Responding to the Cult of Sargon

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
January 11, 2017

Sargon bringing a friend home to meet his wife, colorized 2018

As we reported yesterday, Sargon of Akkad has declared himself the leader of a cult – “The Liberalists,” he’s called it – and declared that one of the main purposes of his cult is to fight us, the Alt-Right.

I don’t have to tell you what comes next.

I am going to lay down some basic points to cut through this gibberish he is pushing. Not that you don’t all already see through it. But I want to catalog it together for you, so you’ve got all the angles you need when addressing Sargon or the members of his new cult.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

He appears to be hinging his entire cult doctrine on some sort of as-of-yet undefined form of radical individualism.

This is not something that most people actually even comprehend – and I am one of those people.

He’s doing an emperor’s new clothes thing here, acting like there is some fundamental distinction between his beliefs about the individual and our beliefs about the individual, but he doesn’t break that down into any detail, because the only thing he is actually saying is that he believes that nonwhites should be treated as individuals and we do not.

In an all-white country, we wouldn’t infringe on people’s rights or outlaw private property. In fact, people would have a lot more rights than they have now. The only rights that would be curtailed are the new rights that have been given to people by the Jews over the last few decades, such as homosexuality and miscegenation – and the reason we would be curtailing these rights is that giving individuals these rights infringes on the rights of other individuals to not have to deal with the consequences of these actions.

In a white America, individual families would have the right to go out in public and not have to see men kissing one another.

Because the idea that an no individual’s decisions affect other individuals in harmful ways is nonsensical. It is just a goofy, dumb claim.

Beyond sexual things, I don’t really have any idea what he is on about. The only form of extreme “collectivism” that I can really imagine is a Marxist collective, where hierarchy is removed through economic scheming. We do not want to ban the free market (nationally, obviously globalism is negative), we don’t want to take away private property.

We want people to be able to think freely, we just don’t want foreign groups in our countries aggressively pushing for the interests of a foreign people.

Furthermore, the concept of a “collective” is basic human nature and the idea of an “individualist” is really a myth. Every individual person exists as a part of a society, short of a hermit living alone in a cave. Everyone is in a collective now. Sargon just formed a new one. What happens when you use multiculturalism and sexual deviancy to remove the main collective of a cohesive dominant culture is that people form new, smaller collectives, and society atomizes.

Churches, universities, hobbies, etc. are all collectives.

We all remember high school, where the kids who made a point to be different tended to all be similar to one another. When I was in high school at the turn of the millennium, there were gothics – they all claimed to want to be different, yet they all dressed alike and were interested in the same things.

This goes back to our basic biology, which is tribal in nature. Our brains are hardwired to come together with a group and to adopt the same symbols, beliefs and behaviors of that group. You cannot disprove that, because it is an obvious fact. And again: the hilarious thing here is that Sargon’s own “scene” (now an official cult) proves this point. What were called the “skeptics,” which he is now calling “the Liberalists,” all think the same things.

“What if the Child Consents?”

Sargon made a name for himself by deconstruction what SJWs were saying. He was simply attacking them, breaking down why everything they are saying is stupid.

Picking apart something someone else is saying – in particular when it is something as stupid as what SJWs say – is very different than advocating FOR something.

It appears as though he hadn’t really put too much thought into what he was advocating for until he realized that the Alt-Right was advocating for something and that in order to address what we are saying he has to be advocating for something. He had vague ideas relating to the philosophy of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, but even though I have my disagreements with this particular philosophy, it doesn’t even really work in the way he is trying to use it. These were white men who would appalled at the idea of a multi-racial society.

All of these men he cites were a product of white society and formed their philosophy in that context.

So, in order to fill-in the blanks of his advocacy position, he simply decided to adopt modern extremist libertarian positions – specifically because that critique can be used against any system whatsoever. In his debate with Richard Spencer, he was asking him to solve problems that have existed for centuries in relation to the structure of governments, the social order and the management of economies.

But how far is he willing to go with “freedom of the individual”?

For instance, does he believe in legalizing hard drugs? Voluntary indentured servitude?

That parents have a right to starve their children to death?

Does he want to eliminate all social safety nets?

Most importantly: what if the child consents?

Of course, he will claim he is not an anarcho-capitalist, but that is the line of argument he is using when he claims that the Alt-Right can’t work because no ordered system ever can work.

The reason he can’t use the purely classical liberal line against the Alt-Right is that any of those arguments can be easily addressed. Again: we have a position on individual rights, private property and free markets that is very easy to grasp and very difficult to argue against, so he’s started using arguments from a system he claims he doesn’t even support just to give his critique the illusion of substance.

Pointing this out demonstrates that he is not actually proposing anything – that his only concern is with not being a racist. And it is easy to point out by simply forcing him to address the extremist libertarian positions he is arguing from.

No One Wants to Die for an Abstract Concept

Sargon seems to underestimate just how serious the state of the world is for most people. Our society has effectively already collapsed.

And the last thing anyone wants to fight for is some weird abstract idea that no one really even understands.

Sargon is saying “yes, race exists and yes, multiculturalism has had a negative effect on white people – but we can’t address that issue because of this abstract concept. Instead, we have to fight to preserve the abstract concept.”

Well, fighting for abstract concepts is for people who are not backed up against the wall. It is simply the realm of the hobby to go to war over a philosophical ideal.

In the 1960s, people fought for all of this “liberation” that Sargon is defending because there was no risk. The baby boomers lived very comfortably, so fighting for “freedom” was just like a game.

Things have changed. We are now in an extreme situation, where people are very alienated, they are struggling just to survive. People are ready to put their entire being into a fight for a better future.

The only things that are actually worth giving your entire being to fight for are things that exist in real life.

At one point in his recent stream with Mister Metokur, Sargon did mention along with his desire to fight for an abstraction that he doesn’t want trannies teaching his kid to cut his dick off. That is the only real life thing he mentioned. The rest of it was vague abstractions, which again, he hasn’t defined.

Presumably, he also wouldn’t want a daughter to be sex trafficked by a Pakistani rape-gang. He doesn’t want his house burned down by a roving pack of Africans. He doesn’t want to be forced into third-world living conditions. He doesn’t want to feel like a stranger in his own home, being surrounded by people that speak hundreds of different languages. He doesn’t want Britain to become an Islamic state. And he doesn’t want to be arrested for talking about any of these things.

So even if you eliminate race from your perception entirely, the effects of race do not just magically disappear. And the idea that vague notions of “individual liberty” and other abstract ideas are going to hold this multiracial circus show together is utterly nonsensical. We are dealing with real life problems that require real life solutions.

And when you are living with real life, reality is the only thing that matters.

What is the Point of Multiculturalism?

Sargon still has failed to explain the positive of why you would want brown people in your country. Instead, he only puts forward negative arguments against people arguing for white countries – it’s mean, it’s immoral, but they have rights now because they are already here, you can’t even tell for sure if someone is 100% genetically white, etc.

But the question remains: can he name a single benefit derived from having nonwhites in our countries?

Because if not, his entire negative argument of why it would be wrong to remove them is meaningless.

He seems to at least tacitly admit that multiracialism has detrimental effects (even if he claims that these effects somehow have no relationship to race), but hinges everything on the alleged immorality of removing them.

Imagine if you get shot and you’re bleeding out, but there is a lot of traffic on the road to the hospital: is your solution going to be to stay and home and bleed to death? And then if a family member is like “hey, you’d better do something, you’re going to bleed to death,” do you start arguing with them about how it is impossible to get to the hospital and so you just have to make the best of bleeding to death?

If we accept that multiculturalism is an extreme disaster, then we need to work on fixing the situation – not to find some impossible method of dealing with an unbearable situation.

That’s All I’ve Got

Hopefully in the near future Sargon will be releasing an agenda of some kind. It is currently frustrating to critique him given that he has put so little forward with regards to his vision for society. But this is what we’ve got right now.

Andy Warski has announced that Richard Spencer and Sargon will be having a second debate – this time with Mike Enoch included.

So that is going to be good.

Honestly, I’m not sure how Sargon will be able to continue with this agenda after that. I think the “I’m sorry I performed so poorly in the debate – I am now the leader of a cult” trick will only work once.

In the Midst of Psychological Collapse, Sargon of Akkad Declares Himself Leader of Bizarre Cult

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
January 10, 2018

Sargon has issued an apology for his poor debate performance against Richard Spencer – and during that apology, declared that he is now the leader of a bizarre cult!

Basically, Sargon had nowhere to go other than down, down, down, having been brutally destroyed by the Alt-Right’s worst debater – so he decided to go up! Up straight to the top! Of a cult!

And get this: he’s calling it “The Liberalists”! He frames this like he’s forming a political movement, but no one announces a political movement and gives it a name! You do that with cults!

He says that he’s going to do real life meet-ups, and try to convert people to his beliefs. If that was as simple as your plan was, you could just go do it – there is no need to announce it with a declaration of a name.

After having declared himself leader, Akkad then decided to go up against the number one guy on the internet famous for making people look stupid.

Mister Metokur was mocking Sargon’s freshly minted cult on Twitter and Sargon sent one of his minions to pull him into a stream

The stream was nuts.

Sargon declares that his purpose in forming the cult is to bring down his enemies – which include not only blue-haired feminists, but also the Alt-Right!

When Metokur asked him why he views the Alt-Right as enemies, he said it is because we say bad things about him. So he is forming a group of radical individuals to defend his honor. Also, he wants to stop trannies from brainwashing his son, which is tacked-on presumably to make the rest of it seem less confounding. But the Alt-Right already has a plan to solve that issue.

So the idea that he needs to form an organization in order to fight this particular issue is nonsense. He could just join the Alt-Right like everyone else if this was a genuine concern – and every legitimate concern he mentions is one that we would agree with. And I don’t say that to say “only the ones I agree with are legitimate,” but just that the rest of what he says is either “destroy my enemies” or something utterly vague and undefined.

The idea that his defeat by Richard Spencer didn’t prompt this move to form a group to defeat his enemies is evidenced by the fact that the video itself is framed both as an apology for losing the debate and a declaration of leadership.

The guy is off his bloody rocker, and the effect of having tens of thousands of people on the internet attacking him as pathetic for being unable to defend his own stated positions has rattled him to his core and he’s unable to hold it together.

He is used to winning, because he fights the lowest of low-hanging fruit in the form of SJWs. Him going against Spencer thinking he could do him the same way as he does Anita Sarkeesian was like a professional baby-kicker deciding to go fight a Gundam and attempting to use the same moves on it he uses to incapacitate babies.

He sees the writing on the wall – that his movement is collapsing due to it not being very interesting intellectually and not offering any actual solutions to anything.

And despite his belief in individualism, no one is actually an individual in real life – there is basic evolutionary biology involved here – so we have such an extreme upper-hand, being in accordance with the order of nature, that we can just grab all of his followers.

And there is the core of it: he believes that it might be possible to keep his followers by trying to rally them into a movement similar to the Alt-Right.

It’s a Hail Mary.

Because his only other option would be to join the dark side himself. But he would rather just collapse his career than do that.

This play, though admittedly the best he could have made, obviously won’t work.

I can’t think of anything else he could have done, to be honest, but he didn’t have to give it a name so everyone would accuse him of forming a cult and he didn’t have to make his first in-depth explanation of it on a stream with fucking Metokur.

He is not well.

I Still Don’t Know What He is On About

To be perfectly honest, I still don’t really have any idea what he is even advocating for.

He talks about John Locke, and basically that is an obsolete philosophical system that only currently remains in the public mind because it is useful for the system to have it there – radical individualism has been fully disproved by evolutionary psychology, and just basic reality itself, which demonstrates that people will naturally form groups and define their identity in relation to the group, which ironically is what he just announced he is doing. But more importantly, Locke wasn’t advocating for flooding Britain with brown people from everywhere.

Regardless of the idiocy of summoning up a dead philosophical system to make his arguments, his basic vague points about individual liberty, freedom of association and property rights I think everyone in the Alt-Right – and anyone else who isn’t a radical progressive leftist for that matter – would just take for granted. Because these things are obvious necessities of any society.

So the point of disagreement comes down solely to the race issue, and he isn’t able to explain why it is that anyone would want to live around third world parasites. We have done a pretty darned good job explaining why we don’t want to live around them.

So instead of addressing the core premise of “we want our own country,” he goes into bizarre hypotheticals about the logistics of actually removing these people from our countries.

The reason that he mixes discussion of individualism with discussion of race isn’t because they are actually related, but because he is callously trying to confuse his followers into believing they are related. Even if you believed the philosophy of Locke, he didn’t apply the tabula rasa to brown people. That philosophy was a product of a white European society and only ever intended to apply to such a society. So if you actually did believe that, you’d be pushing just as hard as anyone to have these people removed.

In order to apply Lockean individualism to brown people, you have to place it in the context of Boasian anthropology – the “race doesn’t exist” theory. And I assume that Sargon is unwilling to promote that particular theory, as if he were, he wouldn’t need all the weird logistics hypotheticals he threw at Spencer.

Bottom line: all of this reeks of a man who had a taste of power desperately attempting to hold onto that power in the face of a challenge to it. He cannot directly defeat the challenge, so he is using dishonest, snakelike tactics.

I will tell you this though: I sure do love the internet.

Steve Bannon Attempting to Walk-Back Inflammatory Comments

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
January 8, 2018

I have already said I think he must have been drunk when he made these statements, because even if he wanted to say them, why would he say them to a book author instead of the press directly?


Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said Sunday he regretted not responding sooner to comments attributed to him that were critical of Donald Trump Jr. in an explosive new book on the White House.

“Donald Trump, Jr. is both a patriot and a good man,” read Bannon’s statement, which CNN obtained Sunday from a source close to Bannon. “He has been relentless in his advocacy for his father and the agenda that has helped turn our country around.”

The statement later adds: “I regret that my delay in responding to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has diverted attention from the president’s historical accomplishments in the first year of (Trump’s) presidency.”

Along with the above statements made to Axios, he released a media statement saying he was actually talking about Paul Manafort when he said “treason.”

The Guardian:

The Guardian revealed last week that Bannon, formerly Trump’s chief strategist, said a Trump Tower meeting between Trump Jr and Russians during the 2016 presidential election campaign was “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”.

In his statement given to the Guardian and other outlets on Sunday, Bannon did not apologise for any of his remarks to the author Michael Wolff, which included strident criticisms of the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump – whom he called “dumb as a brick” – and her husband, ((((((Jared Kushner)))))).

But he said he should have been quicker to clarify that his remarks about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower referred to Trump’s then campaign chairman, who was also present.

“My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate,” Bannon said. “He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr.”

This is pretty garbled. Apparently he is saying he was misquoted? As in, words that he did not say were attributed to him?

If that was the case why didn’t he immediately come out with the statement?

The White House is saying Steve will never be invited back into confidence.

The Hill:

A White House official told Politico that it was “unlikely” Stephen Bannon would return to his former status in President Trump’s circle after Bannon released a statement reiterating his support for Trump.

Bannon called Donald Trump Jr. a “patriot” and a “good man” in a statement earlier Sunday, adding that he regretted not addressing comments attributed to him in a new bombshell book about Trump’s White House.

However, Politico reported that several Trump administration officials said the statement did not change the views of Bannon by those close to Trump.
Bannon said in the statement that his support for Trump was “unwavering” and that “President Trump was the only candidate that could have taken on and defeated the Clinton apparatus.”

Trump releasing a blistering statement claiming that Bannon “lost his mind” after the comments attributed to Bannon first emerged.

The former chief strategist is quoted in Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House” as saying the Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer was “treasonous.”

“They’re going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV,” Bannon says in the book.

I think it’s fair enough to dump the guy.

The question now is whether or not Breitbart will dump him, and I think that if they are able, they will.

It’s all very sad. I don’t understand why someone would destroy their career and their legacy this way.

I guess the lesson is: if you’re totally plastered, go home. Don’t talk to reporters you may pass on your way home.

Iran’s Attorney General Names CIA Mastermind Of Iran Protests

Iran’s Attorney General is accusing a US-Israeli-Saudi think thank of masterminding the Iran protests:

“TEHRAN, Jan. 04 (MNA) – Attorney General Montazeri on Thu. revealed that the mastermind behind the eruption of protests in the country was a US-Israeli-Saudi think tank that had been plotting for the rallies since four years ago.

Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, Iran’s Attorney General, revealed the details about a think tank responsible for the week-long protests in several cities across the country, saying “the mastermind of the project was an American named Michael D’Andrea, former Chief of the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center [current head of the Agency’s Iran Mission Center], and an operations room composed of three sides, namely the United States, Zionist regime and Al Saud, was formed for leading the unrest. The project was funded by Saudi Arabia and mainly planned by D’Andrea and an intelligence officer affiliated with [Israel’s intelligence agency] Mossad.”

He went on to add that the think tank conducted years of research and finally decided on launching campaigns inside Iran under the titles, ‘no to price hikes’, ‘no to paying bills’, and the campaign of the retired and those who lost their money in bankrupt financial institutes.

The think tank finally decided on executing the Libyan plan, i.e. moving from the margins toward the center, he added. …”

Last June, The New York Times ran an article about Michael D’Andrea called “C.I.A. Names the ‘Dark Prince’ to Run Iran Operations, Signaling a Tougher Stance”:

“WASHINGTON — He is known as the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, nicknames he earned as the Central Intelligence Agency officer who oversaw the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the American drone strike campaign that killed thousands of Islamist militants and hundreds of civilians.

Now the official, Michael D’Andrea, has a new job. He is running the C.I.A.’s Iran operations, according to current and former intelligence officials, an appointment that is the first major sign that the Trump administration is invoking the hard line the president took against Iran during his campaign.

Mr. D’Andrea’s new role is one of a number of moves inside the spy agency that signal a more muscular approach to covert operations under the leadership of Mike Pompeo, the conservative Republican and former congressman, the officials said. The agency also recently named a new chief of counterterrorism, who has begun pushing for greater latitude to strike militants. …

But he has invoked his hard line on Iran in other ways. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson has described the deal as a failure, and Mr. Trump has appointed to the National Security Council hawks eager to contain Iran and push regime change, the groundwork for which would most likely be laid through C.I.A. covert action.”

Asked whether Mr. D’Andrea’s appointment was a sign that the C.I.A. planned to take up a more aggressive line toward Iran, Mr. Eatinger said, “I don’t think it’s the wrong read.”

What do you think?

Is this Ayatollah Mike behind the Iran protests? I would say there is a pretty damn high chance given the timing and the 24/7 shilling for regime change by American politicians.

Note: Can you tell the difference between Donald Trump and Marco Rubio’s foreign policy?


US Intelligence Reportedly Gives Israel Green Light to Assassinate Iran’s Top General

According to reports circulating widely in Israeli media today, the United States has quietly given Israel the green light to assassinate Iran’s top military officer, Iranian Revolutionary Guards al-Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani. The leader of Iran’s most elite force also coordinates military activity between the Islamic Republic and Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah, and Hamas – a position he’s filled since 1998 – and as Quds Force commander reports directly to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, and oversees Iran’s covert operations in foreign countries.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have vowed to crack harshly down on protests currently gripping multiple major cities across the country, now in their fifth day, and after a particularly bloody night which saw 12 demonstrators killed – some of them reportedly shot by security forces.

The report, though unconfirmed, originated in a Kuwaiti newspaper and is now going viral through a Times of Israel story. The Times of Israel summarizes the context as follows:

Thursday’s report by al-Jarida, which has been known to publish improbable-sounding stories about Israel, was widely picked up by Israeli media. There was no immediate reaction to the report from Jerusalem or Washington.

Three years ago, Israel came close to assassinating Soleimani near Damascus, al-Jarida quoted unnamed source as saying, but the Americans tipped off the Iranians against the background of intense disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem.

That was during the Obama administration, which, according to reports at the time, was so focused on securing the 2015 Iran nuclear accord that it chose to overlook and even obstruct efforts to clamp down on Iranian-backed terror organizations. It’s not clear if the reported tip-off was related to efforts to secure the Iran deal.

And concerning the current go-ahead for new assassination plans reportedly given by US intelligence to the Israelis:

The source was quoted by the paper as saying that Soleimani’s assassination would serve both countries’ interests and that US authorities have given Israel the go-ahead to carry it out.

Israel has been known to conduct high-risk secretive assassinations in foreign countries over the past years and decades. One notable headline grabbing operation, reportedly by Mossad agents, occurred in 2010 and resulted in the assassination of a top Hamas commander who had checked into a high end Dubai hotel after flying in from Syria.

An eleven man Israeli hit squad had entered the hotel while dressed in tennis gear and carrying tennis rackets, and were later reported to be traveling on fake Irish and French passports. After conducting surveillance the Mossad agents got Hamas’ Mahmoud al-Mabhouh to open his hotel room door and quickly suffocated him without arousing suspicion from other hotel guests. By the time the body was discovered, the assassins had flown out of Dubai to various locations around the world and were never seen again.

And in 2015 a secret document revealed by The Intercept as part of the Edward Snowden leaked NSA archives confirmed that Israeli agents had assassinated a top Syrian general and personal aide to President Assad in 2008 while the general dined at his family home near Tartus, along the Syrian coast. The daring operation involved Israeli naval commandos and snipers targeting Gen. Muhammad Suleiman’s house from the waters of the Mediterranean and shooting him in the head and neck. Israel considered him responsible for coordinating weapons and supplies between Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, as well as overseeing an alleged nascent nuclear development program at Syria’s Al Kibar facility which had previously been bombed by Israeli jets.

Six months prior to Syrian General Suleiman’s murder, a top Hezbollah officer was killed by a joint CIA-Mossad operation in the heart of Damascus. According to former intelligence officials who confirmed the assassination plot to the Washington Post, a car bomb planted near a Damascus downtown restaurant instantly killed Imad Mughniyah – Hezbollah’s international operations chief who was believed to have masterminded several terror attacks targeting Americans.

So concerning these latest reports unconfirmed reports that Iran’s Qassem Soleimani might be in Mossad’s crosshairs, while such a high risk operation against a top Iranian official would be unlikely to succeed, it is certainly not without precedent.

Israel Akbar: Alt-Lite Goes Full Neo-Con

Eric Striker

Daily Stormer
December 27, 2017

I’m not the only one noticing all the posers on the merch-right who called themselves “Alt-Right” in 2015 have suddenly gotten Red Pilled™ on Israel!

The Israelis, whose think-tanks openly support ISIS, are on the forefront of fighting Islamic extremism?

Just ignore Israeli agent (((((((((Thomas Friedman))))))’s))) Jew York Times column calling on America to allow real Islamic extremism to grow because it only impacts Shiites, Christians and white people, so it is good for Israel. Just look at how Jews reacted when Trump told the Russians about the Mossad’s documents showing plans to blow up airplanes using laptop bombs.

Individuals who were anti-Israel until very recently are flip-flopping all at once – often to the dismay of their audience. This shows that either money is changing hands or gang-intimidation from the Anti-Defamation League is getting to them.

Just look at penispill-right poster boy Paul Joseph Watson in 2014 vs. 2017 Paul Joseph Watson.



((((((Mike Cernovich)))))) – who himself also used to be anti-Israel – has now transformed his twitter into a virtual sukkot tent!


Why don’t you name the globalists?

Aside from ((((((George Soros)))))), the only “globalist” these retards talk about, what other “globalist” individual, group or institution is anti-Israel?

Angela Merkel? Hilary Clinton? The Anti-Defamation League? Bill ((((((Kristol))))))? ((((((Andrew Lack))))))? ((((((Mark Zuckerberg))))))? ((((((Paul Singer))))))? ((((((Harvey Weinstein))))))? The Saudis?

Name any random “globalist” in any context (whether they are Jew or non-Jew) and they are all hardcore supporters Israel, both morally and materially. That is because people who believe in breaking down borders, replacing white people and destroying Western civilization are all on the payroll of Jews and executing their will. Every major Jewish political donor and Jewish organization supports totally open borders for white countries and hardcore racial supremacism/ethnic cleansing for Israel.  

Which is precisely why Cernovich and Jones only talk about (arguable) outlier ((((((George Soros)))))), often attributing fake stories to him.

Thankfully, the “new right” (Cerno, Posobiec, Jones, McInnes) isn’t making much of an impact. Nobody is interfering with their finances, deplatforming or censoring them, but they are such transparent con men even Joe Public can’t stand it.

Repackaging Ronald Reaganism using power washed versions of our memes doesn’t work no matter how many ads of thug life ((((((Ben Shapiro)))))) you shove in our faces.

You can either take the real red pill and be a knowing goy, or take the penis pill and be a dick head.

Against all the odds we will overpower these hucksters and win. Telling the truth and being consistent is all we need.