JUST DESSERTS: Badge Niggers in Charlottesville Attacked by Anti-White Lefties

Roy Batty
Daily Stormer
August 12, 2018

Being a badge-nigger is a thankless job. No one likes them, not even the people that they one year to the day sided with against the peaceful political dissidents just trying to hold a speaking event in a park.


To avoid a repeat of last year’s scenario, when a violent white nationalist rally’s clash with the left resulted in one death and dozens of injuries, Charlottesville authorities refused to grant a permit for another ‘Unite the Right’ rally. In addition, Gov. Ralph Northam declared in a state of emergency in the city and ordered the Virginia National Guard to be on standby should any riots arise.

The security measures seemed to have worked as most of the Saturday’s events proceeded in a peaceful manner. Attended mainly by opponents of white supremacists and more mainstream conservatives, the progressive activists carried a large banner through the downtown of the city reading: “Good Night, White Pride.” Others paused to light candles or place flowers at the memorials.

The most intense moments occurred in the evening at the University of Virginia campus at the ‘Rally for Justice’, where a group of some 200 Antifa activists shouted at riot police lines, “Black Lives Matter!” and “No Nazis, No KKK, No Fascist USA!”

Conspicuously absent were the people chanting “Blue Lives Matter.” Those guys got run off by the police in Charlottesville last year. They don’t have a lot of sympathy for Blue Lives left in their hearts after that.

The Antifa and the liberals get to chant about how much they hate cops and the cops can’t do anything about it. These guys have institutional and media support, the Neon-Nazis don’t…and apart from a few broken machine Authoritarian Personality types, no one really has any sympathy for the cops on the Right as well.

So you’ve still got a sizeable number of moderates that might support the cops, but as society continues to balkanize into the far left and the far right…those numbers are going to whittle down and they’re just not going to feel comfortable talking about how much they respect coppers anymore because the left and the right will look down on them for doing so.

Not an enviable position to be in.

But it’s entirely the cops’ own fault. I’m not shedding a tear for them.


Media cockroaches also got attacked.

Antifa attacks all their greatest and supporters.

The Government Spends at-least $57 Billion per Year on Welfare for NEW Democrat-Voting Immigrants


The good news:

President Trump’s ban on allowing welfare-dependent legal immigrants to resettle permanently in the United States would likely save American taxpayers about $1,600 a year per immigrant.

As Breitbart News reported, the Trump administration is set to roll out a plan in the next month that bars foreign nationals who need government welfare in order to live from resettling in the U.S. Such a ban on welfare importation through immigration has been eyed by the Trump White House since February.

Such a plan would be a boon for American taxpayers, who currently spend about $57.4 billion a year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low skilled legal immigrants every year. In the last decade, the U.S. has imported more than 10 million foreign nationals and is on track to import the same amount in the coming decade if legal immigration controls are not implemented.

The bad news: we’re currently allowing people to immigrate here even knowing full well they’ll have to go straight onto the welfare rolls. Were you aware of this? I wasn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I totally suspected we were importing people we knew were going to have to go on welfare. Because you cannot put anything past the left and the globalists. Anything.

I just figured the globalists had found clever ways to hide immigrant welfare so as not to confirm the suspicions of us vexing XENOPHOBES, who are constantly trying to foil their plans to replace us with cheap foreign labor while making us pay for it.

Of course, welfare for immigrants ENRICHES us — and by “us” the globalists mean themselves, literally — and is such an unquestionable and self-evident good that they’ll deny it even exists, and call you a RACIST PANTS ON FIRE LIAR CONSPIRACY NUTJOB for suggesting it does exist.

If spending $57 billion a year on welfare for immigrants is so obviously in the national interest, you’d think the left and the globalist “right” would be touting and celebrating it.

But I don’t remember any politician running on “Welfare For Immigrants” as their big policy idea. I don’t remember the “Welfare For Immigrants” bill being passed by Congress and signed by a president to much fanfare and national media attention.

I must have missed when that bill passed with major approval from a broad majority of Americans. Did you?

If I didn’t know better, I’d say “Welfare For Immigrants” was imposed on us without our consent, or even consultation.

Because I’m sure a great many of us would say that it should be grounds for denial if a prospective immigrant informs us he or she will need to go on welfare upon moving to this country.

Instead our government has somehow decided the opposite.

If you’re wondering why this country spends $57 billion a year on welfare for brand-new immigrants, here’s your answer:

American cities with massive foreign born populations went the strongest for failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton against President Trump in the 2016 election.

And there it is. Those cities with the highest foreign-born populations are New York, Chicago, Washington DC, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, Philadelphia and Minneapolis.

Take New York City, for example. The New York Times highlights that Clinton won nearly 80 percent of the vote in the city’s five boroughs. Those five boroughs are also home to the largest concentration of foreign-born residents in the state.

In deep blue Queens County, Kings County, Bronx County, and New York County, there is a total foreign-born population of more than three million people. The foreign born population in this deep blue Clinton stronghold makes up more than 35 percent of the total New York City resident population.


In the Chicago area, residing in Cook County, Illinois, Clinton won some precincts by 70 to 96 percent margins against Trump in the 2016 election. Cook County, as a stronghold for Democrats, is also home to the largest concentration of foreign born residents in the state of Illinois.

Of the nearly 1.8 million foreign born residents living in Illinois, more than one million of them live in Cook County. The county with the second largest foreign born population, where more than 175,000 immigrants live, is Cook County’s neighboring region, DuPage County.


For Clinton, the Washington, D.C. region — a heartland for liberals — went the strongest out of all counties in the country for her candidacy. In the precinct encompassing the White House, only seven percent of residents voted for Trump.

The Washington, D.C., Arlington, Virginia, and Alexandria, Virginia metropolitan area has a combined foreign born population of more than 1.3 million, making up about 22 percent of the total metro region.

This is mostly due to chain migration:

Mass legal and illegal immigration to the U.S. continues to be the largest driver of population increases and demographic shifts in the country. Every year, more than 1.5 million immigrants are admitted to the country. The U.S. has imported more than ten million immigrants in the last decade.

The vast majority of foreign nationals arrive through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. Every two new immigrants to the country bring an additional seven foreign relatives with them.

As Breitbart News has extensively reported, the U.S. is on track to import about 15 million foreign-born voters by the year 2038. That is nearly quadruple the size of the annual number of U.S. births; about four million American babies are born every year.

Through chain migration alone, the U.S. will import about eight million foreign-born voters in the next two decades. Those voters are likely to concentrate in American cities with already large foreign populations.

Research shows immigration is terrible for Republicans:

On average across election types, immigration to the U.S. has a significant and negative impact on the Republican vote share, consistent with the typical view of political analysts in the U.S. [Emphasis added]

This average effect — which is driven by elections in the House — works through two main channels. The impact of immigration on Republican votes in the House is negative when the share of naturalized migrants in the voting population increases. Yet, it can be positive when the share of non-citizen migrants out of the population goes up and the size of migration makes it a salient policy issue in voters’ minds. [Emphasis added]

These results are consistent with naturalized migrants being less likely to vote for the Republican Party than native voters and with native voters’ political preferences moving towards the Republican Party because of high immigration of non-citizens. This second effect, however, is significant only for very high levels of immigrant presence. [Emphasis added]

By the way, this is why California, the largest state in the nation, will never again vote Republican: it’s nearly 30% foreign-born. The state is gone forever — it is Mexifornia now.

Oh, and if you object to any of this — $57 billion a year for immigrant welfare, 1.5 million new immigrants per year, chain migration, all for the benefit of the Democrats and their friends in big business — you are viciously denounced in the harshest possible terms.

The Democrats are prepared to import millions of low-skilled foreigners, put them on taxpayer-funded welfare, destroy the social fabric of this nation and turn it into something completely unrecognizable — all to win elections.

What are we prepared to do?


Immigrants Using Nearly 60 Percent More Food Stamps than Native Born Americans

By John Binder

Illegal and legal immigrants are using nearly 60 percent more U.S. taxpayer-funded food stamps than native born Americans, data from the leading immigration research group reveals.

A study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found that the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native born American household.

Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.

The welfare use of legal and illegal immigrants has largely been buried in news that President Trump’s administration is looking to discourage foreign nationals immigrating to the U.S. legally from using taxpayer-funded welfare. The plan is supported by 62 percent of American voters, the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll finds.

Graph: Immigrant-headed households had substantially higher welfare use rates, 2012

(Center for Immigration Studies)

DHS officials say the Trump administration is carefully evaluating policy options that create a fairer legal immigration system for the country’s workers and taxpayers. Those DHS officials say there are billions of foreign nationals who would like to immigrate to the U.S. and that it is the proper role of the federal government to ensure that legal immigration is not negatively impacting Americans, which includes protecting welfare benefits for poor and low-income citizens.

In February, Breitbart News noted how the Trump administration was reviewing such a plan to create a more pro-American legal immigration system that does not put a strain on American taxpayers as the current system does.

For years, Trump has called for the U.S. to implement a merit-based legal immigration system, similar to the controls implemented in Australia, where legal immigrants cannot readily gain access to government welfare and must have high English-speaking skills.

Trump’s plan – opposed by the plutocrat apparatus, big business lobby, and both political establishments – would reduce legal immigration levels from 1.5 million admissions a year to a more reasonable level of 500,000 admissions a year.

The plan is designed to boost the wages and quality of life of America’s working and middle class, which has suffered from poor job growth, stagnant wages, and increased public costs to offset the importation of millions of low-skilled foreign nationals.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

Shocking Video Shows 3rd World Conditions in Los Angeles – Homeless Everywhere

Right next to Los Angeles’ business district, full of high-priced skyscrapers, you will find endless encampments of homeless people living on the streets.

Will Tribalism Trump Democracy?

Pat Buchanan, American Renaissance, July 30, 2018

“[I]f we cannot live together amicably, secession from one another . . . seems the ultimate alternative.”

On July 19, the Knesset voted to change the nation’s Basic Law.

Israel was declared to be, now and forever, the nation-state and national home of the Jewish people. Hebrew is to be the state language.

Angry reactions, not only among Israeli Arabs and Jews, came swift.

Allan Brownfeld of the American Council for Judaism calls the law a “retreat from democracy” as it restricts the right of self-determination, once envisioned to include all within Israel’s borders, to the Jewish people. Inequality is enshrined.

And Israel, says Brownfeld, is not the nation-state of American Jews.

What makes this clash of significance is that it is another battle in the clash that might fairly be called the issue of our age.

The struggle is between the claims of tribe, ethnicity, peoples and nations, against the commands of liberal democracy.

In Europe, the Polish people seek to preserve the historic and ethnic character of their country with reforms that the EU claims violate Poland’s commitment to democracy.

If Warsaw persists, warns the EU, the Poles will be punished. But which comes first: Poland, or its political system, if the two are in conflict?

Other nations are ignoring the open-borders requirements of the EU’s Schengen Agreement, as they attempt to block migrants from Africa and the Middle East.

They want to remain who they are, open borders be damned.

Britain is negotiating an exit from the EU because the English voted for independence from that transitional institution whose orders they saw as imperiling their sovereignty and altering their identity.

When Ukraine, in the early 1990s, was considering secession from Russia, Bush I warned Kiev against such “suicidal nationalism.”

Ukraine ignored President Bush. Today, new questions have arisen.

If Ukrainians had a right to secede from Russia and create a nation-state to preserve their national identity, do not the Russians in Crimea and the Donbass have the same right—to secede from Ukraine and rejoin their kinsmen in Russia?

As Georgia seceded from Russia at the same time, why do not the people of South Ossetia have the same right to secede from Georgia?

Who are we Americans, 5,000 miles away, to tell tribes, peoples and embryonic nations of Europe whether they may form new states to reflect and preserve their national identity?

Nor are these minor matters.

At Paris in 1919, Sudeten Germans and Danzig Germans were, against their will, put under Czech and Polish rule. British and French resistance to permitting these peoples to secede and rejoin their kinfolk in 1938 and 1939 set the stage for the greatest war in history.

Here in America, we, too, appear to be in an endless quarrel about who we are.

Is America a different kind of nation, a propositional nation, an ideological nation, defined by a common consent to the ideas and ideals of our iconic documents like the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address?

Or are we like other nations, a unique people with our own history, heroes, holidays, religion, language, literature, art, music, customs and culture, recognizable all over the world as “the Americans”?

Since 2001, those who have argued that we Americans were given, at the birth of the republic, a providential mission to democratize mankind, have suffered an unbroken series of setbacks.

Nations we invaded, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, to bestow upon them the blessings of democracy, rose up in resistance. What our compulsive interventionists saw as our mission to mankind, the beneficiaries saw as American imperialism.

And the culture wars on history and memory continue unabated.

According to The New York Times, the African-American candidate for governor of Georgia, Stacey ((((((Abrams)))))), has promised to sandblast the sculptures of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis off Stone Mountain.

The Republican candidate, Brian Kemp, has a pickup truck, which he promises to use to transfer illegal migrants out of Georgia and back to the border.

In Texas, a move is afoot to remove the name of Stephen Austin from the capital city, as Austin, in the early 1830s, resisted Mexico’s demands to end slavery in Texas when it was still part of Mexico.

One wonders when they will get around to Sam Houston, hero of Texas’ War of Independence and first governor of the Republic of Texas, which became the second slave republic in North America.

Houston, after whom the nation’s fourth-largest city is named, was himself, though a Unionist, a slave owner and an opponent of abolition.

Today, a large share of the American people loathe who we were from the time of the explorers and settlers, up until the end of segregation in the 1960s. They want to apologize for our past, rewrite our history, erase our memories and eradicate the monuments of those centuries.

The attacks upon the country we were and the people whence we came are near constant.

And if we cannot live together amicably, secession from one another, personally, politically, and even territorially, seems the ultimate alternative.


Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan has been a senior adviser to three presidents: Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. Today he is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of many best-selling books, including The Greatest Comeback, State of Emergency, and The Death of the West.

White Threat in a Browning America

((((((Ezra Klein)))))), Vox, July 30, 2018


I spent months talking with politicians, social psychologists, and political scientists about what happens in moments like this one, moments when a majority feels its dominance beginning to fail. The answer, attested to in mountains of studies and visible everywhere in our politics, is this: Change of this magnitude acts on us psychologically, not just electorally. It is the crucial context uniting the core political conflicts of this era—Obama and Trump’s presidencies, the rise of reactionary new social movements and thinkers, the wars over political correctness on campuses and representation in Hollywood, the power of #MeToo and BlackLivesMatter, the fights over immigration.

Demographic change, and the fears and hopes it evokes, is one of the tectonic forces shaping this era in American life, joining income inequality and political polarization in transforming every aspect of our politics and culture. But to understand what it is doing to us as a country, we need to begin by understanding what it does to us as individuals.

In 2014, psychologists Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson analyzed the responses of 369 white, self-identified political independents who had completed one of two surveys. Half of the participants received a survey that asked them whether they knew that California had become a majority-minority state — which is to say, a state where whites no longer made up more than 50 percent of the population. The others read a survey devoid of demographic information.

This was a gentle test of an unnerving theory: that the barest exposure to the concept that whites were losing their numerical majority in America would not just make whites feel afraid but sharply change their political behavior. The theory proved correct. Among participants who lived in the western United States, the group that read that whites had ceded majority status were 11 points likelier to subsequently say they favored the Republican Party.

In a follow-up study, Craig and Richeson handed some white subjects a press release about geographic mobility, while others read one explaining that “racial minorities will constitute a majority of the U.S. populace by 2042.” The group that read the racially tinged release “produced more conservative views not only on plausibly relevant issues like immigration and affirmative action, but also on seemingly unrelated issues like defense spending and health care reform.”

(It’s worth noting that these dynamics cut in the other direction too: A 2016 study by Alexander Kuo, Neil Malhotra, and Cecilia Hyunjung Mo split a sample of Asian-American college students into two groups. One group was subjected to a staged microaggression during the study—their US citizenship was doubted by the researcher managing the experiment. The incident increased support for Democrats by 13 percentage points.)

Perhaps the most striking experiment in this space was conducted by Harvard political scientist Ryan Enos. He attempted something rare in social science: an actual test of what seeing more diversity in our everyday surroundings does to our political opinions. His explanation of both the experiment and its results is worth reading:

I sent Spanish speakers to randomly selected train stations in towns around Boston to simply catch the train and ride like any other passenger. I focused on stations in white suburbs. The intent was to create the impression, by subtle manipulation, that the Latino population in these segregated towns was increasing.

Before and after sending these Spanish speakers to the train platforms, I surveyed passengers on the platforms about their attitudes about immigration. After being exposed to the Spanish speakers on their metro lines for just three days, attitudes on these questions moved sharply rightward: The mostly liberal Democratic passengers had come to endorse immigration policies—including deportation of children of undocumented immigrants—similar to those endorsed by Trump in his campaign.

Enos goes on to note that his findings match what we saw in 2016: The biggest gains Donald Trump made over Mitt Romney’s performance “were in the places where the Latino population had grown most quickly. … For example, Luzerne County, adjacent to Scranton, Pennsylvania, had experienced an almost 600 percent growth in its Latino population between 2000 and 2014, and, after decades of voting Democrat in presidential elections, gave Trump 12 percentage points more votes than it had given to Romney in 2012.”


What happens when the exposure isn’t so subtle?

When Obama was elected in 2008, there was much talk of America moving into a post-racial moment. But as Michael Tesler shows in his powerful book Post-Racial or Most-Racial?: Race and Politics in the Obama Era, the mere existence of Obama’s presidency further racialized American politics, splitting the two parties not just by racial composition but by racial attitudes.

What Tesler proves is that in the Obama era, attitudes on race drove attitudes on almost everything else, in a way that’s unique in recent American politics. The black-white divide in support for Obamacare was 20 percentage points larger than the black-white divide over Bill Clinton’s similarly controversial proposal, for instance.

But it wasn’t just health care. Party identification became significantly more divided by race. Perceptions of the economy became significantly more divided by race. Even perceptions of the president’s dogs became more divided by race—shown pictures of the Obamas’ dog Bo, more racially resentful Americans liked the dog better when told it was a picture of Ted Kennedy’s dog Splash.


White voters who feel they are losing a historical hold on power are reacting to something real. For the bulk of American history, you couldn’t win the presidency without winning a majority—usually an overwhelming majority—of the white vote. Though this changed before Obama (Bill Clinton won slightly less of the white vote than his Republican challengers), the election of an African-American president leading a young, multiracial coalition made the transition stark and threatening.


Ashley Jardina is a political scientist at Duke University who studies racial identity. In her 2014 dissertation The Demise of Dominance: Group Threat and the New Relevance of White Identity for American Politics, she argues that generations of scholars have taken African-American and Hispanic and Asian identity seriously but assumed there was no such thing as white identity. The conventional wisdom was that “because of their numerical majority and political dominance, whites do not, by and large, possess their own sense of racial identification, and they do not feel consciously compelled to protect some sense of group interest.”

Jardina argued—and, in a series of experiments, proved—that this was wrong. White political identity is “conditional.” It emerges in some periods and is absent in others. The periods it emerges in are periods like this one.

“When the dominant status of whites relative to racial and ethnic minorities is secure and unchallenged, white identity likely remains dormant,” she writes. “When whites perceive their group’s dominant status is threatened or their group is unfairly disadvantaged, however, their racial identity may become salient and politically relevant.”


In 1996, white voters were more closely split between the two parties, the Hispanic vote was smaller, and both parties were more skeptical of immigration. In 2016, white voters were concentrated in the Republican Party, Hispanic voters were far more powerful, and this cut a political schism in which Democrats became friendlier to immigrants and Republicans nominated Trump.


Take that idea and extend it out into the coming decades of American politics. The Democratic Party will not be able to win elections without an excited, diverse coalition. The Republican Party will not be able to win elections without an enthused white base. Democrats will need to build a platform that’s even more explicit in its pursuit of racial and gender equality, while Republicans will need to design a politics even more responsive to a coalition that feels itself losing power.


As we navigate these sensitivities, we can do so with more or less care. Richeson believes it would be wise for demographers to stop using terms like “majority-minority America” — after all, whites will still be a plurality, and what good can come of framing America’s trajectory in a way that leaves the single largest group feeling maximally threatened? It sounds like “a force of nonwhite people who are coming and they are working as a coalition to overturn white people and whiteness,” Richeson said, laughing. “That’s a problem!”

Richeson’s research shows that if you can add reassurance to discussions of demographic change—telling people, for instance, that the shifts are unlikely to upend existing power or economic arrangements—the sense of threat, and the tilt toward racial and political conservatism, vanishes. The problem, she admits, is, “we can’t say, ‘Don’t worry, white people, you’ll be okay and you’ll get to run everything forever!’”

The other problem is that the conversation about, and the experience of, a browning America will not be driven by demographers and social psychologists; it will be driven by ambitious politicians looking for an edge, by political pundits looking for ratings, by outrageous stories going viral on social media, by cultural controversies like Gamergate and Roseanne Barr getting fired.