already small frame hunches forward at podiums, makes him look both timid and cantankerous. His voice has a squeaky register but his speeches, which are easy to find on the internet, are erudite and measured, ranging fluently from the legacy of fascism to the ills of multiculturalism and the “therapeutic welfare state.”

Gottfried doesn’t resolve the alt-right’s contradictions so much as he embodies them. He’s a sniffy traditionalist, a self-described “Robert Taft Republican,” with a classical liberal bent, and a Nietzschean American nationalist who goes out of his way to exaggerate his European affect. He opposes both the Civil Rights Act and white nationalism. He’s a bone-deep elitist and the oracle of what’s billed as a populist revolt. “If someone were to ask me what distinguishes the right from the left,” Gottfried wrote in 2008, “the difference that comes to mind most readily centers on equality. The left favors that principle, while the right regards it as an unhealthy obsession.”

Inequality is the alt-right’s foundational belief. In this view, there are inherent, irreducible differences not only between individuals but between groups of people—races, genders, religions, nations; all of the above. These groups each have their own distinctive characteristics and competitive advantages; accordingly, inequality is natural and good, while equality is unnatural and therefore bad and can only be imposed by force. In practice, it is typically a belief in white supremacy and a rejection of universalism.

To the ancient idea that the world is ordered by natural hierarchies the alt-right adds new wrinkles. It shows a nerdish enthusiasm for data-driven attempts to classify group cognitive abilities, an update on the social Darwinist “race science” popular before WWII that often resolves into a genes-are-destiny outlook. It also embraces concepts from the controversial field of evolutionary psychology, which attempts to explain the behavior of groups in terms of Darwinian natural selection. Because equality is both impossible and a kind of civic religion as Gottfried sees it, government attempts to enforce it are only pretexts for the state to increase its power and reach.

Railing against meddling bureaucracies and the threats they pose to liberty is a staple of conservative politics, but Gottfried’s arguments are more esoteric and more radical than anything you’d hear at a tea-party convention. Condensed, Gottfried’s theory holds that America is no longer a republic or a liberal democracy—categories that lost their meaning after the postindustrial explosion of bureaucratic apparatuses transformed the country into a “therapeutic managerial state.” Today, we are ruled by a class of managers who dress like bureaucrats but act like priests. This technocratic clerisy justifies its status by enforcing Progressive precepts like multiculturalism and political correctness, which pit different groups against each other as if they were religious edicts. As Gottfried tells it he was banished from the mainstream of political discourse for rejecting this liberal catechism. Now, versions of the same ideas that Gottfried says got him banished will be gospel in Trump’s White House.

“I view it as a partial vindication,” he told me just over a month before the presidential election, about the rise of the alt-right. “Much would depend on what Trump would do if he became president.”


Paul Edward Gottfried was born in 1941 in the Bronx, seven years after his father, Andrew, immigrated to America. Andrew Gottfried, a successful furrier in Budapest, fled Hungary shortly after Austria’s Chancellor Dollfuss was assassinated by Nazi agents in the “July putsch.” He had sensed that Central Europe would be squeezed in a vise between the Nazis and the Soviets and decided to take his chances in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where the family moved shortly after Paul was born. Andrew Gottfried opened a fur business in Bridgeport and became a prominent member of that city’s large expatriate Hungarian Jewish community.

The elder Gottfried was a man who “held grudges with extraordinary tenacity,” Paul recounts in his memoir, Encounters. His father had “fiery courage,” and a natural authority that impressed his son. He was a lifelong Republican who nevertheless admired FDR for beating the Nazis. But that was as far as his liberalism went; he had no time for “specious” attempts to draw universal lessons from Nazism about the American civil-rights movement or immigration policy. In all of this it seems, he was a model for his son’s intellectual life.

Though he wasn’t very religious, the younger Gottfried attended Yeshiva University in New York as an undergrad. On the plus side for the pudgy teenager, the school was full of “nonthreatening geeks,” who couldn’t bully him. But Gottfried was put off by his “bright” but “clannish” outerborough Orthodox Jewish classmates. New York was farther from Connecticut than he’d imagined. His fellow students “seemed to carry with them the social gracelessness of having grown up in a transported Eastern European ghetto.”

It used to be common even among assimilated Americans Jews from Central European backgrounds to look down on what they saw as the poorer, more provincial Jews from the Russian empire. You can see this prejudice in Hannah Arendt’s work, another author who blended “Teutonic pedantry and Jewish moral righteousness,” as a friend of Gottfried’s once described him. His classmates are clever but harried, whereas he has the aristocratic equanimity of Germanic high culture, which allows him true insight. It’s important to note not because this particular prejudice is more disqualifying than his others, but because of how deeply it informs his later writing. When Gottfried goes after the mostly Eastern-European-originating Jewish “neocons” and “New York intellectuals” he blames for kneecapping his career and refusing to give him his intellectual due, it’s not just the actual injury that wounds him, but the indignity of being laid low by his inferiors.

After graduation, Gottfried returned to Connecticut to attend Yale as a doctoral student, where he studied under Herbert Marcuse. A chapter of his memoir is devoted to Marcuse, one of the seminal intellectuals of the Frankfurt school whose critique of mass democracy profoundly shaped the new-left. Though he belonged to the Yale Political Union’s Party of the Right at the time, Gottfried “studied under Marcuse as a rapt, indulgent disciple.” In later years, one reviewer called Gottfried a “right-wing proponent of the Frankfurt school.” That description, while not strictly accurate, gives a sense of the overlap between Gottfried’s radical criticism of modern liberalism and a certain left-wing line of attack.

After graduating from Yale, Gottfried began his work as an academic and embarked on a prolific writing career, which he maintains. Over the course of 13 books and countless speeches and articles, he developed his major themes: the nature and force of history; the meaning and forms of conservatism; and in his “Marxism Trilogy,” an account of liberal democracy and the therapeutic managerial state as the hegemons of the modern world. While admiring aspects of Marx’s analysis of capitalism, Gottfried argues that Marxism was discredited by socialism’s economic failure. In the wake of this failure, Marx’s economic critique metastasized from an analysis of material conditions into a morality play. For the new post-Marxists, leftist politics were repurposed as a never-ending struggle to defeat fascism. Acting out this universalist crusade, Gottfried argues, the left became the afterlife of Christianity. “A Christian civilization created the moral and eschatological framework that leftist anti-Christians have taken over and adapted,” he wrote. “It is the fascists, not the Communists or multiculturalists, who were the sideshow in modern Western history.”

At the heart of the alt-right is a project, carried out by Gottfried and others, to revise the historical record of WWII. If there has been a left-wing political impulse to expand the meaning of fascism far beyond its original context, part of the right responds by making it so particular to interwar Europe that it defies any historical analogy.

In his book Fascism: The Career of a Concept, Gottfried argues that Spanish and Italian “generic fascism” belonged to a different genus than German Nazism. Hitler, the argument goes, was not really a fascist in the generic sense, but a far-right counter-revolutionary response to Stalin. A few years ago this might all have been interesting enough, grounds for contentious but seemingly abstract historical debates. Today, it’s clear that it also serves a political purpose. It takes away the power of “fascist” to stigmatize far-right politics. At the same time, it also helps to rescue a whole host of concepts tainted by association with fascism, like ethnic nationalism and “race science,” making it safe again for the right to openly advocate them.


The alt-right is the direct heir of the paleoconservatives, a first-draft attempt at a conservative insurgency in America that appeared to peak in the 1990s. The name “paleoconservative” was coined by Gottfried himself in 1986, which means he is batting a thousand when it comes to naming right-wing opposition movements.

In the decade before Gottfried arrived at Yale, postwar conservatism was born in a “fusionism” that brought together southern and religious traditionalists, Libertarians, and other disparate groups who shared a commitment to aggressive anti-Communist policies. It evolved as “a series of movements rather than the orderly unfolding of a single force,” Gottfried wrote in his 1986 history, The Conservative Movement. Not all the movements got along, and not long after they came together, the conservative establishment, led by the influential magazine National Review and its editor, William F. Buckley, started kicking people out. The so-called purges started with the John Birch society, radical right-wing anti-Communists and conspiracy theorists—think Alex Jones followers—whom Buckley excommunicated from the movement in 1962. After the Birchers, conservatives, again led by National Review, eventually pushed out white supremacists and anti-Semites, including some of Gottfried’s friends. These are major events in the official conservative history that showed the movement grappling with the legacy of WWII and the right’s own history of racism and bigotry.

Those pushed out the door saw it differently. If the purges are an important chapter for establishment conservatives, they are a foundational myth for the putative victims. These parties dismissed the charges of racism and anti-Semitism on the right as trumped up, or alternately waved them away as mere individual prejudice; the real threat, they argued, was from the purges themselves. By trying to prosecute intolerance, the conservative establishment was carrying out its own version of Soviet show trials while adopting the language and principles of their enemies on the left. Of course, the purged weren’t killed but “anathematized,” to use the victims’ preferred language, which could mean the difference between a faculty chair with a view of the Hudson and one overlooking the Susquehanna. Not trivial, but less gruesome than you’d gather from some partisan histories.

Neoconservatives emerged in the 1970s. They were a group of mostly Jewish and Catholic former leftists who moved right in reaction to the illiberalism of the 1960s’ new-left and out of its conviction that the failure of Great Society social programs proved that culture influenced behavior more than state policy. The original neocons included a number of former Trotskyites and Socialists but were staunch anti-Communists. This led them to advocate an interventionist role for the military, first as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and later as a guarantor of the postwar U.S.-led global democratic order. As the neocons rose through the conservative ranks, intellectual and institutional warfare ensued among them and the movement’s harder-right and traditionalist wings. The anti-neocons, like Gottfried, accused their enemies of being impostors—Wilsonian internationalists and Social Democrats in wolf’s clothing.

Paleoconservatives was the name Gottfried gave to the small group of anti-neocons who formed the internal opposition after the conservatives’ “fusion” coalition broke apart in the late 1980s. In The Conservative Movement, Gottfried voices the paleos’ heroic self-conception: “[They] raise issues that the neoconservatives and the left would both seek to keep closed … about the desirability of political and social equality, the functionality of human-rights thinking, and the genetic basis of intelligence … like Nietzsche, they go after democratic idols, driven by disdain for what they believe dehumanizes.”

In practice, paleoconservatives took some esoteric positions, like an embrace of Serbian nationalism that had little hope of catching on in the heartland or anywhere but the Marriott conference rooms where the paleos kept their fire burning. Because the neocons were disproportionately Jewish and the paleos keenly interested in proportions of Jews in the political establishment, there was allegations and evidence of anti-Semitism in their disputes. Gottfried complained regularly in his writing about “ill-mannered, touchy Jews and their groveling or adulatory Christian assistants,” his phrase for neocons who he claimed had hijacked the Republican Party and American policy. This belief that Jews were cultural and political saboteurs was common among some paleos, but Gottfried liked to put it in language he got away with as an indulgence of his own Jewishness. For their part, the neocons regarded the paleos as wannabe-European aristocrats with no real place in America’s democratic tradition. At worst, they were high-toned racists and anti-Semites; tweedy authoritarians who had come to hate their own country.

Like most political infighting, the conflict had a personal element, as Gottfried admits in a passage characteristic of his wounded self-awareness: “My understanding of neoconservatives, it might be argued, is insufficiently generous or insufficiently nuanced, but if that is the case, I would like to hear the neoconservatives’ response. Until now they have not replied to me, except by treating me as a liar or a lunatic.” This assessment seems fair enough. In a long article on the eve of the Iraq war that denounced the paleos as “unpatriotic conservatives,” leading neocon and Bush speechwriter David Frum mentions Gottfried only once, when he describes him as “the most relentlessly solipsistic of the disgruntled paleos, who has published an endless series of articles about his professional rebuffs.”

It is true that the paleos’ ranks included a fair number of cranks, racists, and anti-Semites whose prejudices were essential to their politics. But this exists uncomfortably alongside another aspect of the paleos—they were capable of some trenchant ideas about modernity and the American century. Where establishment liberalism went in for sentimental pieties and movement conservatism offered platitudes in place of wisdom, the paleos could be incisive and unsparing. They were relentless critics, for instance, of the Bush-era bromide that Iraq was only an invasion away from successful democracy—and, more generally, of preventive wars carried out in the name of democratic universalism. The paleos were also attuned to the costs of global trade—not only the loss in jobs but in community and self-worth—in a way that neoliberals and neoconservatives often were not.

Trumpism has revived a longstanding disagreement between the paleos and neocons over the basis of nationhood. Where neocons subscribed to the “propositional” nation, in which national identity is a function of political principles and creed, the paleos took a different view. They argued that nations were defined by the specific cultural and historical heritage of their founders. So “Americanness,” for instance, is not established by political ideals as much as by the legacy of Protestant English settlers from whose characters and milieu those ideals emerged naturally. The implications for immigration policy are clear—the more new immigrants’ backgrounds differ from the culture and belief of the original English settlers, the more they will transform Americanness. Some paleos like Gottfried framed this idea in cultural and civilizational terms, while others, like the influential Samuel Francis, advocated explicitly for white nationalism.

In 1986’s The Conservative Movement, Gottfried also devotes a section to “the new sociobiology” that emerged in the 1960s and its influence on the right. The book describes the field’s struggle to distinguish its social Darwinism from the “corrupted version” that was “exploited by the Nazis.” It concluded that “a biological reconstruction of sociology was unlikely to win many conservative adherents (apart from racialists).” Four years after that essay was published, Jared Taylor, now one of the most prominent alt-right figureheads, founded the white nationalist, racialist American Renaissance.

Taylor succeeded because he “avoided the obsessions and crankiness that have, unfortunately, characterized much of American racialism,” wrote erstwhile Gottfried disciple Richard Spencer. “With Jared and AmRen,” he noted, “there is a certain radicalness in mainstreaming, in presenting ideas that have world-changing consequences in packages that seem mellow and respectable.”

Though it wasn’t clear at the time, the paleos’ influence crested with Pat Buchanan’s failed run to be the Republican presidential nominee in 1992. Gottfried served as an adviser for the campaign, which scored an impressive win in the New Hampshire primary and effectively foreshadowed Trump’s strategy. Buchanan was too stiff and socially conservative to make Trump’s stylized alpha-male sales pitch, but he ran on a similar nationalist platform, promising to restrict immigration while opposing globalism and multiculturalism. A key architect of the Buchanan strategy and Gottfried’s friend, Samuel Francis, articulated in passing the spirit that animated their movement and that they would pass on to their heirs in the alt-right. “I am not a conservative,” Francis said, “but a man of the right, perhaps of the far-right.”

The War on Terror and invasion of Iraq meant that the paleocons were marginalized. Always self-critical, Gottfried recognized when his movement had become moribund, and along with a small group of fellow travelers on the far right—or the dissident right, as they then called it—Gottfried began plotting what would come next. He observed that the paleos had not appealed to young people. Also, they were missing an overriding principle to unite them. The original conservative fusionists had anti-Communism. What would the postpaleos have?


The first decade of the 21st century, after the War on Terror sidelined the anti-war paleocons and before Trump amplified their successors in the alt-right, were the wilderness years for Gottfried and his fellow thinkers of the far-right. In the dark, a few different things started growing. French Nouvelle Droite philosophers and other European “identitarians” informed a new ideological style that embraced ethno-nationalism but rejected purity tests and drew openly from leftist writers like Antonio Gramsci. At the same time, the paleo interest in sociobiology and “race realism” spread across the internet thanks to bloggers like Steve Sailer.

Anti-PC sentiment became the binding element in the new fusionism Gottfried hoped to achieve. The Obama presidency both stoked the anti-PC sentiment and inspired a millenarianism that made segments of the right open to radical new ideas. There was a certain itchiness, too, in the culture at that time. What once felt like a bug squirming in the American psyche—that the consolations of the culture industry and consumerism were not enough—burrowed into the spaces where wages stagnated, prospects shriveled, and the old liberal meritocracy hollowed out.

In a 2009 essay, Gottfried wrote: “To the extent that anything resembling the historic right can flourish in our predominantly postmodernist, multicultural and feminist society—and barring any unforeseen return to a more traditionalist establishment right—racial nationalism, for better or worse, may be one of the few extant examples of a recognizably rightist mind-set.” He praised white nationalists in the essay for acting as a battering ram against multiculturalism. And yet despite also describing this cohort as, in his experience, “articulate gentlemen with extraordinarily high intelligence,” he did not actually endorse their views, which he called reductive and impractical.

When I spoke with Richard Spencer by telephone a few days after the first Trump-Clinton debate in late September, he couldn’t resist making the generational conflict with his former mentor explicit. “Despite his demands that we move beyond paleoconservatism, Paul still is himself a bit of a paleocon. It’s still about defending an American republic.” And, if there was any remaining doubt, he added: “There’s a revolutionary heart to the alt-right, and I don’t think there’s a revolutionary heart to Paul Gottfried.” Spencer claims that he’s the one who actually invented the name “alternative right.” He says he came up with it as a headline for Gottfried’s speech, which never uses the words, when he published it in Taki’s Magazine, where he worked as an editor. Gottfried insists they “co-created” the name.

Spencer had moved toward the revolutionary wing of the new movement by 2010 when he created the website Alternative Right, which helped shape and popularize the loosely-knit alt-right movement. In the early 2010s, Spencer’s site and a handful of other influential outlets defined the aesthetic and political motifs of the current alt-right. A mix of shock-and-meme culture, metapolitics, right-wing social values, and anti-bourgeois posturing, it appealed to an audience of young reactionaries. It gave them something to do with their vast amounts of time online and sharpened their “fuck the normies” rage to a radical edge. Ethnic identitarianism anchored that rage and defined their enemies. Appealing to the nerdier inclinations of these adherents, the racial mythos was complemented by the biological determinist part of the program with its strong data bias. If, in a sense, white-nationalist identity politics was just another form of the left-wing identity politics that they claimed to despise, so be it; let the minorities and liberals have a taste of their own medicine.

“American society today is so just fundamentally bourgeois,” Spencer told me over the phone. “It’s just so, pardon my French … it’s so fucking middle-class in its values. There is no value higher than having a pension and dying in bed. I find that profoundly pathetic. So, yeah, I think we might need a little more chaos in our politics, we might need a bit of that fascist spirit in our politics.”

The fight over the degree of adherence to white-nationalist doctrines was an open one within the alt-right. “The Alt-Right Means White Nationalism … or Nothing at All” read the headline of an August 2016 editorial by Greg Johnson, editor of the influential alt-right publication Counter Currents. Johnson was responding to attempts to redefine the movement away from that position by people like Milo Yiannopoulos, the Breitbart journalist who insists he’s only a fellow traveler and not a member of the alt-right. “Milo seems to be defining European identity as hyperliberalism,” Richard Spencer tweeted in June. “This leads nowhere.”

While Gottfried calls Yiannopoulos his favorite figure on the alt-right for his opposition to government-led social policy and political correctness, this puts him awkwardly in the position he once accused the neocons of occupying—diluting the authentic core of right politics. “I am not beloved by the alt-right,” Gottfried told me. “I’m sort of somebody who remains aloof.” He has some hope for “collaboration among all the elements of the dissident right,” but within limits. “Where I would draw the line personally is white nationalists. They are not people I would want to include in my alliance. They sometimes say outrageous things and they are sitting ducks for the Southern Poverty Law Center and other leftist groups.”

In September, Gottfried also told me, “I have had no ideological collaboration with Richard Spencer for years, and given the direction he’s going, I doubt that I’ll have much to do with him politically in this lifetime.” But this isn’t strictly true if you count the 2015 book they co-edited published by Spencer’s Radix imprint. Nor is it true if you count even more recent mentions in print.

In August of this year, less than two months before we spoke, Gottfried wrote a column defending the alt-right in which he described Spencer as a “charismatic presence, in contrast to the nebbishes for Hillary.” He went further: “I fully share [Spencer’s] contemptuous attitude toward multicultural totalitarianism, and unlike Conservatism Inc., Richard is fearless in going after our self-appointed thought censors.” But added, finally, “I wish Richard would think more often before he blurts out reckless indiscretions. Shocking one’s listener has its limits, certainly in terms of traditional standards of taste.”

Speaking of Spencer and of himself, Gottfried said, “I think it is probably a trick that history plays on thinkers. But I think you’re right—he says that I’m his mentor. I think I’m his reluctant mentor, I’m not particularly happy about it.” He sighed. “Whenever I look at Richard, I see my ideas coming back in a garbled form.”

There is a shearing, centrifugal force to Gottfried’s intellect. It splits the center and flings ideas out; they land where they will. For more than 20 years, he has tried to build a postfascist, postconservative politics of the far-right. That Spencer and his acolytes wanted to cross the threshold into fascist thought and beliefs can’t really be a surprise. And unlike Gottfried, whose relentless iconoclasm has also helped insulate him from certain temptations, most people, and especially those with strong interests in fascism, are turned on by power. If he has unleashed a force in the alt-right that will finally destroy the detested managerial state, it’s a force that has people like Richard Spencer at its core. Since last week, when Spencer declared “Hail Trump” at a valedictory press conference at which attendees were photographed sieg heil-ing, there have been attempts by others on the alt-right to write him off as marginal and to rebrand their movement. If they are able to successfully rename themselves, it won’t change this: Neo-nazism, while not the whole story, is one part of the alt-right, just as the alt-right is not nearly the whole story of Trump’s victory but played a crucial part.

The political crackup of the past year has aroused a level of fear and despair, and an almost-erotic thrill—all of it backed by the threat of violence—that no president will ever fully satisfy or exorcise. Night hasn’t quite fallen yet on the old order, but it’s dusk—the gloaming hour. We aren’t even ready yet for a strange beast to be born. Instead, we’re stuck for now with the odd pairings of familiar forms, like the union of racists and anti-anti-racists that Gottfried helped pioneer, and which is now a staple of the alt-right.

“I just do not want to be in the same camp with white nationalists,” Gottfried told me. “As somebody whose family barely escaped from the Nazis in the ’30s, I do not want to be associated with people who are pro-Nazi.” But it is too late for that. As he once wrote about the followers of Leo Strauss: “One knows the tree by the fruit that it bears.” The fruit is strange.

(Jacob Siegel is a New York based writer who has written for The New York Times, the New York Daily News and Vice and was formerly a staff reporter at The Daily Beast covering war and protest politics. He was an author and editor of the fiction anthology Fire and Forget.)

Here's another favourite of the Alt-Kike, "Paul 'DON'T MENTION JEWS!' Kersey", also on Reason just before it got kiked (the interviewer, Robert Stark, moved on to Kike Enoch's friend Greg Johnson's queer-site; Johnson says everybody knew Enoch's Kike wife is "half-Jewish", and defends Enoch) :

Greg Johnson, like Kike Enoch and most of the Alt-Kike, opposes Whites mixing with non-Whites, but support and defend Whites who mix with and work for Kikes.

Kike Enoch, and Johnson, and most of the Alt-Kike (most of whom are basically kikoglibertarian degenerates) are Zionists. who admire The Kike's Globalist pseudo-"ethno-state", and argue that it should be emulated.

Some comments at Alt-Right Blogspot:
Hipster Racist to Peter • The main problem with the Anglins and the TRSers is they were born yesterday. I doubt most of them are even old enough to have voted for Trump. No, you were NOT the first to "introduce humor" and you were NOT the first to tell Holocaust jokes. "Effective" at what? TRS was "effective" and raising money for Enoch to give to his Jewess wife. Anglin is "effective" at entertaining teenage boys. None of them have had any appreciable effect on racial attitudes in the USA. None of them had the slightest influence on Trump's election. (Trump got barely any more White votes then Romney did and Clinton won the popular vote.) You all live in an online bubble - a circle jerk - and are creating a pretend fantasy world where you have some sort of influence. But you have literally zero evidence of anything other than amusing yourselves. It's sad and pathetic - and this latest TRS scandal should open people's eyes. But it's not - you are all just doubling down, as usual. Big bad "neo-Nazi" Anglin is now defending a liar that suckered you all. Enoch's "Nazi" gimmick at NPI got innocence people doxed and fired. Enoch's Jewess wife was in on the joke - they were laughing at their audience and the suckers are still in denial about how they were had. Sad!

Three Stars to Hipster Racist • "Effective" at what? TRS was "effective" and raising money for Enoch to give to his Jewess wife. Believing that people of the economic status the 'Enochs' have irl will go into nazi podcasting for the money is frankly moronic. Considering their jobs, they must be making upper of 300.000 dollars a year. That Styx guy is a goofball and an uninformed idiot.

Hipster Racist to Three Stars • If you think Enoch - a Javascript programmer working at a third rate dot-com in NYC - makes $300k you obviously don't know jack about the industry and have likely never lived in NYC or worked for such companies. Enoch likely made in the low six figures at most. Consider that a terrible shitty apartment on the Upper East Side costs $2-5k a month low six figures is barely middle class. Enoch wasn't in it for the money obviously - he was in it because he and his Jewish wife and his Democratic party multi-racial family likely found it extremely amusing that they were pulling the wool over the eyes of you "racist" flyover country idiots. But the fact remains - he was taking his Jew wife out to trendy hipster eateries on your dimes - and yukking it up the whole time. They will likely make aliyah to Tel Aviv next. You've been had - admit it. Just take your lumps and move on.

Greg Johnson • TRS and The Daily Shoah aren't going anywhere. Enoch is a goy. His wife is half-Jewish. He told me and most of his IRL associates about her. I don't have a problem with it. If I had a problem with it, it would be basically equivalent to wishing Mike never had gotten involved in the movement, and that would be stupid. In 6 months, TRS and TDS will have 250k downloads a month, and the vast majority of listeners will never have heard of this.

Percival to Greg Johnson • Greg, I've heard she's only 1/4 Jewish. Dr. Duke defended Mike and TRS on his program this morning. ZOG is being ZOG. Sending legions of trolls to attack leaders of WN, promote purity spirals and attack men who are landing blows against them effectively. Mike was only "woke" two years ago and met her 10 years ago. We need to look at HIS DEEDs and WORK. There are enemies posing as allies trying to divide us. We must all support TRS and make sure the show goes on.

Greg Johnson to Percival • She's half. Mike is like a lot of WNs: he was red-pilled because he had a front row seat in his own family on the consequences of race-mixing and liberalism. The Jews think they can win by mixing our genes and loyalties out of existence. But the existence of tragic mulattos and Jewlattos is red-pilling in itself. But the ties are still real, and they make it hard to separate us. I see nothing wrong with working for a solution to this problem for future generations, even though one might not fit in oneself. Again, does anyone think that Mike should never have become part of the movement because of his wife?

Hipster Racist to Percival • Anything to keep the fake Jew-run "neo-Nazi" scam movement going. Spin, spin, spin. Jews have invested so much in this scam, can't let it fall apart just because the scam artists running the show keep getting outed. Greg Johnson is right - the marks will forget about this in a few weeks and the scam will continue. Jews have been running the "neo-Nazi" movement for 50 years and have a perfect track record of preventing authentic White Nationalism from gaining ground due to it. So now the scam artists will call for "unity" and "forgiveness" and say "don't punch to the right!" Kind of ironic that the people actually using "D&C" tactics are the ones that complain the most about it. Enoch IS the enemy posing as an ally trying to divide us. Enoch IS the guy that would LARP against normal whites. Your fake "neo-Nazis" ARE the enemy that do everything you can to isolate the pro-White movement in the ADL created "neo-Nazi" ghetto. You ARE the enemy - you are a Jew collaborator.

Greg Johnson to Hipster Racist • So, what do you think of Hailgate? Do you think that Richard Spencer is a Jew collaborator now too?

Hipster Racist to Greg Johnson • I've already said many times what I think of that situation. Enoch caused a situation, Spencer did his best to do damage control. It was YOU, Greg Johnson, that attacked Spencer over that conference. I defended him. Did Spencer make some mistakes? Maybe. Did Enoch make a "mistake" - no doubt - if it was just a "mistake" that is. Considering the context and the recent revelations - he's now gone to Salon to throw his fellow TRS guys under the bus - maybe "mistake" isn't the correct term.

melonhead to Hipster Racist • http://www.salon.com/2017/01/16/cat-fight-on-the-alt-right-neo-nazi-podcaster-mike-enoch-quits-after-doxxers-reveal-his-wife-is-jewish/ – He's a smart guy - before he admitted it he came up with some plausible-ish denial and asked salon to help spread the word. I hope Salon's wrong that he's leaving. But any chance of this being a tempest in a teapot and him getting to keep his job looks unlikely.

Greg Johnson to Hipster Racist • That's stupid. The problem was Spencer's Nazi-larping speech and the fact that he neglected to tell people about the cameras in the room. People in the audience were just following Spencer's lead. He is 100% responsible for the fiasco. But keep on fluffing'.

Hipster Racist to Greg Johnson • I saw the video of the entire speech. The use of the term "Lugenpresse" was not LARPing. The "Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory" was indeed quite cringe-worthy, but also not LARPing. Raising his glass was not LARPing. LARPing was Mike Enoch running to the front of the room and doing a stupid "Heil Hitler" salute. No one asked him to do that. No normal person would have done that. It was pure LARPy nonsense - if that is in fact all it was. I don't know about "fluffin" but it seems odd you'd complain about Spencer - who wasn't LARPing - while defending Enoch who was.

Greg Johnson to Hipster Racist • Dude, you are being dishonest. Spencer is fully responsible for the debacle. Calling out "Hail victory" in front of the cameras was calling for a Nazi salute. And it obviously was not Enoch running to the front of the room. But whatever. You've got a dishonest narrative to shill.

Hipster Racist to Greg Johnson • Dude, disagreeing with you is not "dishonest." No, "Hail victory" is not in any way "calling out for a Nazi salute." Didn't Enoch himself admit on a podcast that he started the whole Nazi salute business? From what Red Ice said, there were only two or maybe three people in the entire audience of what - 200? - that did the salute. You've got a dishonest narrative to shill - apparently due to your long standing and rather catty dislike of Spencer for whatever reason. How odd you would use this event to smear Spencer while defending Enoch. Enoch had his wife on his podcast numerous times - she was obviously well aware of the content. If her online persona is anything to go by, her actual views are the exact opposite of everything TRS was supposed to stand for. How is that not dishonest?

Greg Johnson to Hipster Racist • Disagreeing dishonestly is dishonest. You are being dishonest.

Greg Johnson to Hipster Racist • You are a Spencer shill and an Enoch denigrator. How does it feel to learn that Spencer stands by Enoch in all this?

Percival to Hipster Racist • I guess Richard Spencer and David Duke, both of whom firmly stood by TRS and Mike, are "Jew collaborators" as well.

Hipster Racist to Percival • Two guys doing damage control because they have a lot to lose. If Enoch wasn't such a dishonest LARPer no one would have had to spin anything.


Annoying but sincere 'anti-1488-er' Colin Liddell on The Kike Enoch and how his The Kike Stuff is "a safety valve" for The Kike, and "a form of masturbation":

Another guy I don't like (a 'neopagan' tool), who at least seems honest, and who does a fair job of summing up TRS Kikery:

"The First Triumvirate: Richard Spencer, Mike Enoch and Andrew Anglin", The Daily Stormer, 2016.12.16 :


Anglin, like a true SJW, is doubling down, and says he will step in with Kike Enoch's collaborators to help keep The Kike Stuff going:
Here’s the Thing

Andrew Anglin, Daily Stormer, January 15, 2017



As most of you probably already know, we’ve had a minor crisis in the Alt-Right. As the kike dox squad continues their rampage, Mike Enoch of The Right Stuff was doxed.

And here’s the thing: Jew wife.

wow just wow.

And I mean that seriously. In fact, this may be the first time I’ve ever said “wow just wow” with 100% deadly seriousness. This was definitely not expected.

I would personally rather just not talk about this at all, but clearly, given my position as the top head figure of the world’s most goal-oriented Republican website, I’m being asked by a lot of people what I think of this situation involving the #2 Republican podcast.

Basically, I’m not going to attack or defend. I don’t think either is appropriate.


I don’t think that Mike is a shill, or that this Jew wife situation indicated that he is part of a Jewish conspiracy.

Mike and TRS have been at the forefront of exposing the Jewish problem. They are, along with this website, and some older figures such as David Duke, the only people really going hard on the Jews.

The situation seems pretty self-explanatory. He was married ten years ago, long before he was aware of the Jew problem, and so he felt was locked into a situation.

That is not to say he handled it well. At the very least, he should have known that eventually he was going to get doxed, and been prepared for this. Really, he should have gotten a divorce. I think that’s reasonable.

Ah well. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. No use now.

As far as if he actually did betray anyone – no. He was obviously dishonest on some level, but if we look at his contribution, and ask ourselves “did this forward the 14 words?” we will see that it did, and the weirdness in his personal life doesn’t change that. Tens of thousands – maybe even hundreds of thousands – of men have been brought into the movement through TRS and Mike’s work, and nothing can or will change that.

I’ve always been pro-practicality, and believed that men should be judged on their works. And Mike’s works were objectively good.


We push forward. This will blow over. It is a bump in the road.


TRS is too big to fail. And no one in that community, that I am aware of, knew about the Jew wife. [They almost all knew.]


And what has The Alt-Kike achieved?

Here's one thing:
Giuliani announces he’ll be Trump’s czar for the cyber thing

Ars Technica, 12 Jan 2017

Former NY mayor tells Fox that private industry will solve cybersecurity for the US.

On Fox News’ morning show Fox & Friends, former mayor (and frequent proxy for Donald Trump) Rudy Giuliani announced that he would be coordinating a cybersecurity advisory group for the Trump administration.

Giuliani’s bona fides for this role apparently spring from his time as chair of the “Cybersecurity, Privacy and Crisis Management Practice” at the New York law firm Greenberg Traurig, a position he assumed a year ago. However, it’s not clear that Giuliani has ever had any direct experience in cybersecurity law or policy. Giuliani previously was a partner in a Houston-based international law firm Bracewell (formerly Bracewell & Giuliani) for over 10 years, and he ran his own security consulting firm based on his mayoral experience and credibility from New York City’s measures taken after the September 11, 2001 terror attack. But Giuliani is really counting on private industry to provide all the answers.

“The President-elect decided that he wanted to bring in on a regular basis the private sector—the corporate leaders in particular and thought leaders in particular for cyber, because we’re so far behind,” said Giuliani. “And it’s his belief which I share, that a lot of the solutions are out there, we’re just not sharing them. It’s like cancer—there’s cancer research going on all over the place. You’d almost wish they’d all get together in one room, and maybe they’d find a cure.”

Giuliani said he believes that industry will have to lead an answer to cybersecurity rather than government. “That’s where we have the great creativity and we have the huge amount of money, and that’s where we have these great companies, the greatest in the world,” Giuliani said this morning. “So the idea here is to bring together corporate leaders and their technological people. The president will meet with them on an ongoing basis, as well as anyone else in the administration… I’ll coordinate the whole thing.”

The goal appears to be a one-way flow of information from industry to the government. “Number one, it’ll give the government all the information available in the private sector,” Giuliani explained. “Number two, it’ll form a little more connection between these people who are doing cybersecurity so they can work with each other. Some of these people, you put one and two together, you’re going to come up with six.”

Much of the private sector already shares information with each other, so it’s not really clear what benefit other than presidential face time corporate executives and “technological people” will get out of this proposed arrangement. The financial industry, for example, has the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center; the auto, aviation, telecommunications, health, retail, and transportation industries, among others, all have their own organizations as well.

Previously, there have been efforts, including the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, to encourage an exchange of information between government and industry. And the Obama administration made attempts to foster other industries to form information sharing and analysis organizations (ISAOs) through the Department of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. That administration also encouraged information sharing standards.

It’s not clear what roles any ISAOs will have in this new cybersecurity body, or even who the “thought leaders” Giuliani wants to participate will be. But Giuliani apparently wants to include foreign cybersecurity firms, including some from Israel. “They have tremendous cyberdefense research,” he said this morning. “We don’t get access to that over here.”


Yeah . . . Of course . . . The United States of America needs Kikestan-in-Palestine to defend it. . . . .
TRS founder Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich was exposed as being a Russian Jew.

Posted by Rumiko Oumae, MAJORITY RIGHTS, 16 January 2017

[For illustrations, go to: https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/trs_founder_michael_enoch_peinovich_exposed_as_being_a_russian_jew_16012017]

Look at that email address.

Web archive from 2014 reveals something amazing

Order of Battle

As you all are aware, Mike Enoch, now revealed to be actually Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich, is the founder of the website The Right Stuff, which opened in 2012 and hosts the popular and dubiously overwrought podcasts Fash the Nation and The Daily Shoah.

The Right Stuff has spent the entirety of the past four years serving up piping-hot reactionary narratives all of which just so happen to serve the geostrategic agenda of the architects of Russian foreign policy by carrying out Active Measures, American domestic honeypot agenda of the FBI, and the Israeli security agenda.

But if anyone had pointed that out before today, such a person would have been called ‘paranoid’ and even ‘insane’. After today however, such a person would simply be called ‘well informed’.

Note: The name ‘Pejnovic’ has a diaspora in 20 countries worldwide and has its highest concentration in Zagreb, Gospic and Klenovac, Croatia. It is found in small numbers in Peru, in the United States, and in the Russian Federation. ‘Peinovich’ is a Russian-Jewish variant that found its way into the diaspora of the United States and in Argentina.

The whole saga leading up to the revelation of Enoch’s real identity, started after Red Ice Radio hosted a show on 26 December 2016 in which Reactionary Jew was invited on as a guest and Lana Lokteff asked the audience to give them feedback on whether right-wing Jews have a place in the supposedly ethno-nationalist political scene that has recently been emerging in the west.

This question was of course met with outrage from various quarters as would be expected. But what was truly interesting was that many of the users and even some global moderators at The Right Stuff began to respond to that provocative question in the affirmative. That was met with deep suspicion by everyone, because it is suspicious.

The controversy and trolling then moved to 4chan /pol/, which is basically the wild west. People from The Right Stuff orchestrated a two week long posting and sliding campaign in which non-stop wall-to-wall pro-Israel propaganda posts and threads were created by them. 4chan /pol/ moderators then began banning all of the TRS people who were doing that, and the details of the bans were then taken back to the TRS forums and presented there.

This is just an example of some of the things that the TRS people were putting up:

4chan post 106813204

4chan post 106807711

TRS then proceeded to deny everything. They claimed that other groups were impersonating them. Some claimed that Hillary Clinton’s CTR was conducting pseudo-operations against them. Some claimed that EU Stratcom was targeting them. Some claimed that British intelligence was targeting them. Some claimed that ‘SJWs’ and Chicago Antifa were trolling them. They claimed that somehow Stormfront was trying to make them look bad. The claims were feverish and frenetic, bold and brash, and all diversionary nonsense.

Somewhere along the way, the TRS people decided that since they were trapped in that situation, the ultimate distraction would be to initiate a miniature Cyberwar against 8chan for no apparent reason. TRS decided to attempt a DDoS against 8chan. It failed. At this point, 8chan /baphomet/ became interested in the feud and many of its denizens informed TRS that they must stop their behaviour immediately, and that they must also apologise for the DDoS attacks and that they must apologise for making the pro-Israel posts, on air, or it would be war.

TRS basically then told 8chan /baphomet/ to “bring it on”.

8chan is however, an anonymous message board that sits on the edge of the Darknet. So they brought it, but no one really will ever know who ‘they’ are. TRS found itself being DDoS’d and this forced them to take shelter under Cloudflare. While the TRS staff were attending to that, they also found themselves being doxxed and the process was being crowdsourced on 8chan /baphomet/.

TRS then tried to go back to 4chan /pol/ and play the two sites against each other by claiming that 8chan /baphomet/ were actually the Antifa. Of course, TRS had just previously bombastically accused 4chan /pol/ of being the Hillary campaign on one hand and of being western intelligence on the other, so no one at 4chan was really in the mood for yet another round of that nonsense again. Furthermore, TRS had misunderstood the nature of anonymous message boards, supposing that there was a real dividing line between the ‘communities’ at 8chan and at 4chan. There is no such dividing line in actuality, because no one is seriously loyal to an anonymous message board. It’s just a vehicle through which various actors can drape themselves in a cloak of trendy anonymity. There is no ‘community’.

The Right Stuff subsequently found itself being Blown The Fuck Out by all of its adversaries, and all of their adversaries were able to maintain anonymity during the process.

Isn’t that marvellous?


It turns out that Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich is a Javascript Developer and a Public Relations Professional who has worked as a Front End Developer at BurrellesLuce, Time Inc, and Vook. He’s from New York. Vook was later rebranded as Pronoun, and is now a subsidiary of Holtzbrink Publishing Group.

Oh, and Peinovich is a Russian Jew married to a Jewish woman named Ames Friedman.

In 2010 he ran an Anarcho-capitalist blog called ‘Emptiness’, at which his wife made several comments with her real name.

In the same year, Peinovich also wrote an article for the Mises Institute.

On 03 July 2015, Peinovich appeared on Red Ice Radio, and actually mentioned that article which he had written for the Mises Institute, when he was explaining to them that he ‘used to be a libertarian’. He cryptically commented after the 13 minutes 25 seconds timestamp, “if you find it, ask if it’s me, and if you get it right, maybe I’ll tell you.”

At this point I don’t think anyone will need to be making any guesses about that anymore. On top of that, Peinovich earlier admitted to everything on the TRS forums before basically transforming himself into the ‘shut it down’ meme and shutting everything down:

TRS 504ums post 722450

There is no more speculation, there is only fact. Mike ‘Enoch’ Peinovich in fact admitted to what he has done.

Datamining concerns

Assuming that the entire TRS entity either originated as or became a full spectrum Information Operation, it means that all the usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, access logs, security questions, and password hashes that were submitted by people who—against all good advice—chose to actually register on the ridiculous TRS forum have a not-insignificant probability of falling into the hands of any number of adversaries who Peinovich may have allegiance to. FBI? Mossad? Who even knows at this point?

Does anyone really think this story is over? For some people, the problems may only just have begun.

Questions Remain

The remaining question would be, who knew about Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich’s Jewish identity before it was exposed today, when did they know, and if anyone did know, why wasn’t it exposed via normal channels much earlier?

A lot of people were in a position to have noticed the fact that Peinovich was in fact a Russian Jew orchestrating a massive disinformation campaign against everyone, one which may have influenced the outcome of the American election and created significant disruption in other English-speaking countries.

This is a partial list of the people who have directly interacted with Peinovich in some way over the past few years, and who one would think ordinarily should have detected that something was very wrong:

  • Richard Spencer
    Greg Johnson
    Kevin MacDonald
    Colin Liddell
    Jared Taylor
    Andrew Anglin
    Lana Lokteff
    Henrik Palmgren
    David Duke
    Colin ‘Millenial Woes’ Robertson
    Bob DC aka Wolf Wall Street
    Kyle Bristow
    James Edwards
    John Friend
    Sam Dickson
    Jack Donovan
    William Regnery
    Andrew ‘Weev’ Auernheimer

It’s truly astounding that supposedly none of those people noticed anything, despite them having either worked with him and having been in interviews with him, or them having called in to TRS during its radio shows. At one point, Peinovich was even brought into a live podcast during the NPI 2015 conference.

Of particular significance is Peinovich’s relationship to Kyle Bristow. Bristow is the Executive Director of Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, Inc., an Alt-Right organisation that advocates on behalf of Alt-Right figures and coordinates legal services for them. Peinovich joined its board of directors on 11 December 2016, joining five lawyers, and law student, and a journalist who were already on the board of directors there. I presume they too might like everyone to believe that they didn’t notice anything?

Another one of key significance is Peinovich’s connection to Andrew ‘Weev’ Auerenheimer. Weev is the person who basically did a significant amount of work on the TRS website in order to ‘secure’ it. At some point between 2014 and 2017, the Paypal donations on that site were deactivated and only the Bitcoin donations remained. If Weev was the one who implemented that change, did he not notice the email address linked to their Paypal account was a glaring giveaway about who Mike Enoch really is? But if he did notice the disturbing truth, why did he not alert anyone? Many people could speculate.

Here are some examples of obvious clues that they could have picked up on:

Rebel Yell 145, at 19m55s

Rebel Yell 145, at 25m10s

Rebel Yell 145, at 28m00s

Just as large swathes of the American population were getting ready to give up on the system as it presently exists and to instead settle into total cynicism, along came the Trumpists and outlets like The Right Stuff, who managed to revitalise and rescue the ridiculous system yet again!

And also there was this extra incident here:

"I used the word 'Jewed', in thet kind of context, basically all my life. And even amongst other Jews I use the word 'Jew' that way."

Mike Enoch basically admits he's Jewish!

Fucking incredible. All of the anti-semitic rhetoric that was going on there basically was a cover for the fact that a whole Jewish operation was being conducted right under the noses of the supposedly ‘red pilled’ and ‘savvy’ generation of new American right-wing activists.

Over the coming days and weeks, I’m sure that all kinds of explanations will be forthcoming from all of those people. The question that needs to be asked over and over again, is this: Who knew about Peinovich’s Jewish identity before today, and if any of them did know, when precisely did they know, and why did they not reveal it as soon as they became aware of it?


“They [TRS] use that echo shit instead of naming the Jew. Just like they call themselves fashy instead of fascist. They're pussies and fakes. That's why we're going after them and anyone associated with them. TRS is a pro jewish organization, created by the jews for the jews. bulbasaur literally larps. ghoul has gay moms. seventh son married a meth addict. mike is a fat fuck with a jew mom and with a faghag for a wife. I regret nothing.”


The chronology is:

RedIce promoted Kike

A bunch of anti-Kikes got online to oppose kikery and queerness

TRS characters defended kikery and queerness

TRS tried to hack/troll 4chan and 8chan posters

TRS dared anti-kike and anti-queer 4/8-channers to try to doxx them

TRS got doxxed — addresses, house values, phones, friends, school pix, etc

TRS lied and claimed that they had been attacked by “anti-fa”

TRS got more doxxed

TRS tried to apologise at 8chan

Peinovich lied to Salon kikes, and said he’s not Enoch, is kikey, has kike-wife, is afraid of Nazis

And so on

Morons feel sympathy for TRS kike fags and send them shekels


Some comments I came across:

(((Mike Enoch)))

owner of TRS

wife is Jewish

real surname is Peinovich

caused controversy yelling "Heil Trump!" and doing the Nazi salute at conference
knew full well the place was full of cameras and it was going to go viral

wife worked for NBC

The Atlantic is a subsidiary of NBC

The Atlantic was doing a documentary on Richard Spencer that day

the documentary crew recorded them doing the "Heil Trump!" stunt that went viral


works promoting diversity hires

leader of the Jewish supremacist lodge B'nai B'rith

B'nai B'rith has ties to Mossad, ADL and SLPC

wife regularly promotes LGBT degeneracy

wife performed in anti-Christian "this is how we Jew it" event last Christmas
wife knew about and participated in her husband's "Nazi" radio show


claim they are relevant yet site is ranked 40,090th

claim they expand the base yet need shilling on 4pol and 8pol

claim they expand the base yet regularly attack transitional ideologies

take credit for literally everything that 4pol and 8pol create

pretend wife is just 1/4 Jewish when she is a full blown kike

complain about purity spiralling yet had zero tolerance just a week ago

complain about division yet spent the last months attacking everyone in the right

degenerate fascism into "fashy" and call each other "goy"


BTW, speaking of "ALt-Right", here's The Kike Milo's fag-bitch, who is being promoted by TRS and The Daily Stormer:

Kike Enoch has amazing chutzpah, even for an NYC Kike. He still kvetches about how they have to vet people more to keep out infiltrators, while he brought his kike wife on to shit on Christmas.

If you go to a Degenerate Pool Party, watch your ass around Kike Enoch's kikewife's dildo.














TRS got enough shekels from self-described "goyim" to get some gear and to keep the kikesite running, but it was more about kiking "dumb goyim", helping get The Kike's Trumpwhore elected, and taking audiences away from real anti-Kikes by promoting faggy "trump-frog memes"


America is KIKED.

Only Europeans can save Europe.


Pope warns against populism and 'saviours' like Hitler

Madrid (AFP) - Pope Francis warned against populism, saying it could lead to the election of "saviours" like Hitler.

In an hour-long interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais conducted as Donald Trump was being sworn in as US president, the pontiff also condemned the idea of using walls and barbed wire to keep out foreigners.

"Of course crises provoke fears and worries," he said but added that for him "the example of populism in the European sense of the word is Germany in 1933. Germany... was looking for a leader, someone who would give her back her identity and there was a little man named Adolf Hitler who said 'I can do it'. Hitler did not steal power," the pope said. "He was elected by his people and then he destroyed his people."

The Germans at that time also wanted to protect themselves with "walls and barbed wire so that others cannot take away their identity," he said. "The case of Germany is classic," he said, adding that Hitler gave them a "deformed identity and we know what it produced."

Character Studies (2005), an anthology of Mark Singer's work was received favorably by The New York Times Book Review – "Singer is a terrific reporter, with a receptive ear for dialogue and a painter's eye for the salient detail." In response to the review in the Times, Trump wrote a letter to the editor, in which he called Singer a "loser" who "was not born with great writing ability." After reading the letter to the editor, Singer sent Trump a thank you note, ironically noting the added publicity Trump had drawn to Character Studies, and enclosing a check for $37.82 as a token of his "enormous gratitude," adding, "You're special to me." Trump sent the letter back, with the handwritten message, "MARK — YOU ARE A TOTAL LOSER — AND YOUR BOOK (AND WRITINGS) SUCKS! BEST WISHES DONALD P.S. AND I HEAR IT IS SELLING BADLY."





Search form
Latest Journals
Latest comments
Monthly archive
Friend Request Form

Want to be friends with this user.