Scientific American/Army propaganda

I found this on the back of a recent Scientific American magazine:

black leader

If you don’t think this is propaganda, then accept my challenge: Provide us with a similar (recent) photo, from a large establishment organization, depicting an anonymous white man as the leader over anonymous black and female underlings. When the subjects are anonymous, they don’t represent actual individuals, but members of their particular demographic groups.

This example also illustrates how race trumps gender in the left Establishment. Ordinarily, if a mixed gender group is shown, a woman must be depicted in an important/positive role. But the adoration of the black male takes precedence over female “empowerment.”

Posted in Africa and blacks, examples of propaganda, government/corporate discrimination against whites, Uncategorized | Tagged | 6 Comments

A plea for help from a 16 yr. old German girl

Europe is being destroyed by its hostile elites, by its evil politicians. Not many are brave enough to speak up, but this 16 year old does just that. This video was banned by the German government, and by Facebook.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, immigration/ Hispanics, Muslims | 6 Comments

Why the ignorant masses remain ignorant

Back in 2013, the New York Times ran an article by Alexandra Brodsky that admonishes us:

Yet in the face of this violence, we demand that the victimized sacrifice their freedom and adjust their behavior so we don’t have to disturb the status quo.

If we were, instead, to acknowledge the sweeping inequalities that drive sexual assault, we would have to re-examine the structure of our whole society – and that would be inconvenient, wouldn’t it?

The Huffington Post, back in 2011, ran an article by Hayley Rose Horzepa that informs us:

Victim blaming, however, is a huge part of our culture. I’m sure you’ve heard these all-too-classic lines, probably more than once:

  • “She was dressed provocatively.”
  • “She had a bad reputation.”
  • “She should have known better than to put herself in that situation.”

Let’s talk about convenience, and let’s talk about victim-blaming. Let’s talk about Imam Sami Abu-Yusuf of Cologne, Germany. A recent Breitbart article describes his reaction to the mass rapes of this New Year (which were primarily by Muslim migrants against native European women):

Explaining in the view of Salafist Islam why hundreds of women found themselves groped, sexually assaulted and in some cases raped by gangs of migrant men in cities across Germany the Imam said: “the events of New Year’s Eve were the girls own fault, because they were half naked and wearing perfume. It is not surprising the men wanted to attack them. [Dressing like that] is like adding fuel to the fire”.

Here’s a screenshot from a Google search for Imam Sami Abu-Yusuf:

Imam SamiNot one of the 25 largest US newspapers* appears on the first page of results. In fact, none of them appear on the first five pages of results either; it’s likely that none of these top 25 US newspapers reported his statements at all. The New York Times, and Huffington Post, which were both outspoken about blaming rape victims, are both silent when the one doing the blaming is an imam. Perhaps it would be “inconvenient” for them to report it. Perhaps it’s a “huge part of their culture” to ignore it.

Unless you read right-wing blogs and news sites, you will be ignorant of stories such as the above. It’s true that the statements of one man don’t amount to much, but this story is not alone in being ignored by the left Establishment press. Hundreds, if not thousands, of similar stories are also ignored by the largest newspapers. At the same time, stories that do fit their narrative (that “people of color” are oppressed, and white men are the oppressors) are featured prominently for long periods of time.

More than anything else, it’s exposure to news stories that shape a person’s political identity. Once a person is molded into a liberal, by years of exposure to selective reporting, that person will recoil at the sight of alternative news; it will offend him, and strike him as “Islamophobic” or “racist.” In this sense, liberals and Muslims are very much alike; they’re both adherents to religions that are intolerant of alternate views of the world.

*The Daily Mail is a British tabloid.

Posted in examples of propaganda, Muslims | 3 Comments

How I got banned from Truth Revolt

Truth Revolt is a useful news site; many of the stories it features are from a truly conservative perspective, and pro-white as well. The comments section is not much different from what you’d see on, and I used to contribute my own comments…

Until I was suddenly banned.  It took a while to figure out why I was banned, but now I know which of my comments aroused their ire:

Well… it’s true that Republicans are evil. The vast majority of them are cuckservatives.

Truth Revolt reflects the views of David Horowitz:

The David Horowitz Freedom Center is unique among conservative think tanks whose emphasis is on public policy and institutional reform in that it sees its role as that of a battle tank, geared to fight a war that many still don’t recognize. For 27 years, since its founding in 1988, the Center has been warning that the political left has declared war on America and its constitutional system, and is willing to collaborate with America’s enemies abroad and criminals at home to bring America down. For most of those years the Center was a voice crying in the wilderness with few willing to recognize the threat from the enemy within, a fifth column force that was steadily expanding its influence within the Democratic Party. With the election of a lifetime radical to the White House in 2008, the perceptions of conservatives began to change. But the Center remains unique as an organization dedicated to the war and to developing strategies to win it.

But Horowitz’s “Freedom Center” draws the line in allowing an explicit white identity. Back in 2002, his Frontpagemag website republished (with some omissions) Amren’s article on the Wichita Massacre. He wrote this disclaimer at the time:

July 15, 2002

In the editorial I wrote to accompany today’s lead story on the Wichita Massacre, I said “In the present atmosphere of racial hypocrisy, the mere expression of concern over attacks on white people would in itself make an individual a target for racial witch-hunters.” I could also have said that publishing a story from the American Renaissance newsletter would do the same.

The American Renaissance group is a creation of Jared Taylor, author of a pioneer book of political incorrectness on race called Paved With Good Intentions. Taylor is a very smart and gutsy individualist, but he is also a man who has surrendered to the multicultural miasma that has overtaken this nation and is busily building a movement devoted to white identity and community. We do not share these agendas. What I mean by “surrendering” is that Taylor has accepted the idea that the multiculturalists have won. We are all prisoners of identity politics now. If there is going to be Black History Month and Chicano Studies then there should be White History Month and White Studies. If blacks and Mexicans are going to regard each other as brothers and the rest of us as “Anglos,” then whites should regard each other as brothers and others as — well, others. Within the multicultural framework set by the dominant liberalism in our civic culture, Taylor’s claim to a white place at the diversity table certainly makes sense. But there is another option and that is getting rid of the table altogether and going back to the good old American ideal of E Pluribus Unum — “out of many one.” Not just blacks and whites and Chicanos, but Americans. Jared Taylor is a very intelligent and principled man. But I believe he is mistaken on this matter, and even if he is right I would rather fight against the multicultural behemoth and be on the losing side than embrace a false faith and win.

There are many who would call Jared Taylor and his American Renaissance movement “racist.” If the term is modified to “racialist,” there is truth in the charge. But Taylor and his Renaissance movement are no more racist in this sense than Jesse Jackson and the NAACP. In my experience of Taylor’s views, which is mainly literary (we have had occasion to exchange opinions in person only once), they do not represent a mean-spirited position. They are an attempt to be realistic about a fate that seems to have befallen us (which Taylor would maintain was inevitable given the natural order of things). But Jared Taylor is no more “racist” in this sense than any university Afro-centrist or virtually any black pundit of the left. He is not even racist in the sense that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racist. He is — as noted — a racialist, which is not.

Even in 2002 it was naive to believe that Americans could somehow rise above their ethnic differences and become one people. A lot has happened since then, and I doubt that many of Frontpage, or Truth Revolt, readers share this optimism. It’s an optimism that has become more of a rigid orthodoxy, oblivious to the facts on the ground.

By banning the word “cuckservative,” Horowitz is engaging in his own form of political correctness. He (or his moderators) seem to believe that by banning explicit expressions of a social malady, the malady will go away. In reality, such thinking is little different than a belief in magic. There are Orthodox Jews who will not let the word “cancer” escape from their lips; they believe that mentioning it by name can cause it to materialize. Apparently, the establishment Left, including Horowitz in this case, are of a similar opinion when it comes to racial taboos and hypocrisy.

In contrast, seekers of truth go out of our way to coin words that accurately depict reality – then we use them.

Republicans fear truth-words, because they reveal fundamental flaws/contradictions in their ideology. In so doing, they have created a vast chasm between the Republican elite and the white masses who vote for them. I believe that the same chasm exists between Horowitz (and his moderators) and most of those who read, and comment on, his websites. Sometimes a shepherd needs to stop what he’s doing and learn something from his flock.

The views of Horowitz and company are not that different from the views of explicit pro-whites, such as Jared Taylor, myself and many readers of this blog. I hope that, over time, we can work together for our common interests – which happen to coincide with the interests of humanity as a whole.




Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | Tagged , | 7 Comments

A surprise trip from JAY

Well folks, you may have  been wondering why I haven’t posted anything for a while. The reason is… I just got back from Costa Rica. Unlike Ethiopia, this wasn’t for adventure; it was mostly about relaxation – but I did see some cool animals. When I get my photos edited, I’ll share them with y’all.

I stayed, most of the time, on the Pacific coastal area. Every person I talked to over there (whether tourist or native) warned me that the Caribbean coast, being inhabited mainly by blacks, is dangerous. Also, the Caribbean coast is rainy this time of year, and I’ve have plenty of that right here in Portland.

Costa Rica is half-way between being a third-world country and a first-world country. It’s trying mightily to become as much like the US as the US is supposed to be. The water is safe to drink, electricity is reliable (using the same plugs we use in the US) and natural areas are cherished and preserved. On the other hand, they drive like maniacs. On an intercity bus, I sat in the front-row seat and observed the driver turning his head toward a passenger repeatedly; his conversation was more important to him than keeping his eyes on the road. He also spent a lot of time picking at a zit on his nose while using his cell phone as a mirror. When he felt thirsty, he nonchalantly stopped the bus to purchase a coconut. The lives of some 50-60 people were in his hands, and his complacence was unsettling.

Just as we have hordes of Mexicans swarming over the border to find work, or take advantage of our welfare system and commit crimes, so too does Costa Rica have its migration problem: Nicaraguans. The Costa Rican government does not enforce its border, nor does Costa Rica have a military. So Nicaraguans, whose own country is highly dysfunctional, enter the country in droves. They tend to do menial work, and don’t have a good reputation overall.

There are some amazing birds in Costa Rica. It was surreal to see flocks of macaws flying overhead in formation. It put such a big smile on my face, my jaw almost dropped off. There are also a lot of crocodiles. Apparently, sometimes they eat Nicaraguans.

Here’s one photo I’ll share with y’all. Apparently, they had a big negro sale in December!


For more details on my 2-week trip to Costa Rica, check my travel blog. I’ll be posting there.

Posted in travel, Uncategorized | Tagged | 6 Comments

Is the KKK a “hate group?”

If you ask people to give an example of a “hate group,” the first thing that will pop into many of their minds is “The KKK.” Even white nationalists sometimes like to pick on the KKK. Writing about a recent incident involving some Citadel students who wore costumes reminiscent of KKK outfits, a recent AFT article reports:

Washington (AFP) – A prestigious military college in the United States suspended eight students and launched an investigation after photos emerged of cadets posing in all-white outfits reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan, an official said.

Hillary Clinton also weighed in on The Citadel college, where the Confederate battle flag flies, tweeting: “Symbols of hate create more hate. It’s time for the Confederate flag to come down at The Citadel.”

The flag was the focus of renewed impassioned debate in June after a suspected white supremacist shot dead nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina — the same city where The Citadel is based.

The cadets were pictured dressed in white and with white pillow cases over their heads with two holes for the eyes, in haunting similarities to the infamous Ku Klux Klan, a white hate group.

Is the KKK a “hate group?”

The answer is clearly “No.” Firstly, the KKK is not even a group, let alone a “hate group.” According to

The name Ku Klux Klan is in the public domain. This means anyone can use the name Ku Klux Klan. They can use it for good reasons or they can use it for bad reasons. There are around 200 different Klan groups in the nation. They are all locally based or at the most regionally based. Most of these groups remain local because they want to do things their own way. They all use the terminology and ceremony of the twenties and are fraternity styled. They are not politically focused and resemble a club. The average size of the Klan clubs are 6-15. There are a couple of regional Klan groups with an average membership of 50-75. Usually they are led by sincerely motivated individuals, however because they have no national affiliation, their growth, activities, and goals are limited.

Of those 200 KKK groups, there can be little doubt that many have hateful members. This is to be expected. Since the very term “KKK” is now synonymous with “Hate,” many angry and hateful people will naturally be drawn to such groups. They’ll say to themselves, “I was mugged by niggers. I was cheated by kikes. Those Mexicans stole my lawnmower again! I’m sick and tired of this; I’m gonna join THE KLAN!”

When you demonize a name, groups that call themselves by that name will attract a lot of demons. Charitable people are not encouraged to “join the KKK and make a difference.” For this reason alone, it’s prudent to be wary of people who affiliate themselves with the KKK.

What about the crimes of the past, such as the lynchings, committed by the KKK?

If we’re going to blame today’s KKK groups for crimes of the past, then we might as well blame today’s USA for its past crimes. While we’re at it, let’s hold the Democrat Party responsible for slavery and the Catholic Church culpable for the Inquisition.

The vast majority of crimes attributed to KKK organizations date from decades ago, typically from the turbulent “civil rights era.” It seems to me that more recent incidents are “second-generation” phenomena. In other words, the Left establishment has so built up the name “KKK” that crazy and violent individuals are attracted to it. This artificial bogeyman has taken on a life of its own. At the same time, Establishment pro-crime policies (such as subsidizing fatherless households, feeding black anger and entitlement, forced integration and the emasculation of whites) have enraged enough people that some of them seek out groups they consider to be the most extreme: The KKK and neo-Nazi groups.

Looking over, I didn’t find anything hateful. So it would appear that the official positions of that particular KKK group are not hateful.

My guess would be that older, seasoned members of KKK groups are just like most other people we all know. They have times in their lives when they are, indeed, hateful, and they have times when they’re good-natured.

Today’s KKK groups seem to be united in that they’re pro-white. Anybody who considered a pro-white stance to be “Hate” is only revealing his own hatred.

Much of the above is just my own gut-feelings. It would be nice to flesh it out with insights of people from inside these groups. I’ve tried to contact actual KKK members for an interview, with no success. So if you’re out there reading this, please let me know so we can do an interview.





Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | Tagged | 15 Comments

Religion versus opinion

There are several atheists to whom I’m close. All of them exhibit a lot of respect toward organized religion, but they show no such respect toward conservatives. This got me thinking: Why does a belief in the supernatural garner more respect, from these people, than a belief in traditional values?

I think a lot of it goes back to our mental habit of compartmentalizing. If some adherents of  a particular opinion get together and choose to sanctify their group-opinion as a religion, with certain rituals and requirements, then they’re given a stamp of legitimacy. They now enjoy the protection of The Law. They can take certain days off of school, or work, for their “holidays” and they can demand certain types of food while incarcerated. They can get away with certain behaviors that the rest of us would be severely punished for.

In a perfect world, all opinions would be judged on their own merit, not on whether or not they constituted a “religion.”

Therefore, it seems to me that there’s a flaw in the First Amendment. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps it should have said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of opinion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

By giving special consideration to “religion,” our founding fathers gave special status to some opinions over others. If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you have more rights than somebody else who believes in Southern Heritage and Southern symbols. A woman was successful in asserting her right to wear a spaghetti strainer on her head for her drivers license photo – and there’s little doubt that Christian, Muslim or Jewish headgear would likewise be tolerated. But what about wearing a hat that features the Virginia Battle Flag? When it comes down to it, the major Abrahamic religions have all been responsible for far more hatred, persecution and bloodshed than the South.

For that matter, what about wearing a hat the features the Stars and Stripes? Many atrocities have been committed under that flag: Massacres of Native Americans, slavery, the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Vietnam come to mind. Whatever offence can be inspired by the Virginia Battle flag can just as easily be inspired by the Stars and Stripes. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t that long ago that a Muslim-owned bakery refused to bake an American flag cake for a returning veteran. Apparently, Indiana allows business owners more freedom than does Colorado. Both of these flags pale in comparison to the offense that can be inspired by papal headgear or that of a mullah.

If you’re a patriot, whether Southern or Yankee, your patriotism is merely an opinion – and Muslim bakery owners can refuse to honor your opinion by denying you your American flag cake. But that same Muslim bakery cannot refuse to bake a bar mitzvah cake for a Jewish family, because Judaism is not just an opinion; it’s a RELIGION.

It’s a game they play. Call yourself a religion, and your beliefs have status. We can win at this game. We can start a new religion. This religion would feature a basic code of right and wrong, respect for other life, especially other human beings and loyalty to family. This loyalty to family would extend to one’s larger family – to one’s race. It would include a sense of white solidarity, and encourage symbolism that conveys this. The Virginia Battle flag is a good candidate for display, because it symbolizes (for us) freedom of expression, freedom of association and a love for one’s heritage. On top of this, it symbolizes courage and a willingness to stand up for one’s beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds.

Once we’ve established this religion (we’d probably need at least a dozen or so individuals to start), certain legal rights would follow. I know there are already some contenders that are based on European pagan traditions. I’m thinking of something new, so that we can honestly say that our stance on current issues is firmly established within our religion; no novel interpretations would be necessary.

Armed with this new status, would one of us be able to walk into a black-owned bakery, in Colorado, and demand that they bake us a cake with our (Virginia Battle flag) religious symbol on it in honor of one of our holidays? If they refused, would we be able to sue them for damages? According to, the answer would seem to be yes:

… no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.

Incidentally, what about the religion of Islamic terrorists? Barack Obama likes to say that Islamic terrorists are not Muslim, and he’s not alone in claiming this.  If this is so, then why are they given hallal food while in prison? If this is so, then why was Osama bin Laden given a Muslim burial? If this is so, then I’d like to propose that the young orphans of ISIS suicide bombers be placed, for adoption, with Jewish or Christian, families. Why not? If these vile creatures are not Muslim, then which religion ARE they following?


Posted in activism, libertarian thought, Muslims, the South | 3 Comments