Jews Admit to Secretly Plotting with Saudi Arabia Against Iran

Adrian Sol
Daily Stormer
November 20, 2017

Israel and Saudi Arabia: the axis of Semitism.

Everyone who still has a few neurons to rub together knows that Israel’s foreign policy is something in the vein of “burn this bitch down” with regard to the rest of the Middle-East. In other words, create as much chaos and destruction as possible everywhere, while they devour the surrounding land inch by inch with their devious Jew tricks.

All Arabs know this, and hate Israel with a passion. That’s why any Moslem government collaborating with Israel openly would provoke extreme anger in its people. But the monkeys at the house of Saud are filled with hubris, and don’t mind playing with fire.

The Saudis basically hate everyone around them, which means their interests coincide pretty closely with those of Israel. We saw this in the whole ISIS arc – the terrorist’s main sources of weapons and money was Saudi Arabia.

It surprises exactly no one that these two Semitic dune people are actually coordinating their activities behind the scenes.

Reuters:

An Israeli cabinet minister said on Sunday that Israel has had covert contacts with Saudi Arabia amid common concerns over Iran, a first disclosure by a senior official from either country of long-rumoured secret dealings.

The Saudi government had no immediate response to Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz’s remarks. A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister ((((((Benjamin Netanyahu)))))) also did not respond immediately to a request to comment.

Saudi makes a big show of not publicly talking about the alliances with the Jews. Everyone knows it’s happening, but the Saudi population is too stupid and rich to care and the rest of the Arabs are too stupid and poor to do anything about it.

Semites still have that goat herder mentality. Other tribes must be annihilated, not allied with.

Both Saudi Arabia and Israel view Iran as a main threat to the Middle East and increased tension between Tehran and Riyadh has fuelled speculation that shared interests may push Saudi Arabia and Israel to work together.

Saudi Arabia maintains that any relations with Israel hinge on Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands captured in the 1967 Middle East war, territory Palestinians seek for a future state.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace envoys, seeking an Israeli-Palestinian agreement with regional support, have visited Saudi Arabia several times since he took office.

In an interview on Army Radio, Steinitz, a member of ((((((Netanyahu))))))’s security cabinet, did not characterise the contacts or give details when asked why Israel was “hiding its ties” with Saudi Arabia.

He replied: ”We have ties that are indeed partly covert with many Muslim and Arab countries, and usually (we are) the party that is not ashamed.

“It’s the other side that is interested in keeping the ties quiet. With us, usually, there is no problem, but we respect the other side’s wish, when ties are developing, whether it’s with Saudi Arabia or with other Arab countries or other Muslim countries, and there is much more … (but) we keep it secret.”

Jews do understand that sometimes in order to get what they want, they have to manipulate non-Jews and pretend they won’t stab them in the back later. The average Saudi is probably too stupid to understand that, however.

This whole Middle-East situation is a real clusterfuck, a powderkeg ready to blow at any moment. Pretty much all ostensibly “neutral” parties have been eliminated, and two sides have consolidated: the Russian-backed Iranian alliance of Shiites, and the American-backed Jewish-Sunni coalition. At this point, any conflict between any of these countries could spiral into a world war, which neither Trump nor Putin want.

But the Jews definitely want this war, and they’ll do everything in their power to get it.

​What a new U.S. civil war might look like

By Chris Arkenberg

Following an earlier 2017 survey, Foreign Policy’s Best Defense blog opened a poll about the likelihood of a second U.S. Civil War. However, framing it as a second civil war embeds numerous assumptions about warfare on U.S. soil that are based more on history than the current reality of how power acts in the world. The distinction is critical to effectively counter the emergence of networked violence in America.

It’s easy to imagine that a second civil war might proceed like the first: two institutionalized factions wielding state militaries against each other along prescribed strategic fronts. Generals would choose a side, those with the most troops and firepower at their disposal would claim victory. The outcome, we imagine, would likely be a winner-take-all restructuring of the United States.

But that’s not really how wars are fought in the 21st century. Indeed, much of the last century was about deconstructing the habits of large-scale, state-driven conventional warfare. As networks distribute power to the edges, warfighting shifts further away from a handful of monolithic forces and towards a diverse web of small actors. Warfare now often proceeds from ideologically and economically marginalized communities whose suffering and fear is wielded by cunning global actors. They become guerrillas, rebel factions, proxies, and insurgencies. Sometimes they look more like tribal conflicts composed along racial, religious, familial or economic lines, often on top of resource crises that push violence to become a necessary solution. But they are rarely simple two-sided conflicts.

To neglect this distinction risks missing the signs of coordinated disruption and violence. If we keep thinking in terms of opposed armies, we’ll fail to develop effective strategies for recognizing and containing networked, hybrid warfare.

For the United States, the shape of future homeland conflicts will be asymmetrical, distributed, and heterogeneous. A contemporary homeland conflict would likely self-compose with numerous dynamic factions organized by digital tools around ideological and affinity networks. It would likely be a patchwork of affiliated insurgency groups and their counterparts engaging in light skirmishes along the overlapping edges of their networks, mixed with occasional high-value terror attacks against soft and hard targets. Such groups are much smaller than conventional militaries and where they lack in firepower, they wield transgression. As in Charlottesville and Berkeley, the fronts are less territorial than ideological.

Furthermore, digital networks erode the boundaries of the state. Like the Islamic State and al Qaeda, any cell can browse the literature, claim allegiance in some far-flung burb, and start whipping up violence against their targets. Antifa and the Alt-Right are a hodge-podge of varying affinities loosely coupled under their respective brand names with local chapters coordinated across global networks. These are not top-down hierarchies. They’re agile and shapeless with the capacity to grow quickly then disappear.

“One simply cannot explain the speed and scale at which the Islamic State formed without that network effect,” Emile Simpson commented in another Foreign Policy article trying to augur the tremors of a new world war.

Just as we risk missing the signs of networked violence, thinking in terms of a classic civil war can blind us to the many actors working to disrupt the U.S. from within and beyond our borders.

Behind the extremists are often additional layers of benefactors and provocateurs: oligarchs, plutocrats, transnational criminal networks, and foreign powers wielding them on both sides towards their strategic goals. We’ve seen this with Russian-backed Facebook groups organizing right wing protests in the U.S., and in the increasing regularity of information warfare originating from Macedonian server farms, reclusive billionaires, and adversarial governments.

With these characteristics in mind we can envision what a modern U.S. civil war might look like. More sporadic and unexpected conflicts but with fewer deaths. Factions sprouting like mushrooms, taking different forms but coordinated across invisible networks. Waves of information warfare. Chaos and an accelerated bazaar of violence with a healthy immune response from the local and national authorities. The outcome (and probable goal) would likely be a fragmentation of the republic into smaller, more manageable alliances, though it may just as easily harden an increasingly authoritarian federal government. This is essentially how Russia waged its non-linear war against Ukraine.

To counter this emerging threat in America it’s critical to establish more formal practices for identifying and tracking domestic extremism — with an honest recognition that young, white males on both ends of the political spectrum are the most likely to commit violence. Likewise, we must formalize robust network analysis to map and track these distributed groups across their digital territories and to identify their backers, funders, and agitators. Finally, there needs to be a very serious conversation about how to regulate Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter as platforms for influence, instigation, propaganda, and recruiting.

For now, America is held in line by a strong rule of law and a good-enough economy that most people still have something to lose by choosing violence. But as our government and corporate leaders continue to deconstruct rule of law and economic opportunity, the norms degrade and the space for transgression becomes bigger. To FP’s poll, my gut says the likelihood of a second U.S. civil war in the next five years is between 20 and 40 percent but trending upward significantly.

Chris Arkenberg studies the interaction of disruptive technologies and complex systems. He is a technology analyst and strategist for Fortune 500, non-profit, and government clients. Among other roles, he’s been an advisor to the CTO of the Nature Conservancy, a visiting futurist with the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, a senior lecturer at the California College of the Arts, and a visiting researcher at Institute for the Future.

Pro-Russian insurgents occupy the Sloviansk city administration building on April, 14 2017. (Wikimedia Commons)


Some thoughts on how we might get from where we’re at now to a Second Civil War



You persuade your base that there is no other way but violence.

By Lt. Col. Robert F. McTague, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Best Defense office of Second Civil War affairs

If we have a second Civil War, trying to understand what is happening will feel more like Ukraine in 2014 than Virginia in 1861.

Our first Civil War was primarily about slavery, but that was in the context of social and economic models in the South that were ripe for extinction. The South’s reaction was to launch a last-ditch effort to maintain and prop up its way of life at all costs, so it was visceral and violent. 

Likewise, Trump’s election was an angry, defiant death throe, a angry cry against demographic and economic changes that are in fact irreversible. So, if you are a New Right strategist today — call them the Great Disruptors — the question is, how do you confront those inevitabilities?
First, you continue at the low level, with some really advanced, effective gerrymandering, as in Wisconsin. You continue to enflame working class whites, who have been ignored by the Democrats for decades. You also try to limit immigration and free trade as much as possible.

Even so, even as they do this, the New Right’s Disruptors know they can slow down changes to the nation, but they can’t stop them. So what’s the next step? You up the ante. You make it holy war. You persuade your base that there is no other way but violence. I believe many, perhaps most, of the members of Trump’s base will sign up for that.

Why? Because they will believe they are on the side of good, of right, of Americanism.

Many people in the South and heartland in general often think of themselves as patriotic, loyal Americans, more so than “liberals,” “Yankees,” “elites” and people from the North and urban areas. I know this well from two decades in the Army. Southerners nowadays, including Texans, often see themselves as the “realer Americans,” the people who really stand up for the country, who have a better feel for what it stands for.

How do you translate those feelings into tactics? Well, first, you don’t secede. Rather, you set the stage for yourself to be the big winner, the good guy. You make yourself “America” and make the “other guys” the troublemakers and secessionists. All you really are doing, you insist, is trying to make this country great again. Sound familiar?

You set out to marginalize your opposition. You declare that your enemies are the anti-American “elites,” concentrated in “Sanctuary Cities” that are economically thriving — and thumbing their noses are the rest of the country. They’re looking at you, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, New York and Boston.


The bad news for Disruptors is, these elitist cities are also many of the US’s largest ports and financial centers. The good news: they are easy to isolate and disenfranchise.
If I were a truly Machiavellian New Right strategist, I’d focus my fire on the state of California. Make it The Other. Attack it relentlessly. Threaten its culture and power. Cut off water that flows into it from outside the state, essential to its people and agriculture. Ignore those nettlesome decisions from the 9th Circuit.
Think of how it would benefit the base if California somehow withdrew from the next presidential election, sat it out in protest. Sound crazy? It is, but it’s also exactly the kind of audacious reshaping of the American electorate these strategists need.

The Disruptors would accept violence as part of the equation. I don’t foresee set-piece battles between great armies, but I think they understand the strategy would involve persistent conflict that kills hundreds or even thousands on the way to achieving its aims. If they can get away with it with minimal bloodshed, great; if not, “so be it.”

In March, my totally unscientific hunch was a second civil war had less than a 20% chance of happening.  Now I’m guessing it’s closer to 40%. The revision is less a reaction to the current president or perceived deterioration of the political environment as it is a revision of my own understanding of “where we are.” I’ve lately become persuaded that our current leaders are nearly incapable of mediation, reconciliation, or compromise in much of anything, regardless of the stakes; nor do I expect that to improve. If anything, I expect it to worsen.

I now think that something akin to the scenario I’ve presented here is only a matter of time. Why? Because for the New Right, it is the only alternative to political extinction.  Soon, they will have no choice but to be bold, drastic and ruthless. We’d be foolish not to expect something real and violent as a result.

Robert F. McTague retired in 2016 as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army.  He did two tours in Iraq, and also served in Kuwait, Qatar, Korea, Croatia, Romania, and Turkey.  He completed two NATO tours as well.  He now makes his home in Bucharest, Romania.

Rumblings of a second Civil War: Some links

More information on a second Civil War.

“Roger Stone Predicts a Civil War if Donald Trump is Impeached,” Salon

“Georgia Governor Expects Lawmakers to Plunge into Civil War Debate Next Year,” AJC

“Alex Jones and Other Conservatives Call For Civil War Against Liberals,” Newsweek

“Savage: Civil War if Trump Taken Down,” Infowars

“Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War?” the New Yorker

“Our House Divided,” the New York Times

“Pro-Confederate Activists Held ‘Secession Day’ Event at Roy Moore’s Foundation Two Years in a Row,” CNN

Overpopulation & Hyperimmigration

by Peter Goodchild

Overpopulation

Mass immigration is a story that has two aspects: (1) ecological and (2) political. The “ecological” and the “political” are closely related elements of systemic collapse, “the decline of the West.”

By “ecological aspect” I mean that human overpopulation is always destructive to the planet Earth, and that migration across borders merely shifts the problem of overpopulation from one country to another. By “political aspect” I mean that, in spite of all the fraudulent appeals to humanitarianism and other pseudo-values, the unfortunate reality is that hordes of impoverished and uneducated barbarians will eventually be profitable for the capitalists who are creating a new Utopia. That is why every politician of every party runs after “the ethnic vote” like a dog after a car. It is quite obvious, though, that many “refugees” are actually robbers and rapists, and that the coming Utopia could bear a close resemblance to the world of the Middle Ages, with an extremely wealthy elite class dominating a lower class that is kept permanently at an almost subhuman level of development. The final Utopia will be quite a Dystopia.

The following remarks focus largely on the “ecological” aspect, but that aspect overlaps seamlessly with the “political.” Canada is a perfect example of such an overlap. The fact that most of Canada is uninhabitable rock leads to the “ecological” fact that the enormous growth of Canada’s population will have disastrous effects on the habitability of the land. In reality, the habitable part of Canada, roughly speaking, is a strip of land, 150 km wide, running along the southern border, with a population density roughly equal to that of most other industrialized countries. Canada is not “vacant land” looking for buyers. At the same time, we must consider the “political” fact that mass immigration pushes out some of those troublesome white people who refuse to be converted to the new “ism” — “multiculturalism.”

The world’s population has risen from about 1.7 billion in 1900 to 2.5 in 1950, and is now well over 7 billion. Most of this increase, of course, has been in “developing” countries, suggesting that the term “developing” is rather misleading: a combination of environmental degradation and rapid population growth often makes “development” impossible (Catton, 1982; Kaplan, 2001). It has been said that as fossil-fuel production declines the global population must drop to far below its present size. In terms of agriculture alone we would not be able to accommodate even the present number of people as fossil fuels become scarce, with manual labour therefore replacing automation, and without the hydrocarbon-based fertilizers and pesticides that make modern yields triple those of earlier times (Pimentel & Hall, 1984). Even then we have not factored in war, epidemics, and other aspects of social breakdown.

Overpopulation is the fundamental cause of systemic collapse (Catton, 1982). All of the flash-in-the-pan ideas that are presented as solutions to modern dilemmas — solar power, biofuels, hybrid cars, desalination, permaculture, enormous dams — have value only as desperate attempts to solve an underlying problem that has never been addressed in a more direct manner.

American foreign aid has always included only trivial amounts for family planning (Spiedel, Sinding, Gillespie, Maguire, & Neuse, 2009, January). It would seem that the most powerful country in the world has done very little to solve the biggest problem in the world. However, there is the frightful possibility that one reason why the US government now gives so little aid to some countries is that the problem of overpopulation is regarded as hopeless, and that any assistance would be just money down the drain (Kaplan, 2001).

The problem of overpopulation is worsened by the fact that there are so many people busy either transmitting or receiving disinformation about the subject (Kolankiewicz & Beck, 2001, April). For left-wingers, discussion of high population is seen as persecution of the world’s poor. For rightwingers, high population is seen as providing more buyers, more workers, and more investors. For politicians, more people means more votes. For many religious groups, high population reflects God’s command to go forth and multiply. Corporate funding of several major environmentalist groups has also done quite a job of disconnecting them from discussion of population: they may be “green” but they are no longer “clean.”

Overpopulation can always be passed off as somebody else’s problem. It is the fundamental case of what Garrett Hardin calls “the tragedy of the commons” (1968, 1995): although an oversize family may have a vague suspicion that the world will suffer slightly from that fecundity, no family wants to lose out by being the first to back down. Without a central governing body that is both strong and honest, however, the evasion is perpetual, and it is that very lack of strength and honesty that makes traditional democracy an anachronism to some extent.

The Chinese have made quite an effort at dealing with excess population growth, but even they have not been very successful. Since 1953, the year of the first proper Chinese census and approximately the start of concerns with excessive fertility, the population has gone from 583 million to over 1.4 billion. For that matter, since the official starting of the one-child campaign in 1979, the population has grown by over 300 million (Riley, 2004, June); in other words, China’s increase is equal to the entire population of the US.

Overpopulation, however, is a problem that occurs not only in poor countries. The evidence is also clear in the US:

Mounting traffic congestion; endless disruptive road construction; spreading smog; worsening water pollution and tightening water supplies; disappearing wildlife habitats, farmland, and open spaces; overcrowded schools; overused parks and outdoor recreation facilities; the end of small-town life in communities that until recently had been beyond the city; the impending merging together of separate, unwieldy metropolitan areas into vast megalopolitan miasmas; and the overall deterioration in quality of life and the increasing social tensions of urban dwellers reflected in such phenomena as gated communities and road rage (Kolankiewicz & Beck, 2001, April).

It is only in the hinterlands, away from the cities, that the opposite occurs: depopulation and “rural flight.” The causes of depopulation are many, but they begin with the industrialization of agriculture and the growth of enormous corporate farms, “agri-business.” As the farming population is impoverished and reduced, the peripheral economy also shrinks, and crime and other social problems are the result. Nevertheless, the urban population of a country increasingly outweighs the rural. Worldwide, slightly more than half the human population now lives in urban areas, but these places will be death traps as resources disappear.

Actually, “overpopulation” tends to be a euphemism for “over-immigration,” and again we return to the “political.” Every country in the world is already well populated, in most cases quite overpopulated. The conception of some sort of land that is lying empty, waiting for the blessing of new arrivals, is a fiction invented by dishonest politicians. Family planning organizations sometimes inadvertently help to propagate this myth by euphemism, excessive caution in phraseology, and an unwillingness to risk antagonism. Although “family planning” is an admirable goal, what such organizations rarely state is that it is not where a child is born that really matters, demographically and economically, but where that person is eventually living — not the moment of birth, but the decades between birth and death, during which time that person will be consuming the world’s resources, along with more than 7 billion other people doing the same. Emigration and immigration, transferring the problem of overcrowding from one country to another, do no good at all; if anything, they simply perpetuate the illusion that birth control is unnecessary.

Discussion of overpopulation, however, is a great taboo. Politicians will rarely touch the issue. The many documents on population published by the United Nations merely sidestep the issue by discussing how to cater to large populations, in spite of the fact that such catering is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

To speak against overpopulation is an exercise in futility. How likely is it that the required massive change in human thinking will ever take place? Even in “developed” countries, to broach the topic of overpopulation is often to invite charges of racism and elitism. And there seems something both naïve and presumptuous in the common belief that people in poor countries are just waiting to be enlightened to “modern” ideals. On the contrary, the inhabitants of poor countries are often quite determined to hang on to their present systems of politics and religion, no matter how archaic and oppressive those systems may seem to outsiders, and would prefer that any proselytizing go in the opposite direction.

References

America Slowly Wakes Up To The Fact That It No Longer Exists

We no longer have anything in common as citizens of the USA or EU. Once we did, because we were born of a common root and shared a culture, but now we are merely those who attend a legal, political and economic system.

Arising from our pursuit of ideology, the notion of America as merely a system flourished for some time, but now has died, raising doubt about the question of unity as a nation:

It was Sept. 11, 2001, that sent existential concerns slamming into American speech. But there was something new, something dissonant, in the way we began to use the word — a change meant to accommodate the idea that just 19 men might strike at a nation’s being. We’d been exposed to an event people found truly unimaginable, one that shifted their sense of the world and what seemed possible in it. And yet, disorientingly, day-to-day American life continued. No armies massed on the country’s borders. The nation felt itself plunged into momentous conflict, and yet so much of that conflict existed somewhere else — not just in remote places but in abstractions and arguments over what developments, far from any battlefield, would indicate that “the terrorists have won.”

…For white nationalists, an America in which minorities mingle and miscegenate and share power with whites is an annihilating, nation-ending danger; for others, America cannot be itself until that happens. For the conservative columnist and radio host Dennis Prager, writing for TownHall in July, “left-wing-dominated media and universities pose an existential threat” to Western civilization — not because they seek to raze cities and scorch the earth, but because they envision it in ways Prager declines to recognize as the thing itself.

Any nation in which “minorities mingle and miscegenate” is a genocide factory. It takes in ethnic groups, and spits out people of no ethnicity. This fits with the Leftist ideal of removing inner traits — intelligence, moral character, race, intuition, faith — and replacing them with an external trait, namely the social ideal encoded as prescriptive philosophy that is ideology, and since this is based on human preference (“social”) rather than feedback from reality, it is always wholly individualistic and manifests as egalitarianism, or the rule that no individual can be seen as lesser than another for understanding less of reality.

In other words, the individual demands to be aided by others, even if they have not made a contribution. Consider how this contrasts the roots of civilization:

For many researchers, our cruelty to “them” starts with our kindness to “us.” Humans are the only animal that cooperates so extensively with nonkin, and researchers say that, like big brains, group life is a quintessential human adaptation. (In fact, many think big brains evolved in part to cope with group living.) Studies of living hunter-gatherers, who may represent the lifestyle of our ancestors, support this idea. Hunter-gatherers “cooperate massively in the flow of every imaginable good and service you can think of,” says anthropologist Kim Hill of Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, who has studied hunter-gatherers for 35 years. “Anything you need in daily life, the person next to you will lend you: water, sticks for firewood, a bow and arrow, a carrying basket—anything.”

Thus the group buffers the individual against the environment. “Our central adaptation is to group living,” says psychologist Marilynn Brewer of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. “The group is primary.”

A few elaborations: first, the group is not primary; social order is. The reason that hunter-gatherers — and really, people in every type of non-modern civilization — aid each other is that they are sharing a task, and it benefits all to have more hands on deck. People are a scarce resource, and if you are going to hunt, make shelter, prepare food, or otherwise support a society through productivity, mutuality within the group is essential because it makes each person more efficient through delegation of tasks and specialization of labor.

In order to support that, social order emerges. With social order, you have some leaders, and some whose judgment is generally respected, so you achieve both hierarchy and caste. In addition, the basic formula of civilization appears: those who are willing to contribute to productivity are to be aided; those who are free-loading, or subtracting productivity, are to be hated. In addition, the group needs to be xenophobic and paranoid about outsiders because for the group to establish its standards, values and genetics, no competing versions must exist nearby; realists recognize that every group wants to dominate all others unless sufficiently removed from them that the task of conquest entails much burden for little reward.

Even in the years after our hunter-gatherer days, which really might simply be termed a time of nomadic civilization, this principle applied. Those who contributed were aided; once wealth was abstracted into gold and later ownership of businesses or farms, a general notion arose that people should be compensated according to the degree of their contribution, which was measured in the ability to make intelligent leadership decisions more than labor-by-the-pound.

Leftism — individualism — emerged in reaction to that condition. The Leftist wants reward-before-productivity, and they want to remove the system by which people are measured for their abilities. This is the desire of the individual for pacifism; he wants to eliminate the possibility of being lowered by his own failure, whether in battle or in daily tasks in which he will either demonstrate a knowledge of reality or a lack thereof, and by that will be assigned a status somewhere in the hierarchy.

This reveals the great secret of the Left, which is that despite their method of collectivism, they are fundamentally malignant individualists of the type we normally call “parasites,” but ironically, it is not because they cannot contribute, but because they fear their contributions will be insufficient. In this lies the key to defeating them: when you give them other tasks to do in which failure is anonymized, then they have only positive gain because of the “opt-in” nature of this new pursuit, and their fear of failure is alleviated; ironically, a caste system does this by assigning them to roles in which only egregious failure is punished, which gives the 80% who are functional a position that requires very little effort to achieve and maintain, freeing them up to spend more time on the rest of life. Interestingly, it does this without requiring novel changes to society so that there are always new opt-in pursuits to join.

Once we understand that social order is the root of civilization, and that individualism opposes social order, it becomes clear why America has fragmented entirely: the Leftist vision — including diversity — divides us from the sense of mutuality through shared purpose, and replaces it with obligation, or assigned tasks under the threat of social disapproval and possibly ostracism if one fails to do them. With individualism, there is nothing left but power, control, commerce and the chanting mob calling for your head on a pike.

The position someone holds in society — defined by social status, rank and hierarchical level — then, contrary to appearances, grants people stability and freedom from control, where individualism, also visually paradoxically, leads to dominance, control and rule by commerce. Diversity came about as a Leftist social weapon against hierarchy, because if you erase race and ethnic group, obliterate heritage and values, and mangle faith, language and memory, you create equal identical people who can be molded much as we shape products in a factory.

With diversity, Americans no longer had the mutuality necessary for civilization. Black people would look over at white people and wonder if those people were acting for the benefit of their own group, and not for the shared group created of political, economic and social boundaries. As it turns out, blood will out; people act not only for their own race, but for their own religion, ethnic group, political leaning, caste, region and class. They will, for a time, act together for so long as it is perceived that they share a common purpose. However, this does not last, and so diverse societies quickly fragment or self-destruct through endless caste warfare.

Americans adopted diversity in its most recent form because they believed it would end class warfare caused by racial, ethnic and caste differences in ability because of the genetic differences between those groupings. The Left likes to tell us how these divisions are “social constructs,” but that is deceptive because all language is a social construct; we notice similarities between things, group them into a category, and give that category a name. When language is used well, it groups people by the right traits, and the time-honored use of ethnic terms suggest that is true; when language is used poorly, it reflects the needs of the person coining that language, and focuses instead on political or external characteristics of groups like ideology, for example.

Internal characteristics are useful because they cannot change. You cannot alter your genetic code, and if that ability ever becomes possible, those who take advantage of it will be viewed with suspicion; to alter your genetic code is to hate your roots, which means without exception that those roots were bad which means you are bad and trying to hide that fact. In the same way, those who hate their own race or ethnic group have some actual reason for that hatred, in contrast to whatever reasons they state, which is most likely that they are broken and hate their roots as a result. If your roots made you broken, you would hate them as well. Internal characteristics like race, ethnic group, caste, moral character, intelligence, class and intuition allow us to act in good faith within the context of mutuality.

In the 1990s, America finally got onboard with the diversity agenda, since we no longer had a real fight — against the Soviets — and were now focused on fighting each other, which we did by “keeping up with the Joneses” on an ideological level, since WW2 and the Cold War had shifted us from being an organic nation based on realism to being an ideological nation based on politics and economics. In 2008, this new diversity elected Barack Obama; in 2016, amidst a downpour of other anti-globalist actions worldwide, the Obama agenda was rejected because of the disasters it created, Soviet-style, in manic pursuit of ideology even when it contradicted reality.

For us this means a seemingly uncertain future, but even that is human pretense. We know what the future holds: it turns out that diversity was wrong, in the sense of being a policy based on unrealistic/incorrect principles, and therefore, it is ending. People are pulling away from each other not just by race, but by ethnic group, religion, caste, politics, region and class. Two hundred years after we began this experiment, we have our answer: civilization requires both genetic commonality and hierarchy for mutuality, or it self-destructs.

Intolerable, Flagrant Injustice for Whites in America

Jose Ismael Torres and Kayla Rae Norton react to their decades-long prison sentences for being White in modern America

by David Sims

THIS YEAR (2017) the Marxist left made a substantial grab for heightened reach and power. Charlottesville was part of it. Another part of it was this year’s conviction of Kayla Rae Norton and Jose Ismael Torres in Georgia. These two Whites are guilty of nothing more than creating a public disturbance (if that), yet they got sentenced to prison terms more appropriate to aggravated manslaughter or second-degree murder.

The original aggression at a Black kid’s birthday party was committed by some of the Blacks who attended it, when they threw rocks at the traveling group of Confederate Pride demonstrators.

Reverse the situation, put the Whites where the Blacks were, and put the Blacks where the Whites were, and once again the Whites will be assigned all of the blame and put into prison for decade-plus terms.

Here are some comments I’ve seen on the convictions of Norton and Torres:

Funny how Latahusha Nedd, the African-American female who held a gun up to a camera and threatened to shoot White people and police in the exact same area, is already out of prison and posting on Facebook, however if you’re White and wave a Confederate flag, you’d better be prepared to do 35 to life. That’s what they call justice in America in 2017.

Looks like the media left out the part where the Blacks threw rocks at one of the trucks as it passed, causing him to hit a curb, starting the whole confrontation.

I doubt that the Latahusha Nedd precedent and the actual causes of the Black-White birthday party confrontation were unknown to the court. Rather, it’s more like considerations of fairness in the application of the laws are now considered “counter-productive” by the left and by those who seek to ingratiate themselves with the left (like certain judges).

Anti-Whites are using videos of the sentencing hearing to mock Norton and Torres most spitefully. Apparently, Norton and Torres broke down in tears when they heard how much time in prison they had received. A White mother and father will not be able to raise their three children, who must now grow up without them. And the White family’s trouble began when Black people threw rocks at their vehicles, and they stopped to complain about it.

Here’s a quote from some early press coverage of the incident:

Bush said his group was leaving a nearby event when they drove by Alford’s home and the partygoers started yelling at the trucks in front of him. They then threw rocks at his vehicle, he said. Bush said he fishtailed while trying to drive away, then ran over a median and got a flat tire. When he pulled into a nearby driveway, the partygoers swarmed and made threats, and his friends backed him up, he said. “Basically about eight of us had to hold 15 to 20 of them back,” Bush said, admitting that a specific racial slur was likely used by members of his group. Someone called 911 and police eventually arrived to separate the factions. Authorities said neither side claimed anything physical took place, and no injuries were reported. They are now reviewing videos to see if any criminal activity occurred.

There was a video on YouTube showing the incident, but apparently a leftist reported it and had it censored.

The anti-White “Young Turks” television channel said of the incident (followed by my response): “So what they did is they drove through a Black neighborhood as a Black child was having a birthday party. And they started making threats toward the party-goers.”

Leftist Young Turk, you left out an important detail. As the flag-waving trucks entered the neighborhood, the Blacks saw the Confederate flags, decided that they didn’t approve of the display of Confederate pride, and began throwing rocks at the trucks. One of the trucks swerved to avoid a rock and ran into a median, where something concealed in the grass caused the truck to have a flat tire. The convoy stopped in order to let the driver of the truck with the flat tire change the tire. As this was going on, Blacks from the party swarmed the truck and caused a confrontation. That’s when the hard words were spoken, undoubtedly on both sides.

The mainstream media did with this event what it usually does — what it did with George Zimmerman, what it did with its hoaxing regarding Charlottesville: it lied, it abused emphasis, it omitted important details, it made deceptive use of camera angles, lines-of-sight, timing, and selective “eyewitness” interviews to give the public a false impression.

And you, Young Turks, are part of this deception. Kayla Rae Norton and Jose Ismael Torres are political prisoners convicted of trumped-up charges and given a show-trial with a conclusion pre-determined by Political Correctness. They are guilty of nothing more than creating a public disturbance, if that, and their sentences are more suited to persons convicted of aggravated manslaughter or second-degree murder.

If this happens again, except with Whites where the Blacks were, and Blacks where the Whites were, then once again the Whites will be assigned all of the blame and will be given decade-plus prison sentences. And the reason will once again be Political Correctness. [That is, this sort of thing will happen until we build a new society for ourselves alone, which is exactly what we must do. — Ed.]

* * *