Lost Argentinian Submarine has 44 People on Board, But Judenpress Only Cares About Female Officer

Men Don’t Matter in the world today, we built everything, but our lives don’t mean shit to our governments or the media.

Eric Striker
Daily Stormer
November 20, 2017


Even though November 19th was supposedly “International Men’s Day,” the only name of the 44 trapped crewmen trapped on board the Argentinian submarine the media is releasing is that of the vessel’s only female officer: Eliana Krawczyk.

Women don’t belong in the military. Women should not be put in charge of other people’s lives, or heavy machinery. Krawczyk is the first woman in Latin America to be put in such a position, which makes sense since (what’s left of) Argentina is a Western country with a large Jewish population rapidly exterminating and replacing its whites.

The military of Argentina – once the gatekeeper against corruption and a check on Jewish power – is one of the major institutions where Argentine whites have become a minority in younger generations.

Even if competence wasn’t a factor, putting a female (no matter what she looks like) in a small ship with dozens of men is a recipe for morale problems, in-fighting, etc. We all know she is fucking one or multiple crew men during voyages.

This is a distraction, the battlefield is man’s sacred space.

But even in situations like this, the media promotes its feminist ideology.

AP:

Among the 44 crew members is Eliana Krawczyk, the first female submarine officer in Argentina.

So?

BFMTV:

La jeune femme de 35 ans fait partie des 44 sous-mariniers présents à bord de l’Ara San Juan, le bâtiment porté disparu depuis mercredi.

La réception de quelques signaux satellitaires a ravivé l’espoir de retrouver l’Ara San Juan, le sous-marin dont l’armée argentine est sans nouvelles depuis mercredi. Mais les 44 sous-mariniers restent pour l’heure introuvables. Parmi eux, Eliana Maria Krawczyk, 35 ans, devenue en 2012 la première femme d’Argentine officier de sous-marin et peut-être, selon sa déclaration lors d’une interview, la première d’Amérique latine.

And?

Primera Edicion:

El submarino ARA San Juan perdió todo tipo de comunicación con tierra hace más de 48 horas. Entre sus tripulantes se encuentra Eliana María Krawczyk, la obereña que es pionera en la Armada Argentina por ser la primera mujer submarinista en obtener un cargo de alto rango.

Ahora su familia espera con ansias que la misión de rescate del navío sea exitosa y que las 44 personas a bordo estén a salvo. Hasta el cierre de la edición continuaba la intensa búsqueda en la zona de Puerto Madryn, Chubut.

What about the 43 young men on the submarine, do they have families that miss them or did they pop out of the dirt like a potato?

German, Swedish, Norwegian, Italian, etc press are all profiling this woman and giving her plight special attention. Almost 0 acknowledgement is given to the rest of the crew.

Seeing the situation of this ship, there is a good chance they will die. And nobody will know who they are outside of this one woman.

But that’s not smart of the ideologues in my opinion. What if they can’t find them in time and it turns out the submarine malfunctioned thanks to an error by the “first female officer”?

I won’t be a speculative jerk, but whether that is true or not, let’s not pretend women taking roles like this in the military are anything more than a novelty put out there for propaganda reasons.

Eliana Krawczyk judging from her photos online, skipped on her maternal rite to have children to do this bullshit. If she doesn’t have health-related infertility, where is the honor in that?

That’s why they’re celebrating her.

Stormer, Volume 12: Hong Kong Phooey

Daily Stormer
November 12, 2017

Here’s our weekly content digest! Show your appreciation for the authors by helping preserve their work for posterity through the process of samizdat. Download this weekly edition, archive it on your local storage, reupload it to a different location than you found it, and share it from there. Encourage others to do the same.

  • PDF: 103 pages, 3.60M
  • ePub: 849 pages, 3.17MB

Another Island nation kiked us. Samoa alleging “TOS/AUP violations” and seizing our domain. I read all the terms on the national registry. There’s nothing applicable. Is there a secret, unwritten policy insisting one not talk about Jews in every nation in the entire world? Where can Jews be discussed? Does anyone know? Why is this one single group supposed to be universally protected from all criticisms of their collective behaviors? What country will let us talk about Jews?

So here we are, on a new domain. Will it hold?

Hong Kong’s very foundations are set in free speech. Hong Kong and Japan are the only non-European countries to have functional Constitutional guarantees of free speech. The rich, longstanding tradition of free speech and free press in Hong Kong has been a major competitive advantage for it in the region, which is dominated by censorious communists. Hong Kong has traditionally had the freedom to say whatever it saw fit to be said, whereas those in mainland China do not. This kind of freedom has garnered the area a positive reputation as the major hub for information in the Asia Pacific.

Some in Hong Kong worry that the desires of the party in mainland China will erode their rights to free speech. Those in Hong Kong know what it is to live under the shadow of a foreign aggressor who might wish you silent. Are they thus willing to shelter us and ensure our right to free speech? Or will they buckle like the last nations did.

All I know is that a dozen countries have shut us down now. This is a massive, worldwide conspiracy among kikes to shut off this website. There’s people hunting for our staff. There’s governments pointing guns at registry operators. This is a scale of censorship that has never been applied to any publication in the history of man, and yet: we still post. We will not buckle. We will not break. This week we were in the front of Google News results– while we were on a Tor onion. Who the hell needs a domain anyways? Our posting is so powerful that we end up on Google News while we’re on Tor.

Reality is starting to set in for the kikes. This site is viable and continues to make international headlines because we have a total monopoly on the truth. We will keep posting until they put bullets in our heads. If you want to shut us up, kikes, grow some balls and kill us, because I swear to whatever gods may be that I am going to post as hard as I can until every last one of you filthy rat goblins are spewing blood in a ditch.

Hail victory.

((((((Bobby Fischer))))))’s “Notes on the Jew”

Benjamin Garland
Daily Stormer
October 30, 2017

((((((Bobby Fischer)))))) is seen by many as the greatest chess player of all time. Whether that is true or not, is impossible to know. But that he is the most famous, important and influential player of all time is not even up for dispute. He captivated the world with his prodigious talent and genius, and pretty much singlehandedly put chess on the map.

The 1972 World Chess Championship, in which he defeated Boris Spassky 12½–8½, was seen as a Cold War proxy battle between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which was at the time the source of the majority of the world’s most formidable players.

Fischer was only 28 years old at the time. His victory over Spassky and the Soviets, and the meteoric rise that led to it (Fischer had become both the youngest grandmaster and the youngest U.S. Chess Champion by the age of 15) was a source of great pride for our nation, and he became a national hero.

Despite his unfortunate partial Jewish heritage, Fischer also absolutely hated the Jews. He saw what they had done and were doing to the world, and was not at all ashamed or afraid to openly call them out for it, regardless of the negative consequences it brought upon him and his legacy.

Living in Brooklyn, New York, from the age of 6, Fischer had many bad experiences dealing with Jews throughout his life. The chess world was also riddled with them. According to Fischer, in a 1961 interview with Jew pornographer Ralph ((((((Ginzburg)))))), there were “too many Jews in chess” and they had “taken away the class of the game.”

In the video above, we hear what is probably his most poignant statement against the Jews. It comes from an interview Fischer gave to Philippino grandmaster Eugenio Torre, while he was locked in jail in Japan as a political prisoner in 2005.

Here is a transcript:

A few notes on the Jew:

Jews are anti-social, destructive, intolerant, mean-spirited, deceitful, et cetera. They wish to destroy, rule and kill, rob whoever gets in their way. To facilitate them getting what they want, they have developed a perverted, unnatural, destructive, evil lifestyle.

Even though they live off the non-Jews as parasites, they still hate them and wish to destroy them. Jews hate nature and the natural order, because it’s pure and beautiful, and also because it’s bigger and stronger than they are, and they feel that they can not fully control it. Nature’s beauty and harmony stands in stark contrast to their squalidness and ugliness, and that makes them hate it all the more.

Jews are destroyers. They are anti-humans. The anti-human Jew hates and wants to destroy all non-Jews. He will also destroy even other Jews who are less destructive and evil than he is, if they get in his way.

Apparently, the wickedness of the Jew is genetically based. Jews are destroyers. They are anti-humans. By the act of circumcision, the Jew shows his hatred towards nature and the natural order. By this bloody, cruel, senseless act, he shows his cruelty and sadism, and that he will stop at nothing to obtain his ends. Surely the Jews are also behind the Islamic circumcision, which serves as an ideal cover and distraction from their own wickedness in this regard.

Jews are truly anti-human and anti-nature. Jews are intensely selfish, intolerant and anti-social, et cetera. They are full of hate, greed, malice, et cetera. Naturally, other people, i.e. the non-Jews, don’t like being bulldozed aside, robbed and murdered by the Jews, and will sooner or later resist. That is where the lies and deceit of the Jews come into place.

Following this, the interviewer objects with some platitudes about “peace and unity” and everybody all getting along, to which Fischer replies “I don’t think there’ll be any peace until these Jews are dealt with Eugene – these people are animals.”

And he was absolutely right. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The Jews dismiss Fischer’s truthful anti-Semitic statements by slandering him as being nothing more than a crazy paranoiac (here is their most recent hit piece against him).

It’s true he maybe was a bit crazy and a bit paranoid at times, especially in his later years, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was spot-on about the evil and destructive nature of the Jew.

Fischer had an IQ somewhere between 180 and 187 – the kikes weren’t fooling him.

Max Igan – The Controlled Demolition of America

I don’t always listen to Max, but decided to tune in and I heard him talking about some important issues, calling the Holocaust a hoax, and exposing Israeli programs to completely destroy and dominate America.

What Is Conservatism?

Much confusion follows the terms conservative and conservatism. This misunderstanding arises from the fact that we live in a time of ideology, but conservatism is not an ideology; more like customs or folkways, it is a philosophy of life based on direct experience, and does not summarize into handy bullet points like the much simpler Leftist doctrine.

Leftism has one idea: it believes in human equality, which is another way of saying that any given individual can never be wrong, barring a crime against another individual. Equality means that sensible decisions are on par with nonsensical ones because in each case, the person making the decision is equal and therefore accepted and given a minimum basic social status regardless of outcome.

Notions like egalitarianism — that all individuals are equal, and therefore beyond criticism with any impact on their social standing — fit within the form of ideology, or prescriptive belief systems which tell us what we should or ought to do. These assume the presence of civilization as a constant independent of our actions.

Conservatism centers itself around the idea of adaptation, or instead of thinking in prescriptive terms, to conserve the best of what has been done in the past. This contains two notions: first, that we look toward cause-effect relationships over time to determine what is functional, and second that we look at a qualitative assessment of its results.

Prescriptive belief systems measure entirely by human standards, as in what we think should be true or should be made true, where conservatism applies a results-based standard known as consequentialism which measures effects in reality over both short-term and long-term.

We can see glimpses of this in how others have described conservatism. Jonathan Haidt introduces conservative thought as a balancing between multiple factors that measure goodness:

Haidt (pronounced like “height”) made his name arguing that intuition, not reason, drives moral judgments. People are more like lawyers building a case for their gut feelings than judges reasoning toward truth. He later theorized a series of innate moral foundations that evolution etched into our brains like the taste buds on our tongues—psychological bases that underlie both the individual-protecting qualities that liberals value, like care and fairness, as well as the group-binding virtues favored by conservatives, like loyalty and authority.

…Researchers have found that conservatives tend to be more sensitive to threats and liberals more open to new experiences.

…”People do indeed reason, but that reasoning is done primarily to prepare for social interaction, not to search for truth.”

…Building on ideas from the anthropologist Richard Shweder, Haidt and his colleagues synthesize anthropology, evolutionary theory, and psychology to propose six innate moral foundations:

  • care/harm,
  • fairness/cheating,
  • liberty/oppression,
  • loyalty/betrayal,
  • authority/subversion, and
  • sanctity/degradation.

…Liberals jack up care, followed by fairness and liberty. They rarely value loyalty and authority. Conservatives dial up all six.

Because Leftism is based in a human-oriented instead of results-oriented framework, it perpetually seeks to control, or impose a uniform standard on all as a way to use them as a means toward its goals which are outside of the civilization itself. The goals of Leftism exist independent of any civilization, and are intended as ideological achievements, not practical or realistic ones.

Control consists of removing any variation and directly imposing the will of some central entity or idea, rejecting individual assessments of how to apply it or how it should be adapted in different contexts. Control, like universalism, exists without context, and imposes a world of human symbols upon the more complex contexture of reality.

For control to succeed, it must address the individual outside of civilization. This is why liberals jack up care/harm, fairness/cheating and liberty/oppression. Conservatives favor social order instead, and so for them, while fairness and non-tyranny are important, so are loyalty, hierarchy/authority and having something sacred at the core of what we do. This is geared toward perpetuating civilization.

In this way, we can summarize the two belief systems as follows:

  • Right = order
  • Left = individualism

Order occurs outside of the human individual, but requires the individual to have an inner motivation toward achieving it, because it is not the kind of thing that can be measured as in a meritocracy or allegiance to an ideology. The symbol and reality are separate, where with ideology, the symbol intends to become the reality.

We find this hard to understand, because all of our modern thinking is strictly ideological:

Note the difference between concept and ideology. An ideology has a tight, well defined set of rules, while a concept is amorphous and changing.

Once you go outside of ideology-land, you find yourself in a nebulous space where you have principles and knowledge of the past, but have to apply these as best you know how. There is no right answer; there are some wrong answers, and then others which are varying degrees of quality in terms of results, and whoever gets the best one relative to the others wins the race, with everyone else getting second, third, or fourth place (and so on).

Ideology guides control, which tries to force everything to fit a human ideal, which is an artificial construct because it is our simpler minds imposing what we think is order on a more complex world, created by something smarter than us. For those who are agnostic or atheist, this greater intelligence can be as simple as millions of years of iterations, each time testing what existed against its environment, and selecting the improvements. If you have ever watched a computer program loop through successive calculations, maybe graphing the result on a screen, you know how many thousands or millions of iterations can make a huge difference in precision.

Human thinking tends toward squares. We like blocks, evenly spaced, in rows on a grid. We like absolute balance such as opposites. We have things we desire, and things we fear. We like to believe we are unique and important in a cosmic or universalist sense, and that the proof of this is that we have many different goals for many different individuals. This simplistic vision contrasts the organic essence of nature, where every action is indirect and seemingly spontaneous, objects are unequal and scattered in dense patterns, and there is no factory-style process repeated identically for every object or person, only many different paths which hope to reach the same goal and do so in varying degrees.

Even more, our thinking tends toward centralization. We have trouble separating our individual perspective, as beings occupying a single part of a complex system, from what it would be like to be in charge of that system. If something bad happens to us, we want to ban all methods by which this bad thing could happen to anyone, because only by doing that will we have banished it, and therefore made ourselves safe.

Along those lines, we also do not handle cause-effect reasoning well. When we see an effect, such as poverty, we want to operate directly on it, by having an all-powerful force send out money and police to force everyone to be in conditions where they are not facing the evils we fear. It is not so much that our minds tend toward the totalitarian, but we favor one-step solutions, because to us problems appear out of nowhere in a single step, so there should be some simple and all-powerful counteraction that we apply like swatting a fly, ripping out a weed, or hammering a board over a broken shutter.

Unfortunately, reality does not reward centralization:

The contrast with national solutions to problems rather than federal (i.e., state government) solutions to problems is the difference between monopoly and markets. When states exercise power over education or labor relations or abortion or civil liberties, then the wise exercise of that power will attract to well-governed states people, commerce, brains, and talent.

This marketplace of governments works in practice and it also allows the sort of diversity which leftists pretend to pine for so deeply. The greater the nationalization of government, the fewer areas in which states can be truly independent, and the less those independent policies matter.

N.B. the above source uses the term “national” to refer to central control at a nation-state level, not nationalism.

There are a number of “2D political compass” type tests floating around that try to add another axis to the Right-Left divide, which they erroneously categorize as individual-versus-collective. This new axis might be called method in that it covers the spectrum from anarchy through totalitarianism, but its essential goal is to blur the difference between Right and Left.

Either side can adopt any methods, including centralization, and so this distinction is not sufficient to differentiate them. The Rightist method, however, is to eschew human control and instead to see what actually succeeds, and pay attention to that, instead of what we think should succeed.

In Right-Left hybrids, such as neoconservatism or National Socialist, this distinction becomes confused because, by pursuing a Leftist idea of equality, they commit themselves to the model of the universal human, which in turn requires an assembly-line style of applying equal pressure to all people. This causes them to fail through an informational counterpart to thermodynamics:

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It’s not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

The rigid nature of control, which creates identical objects or events regardless of context, naturally leads to chaos because these are imposed on an uneven topography and by their centralized nature, are oblivious to different local conditions, where a cascading authority — king, duke, baron, lord — would have someone recalculating at every level, especially the lowest.

This shows us the two models we can use in our approach toward life.

The first, which is high entropy, relies on us treating the world as an extension of ourselves. We find what we want, and then apply that rigidly everywhere, which leads to a gradual introduction of greater amounts of variation, leading to chaos. Identical responses to different starting points lead to radically different outcomes over time.

The second, which is low entropy, involves us treating ourselves as an extension of the world. We establish a general goal, purpose and set of principles, and then apply it on a case-by-case basis as has been the wont of conservatives since the dawn of humanity. This looks more chaotic, but because all results adapt to the same end-point, it involves many different paths leading to similar results.

In Leftism, the paths/methods are standardized; in conservatism, the purposes/endpoints are the same, and so parallel paths eventually reach similar goals. There is no pretense of making objects, people or ideas identical, because identical objects are only fit in the flat, grid-like topography favored by human minds.

This distinction between individualism and orientation toward order shows us why all political systems ultimately break down into Left and Right or something like them. We either favor the self, or we favor order, which requires the sacrifice of the self, which is necessary for any self-actualization, self-discipline, mindfulness or virtue:

The big difference between these two schemes is that The Four Kinds of Happiness moves from the self-transcendence individual to the relational and finally to the transcendent and collective. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, on the other hand, moves from the collective to the relational and, at its peak, to the individual. In one the pinnacle of human existence is in quieting and transcending the self; in the other it is liberating and actualizing the self.

Most religions and moral systems have aimed for self-quieting and, figuring that the great human problem is selfishness. But around the middle of the 20th century, ((((((Abraham Maslow)))))), Carl Rogers and others aimed to liberate and enlarge the self. They brought us the self-esteem movement, humanistic psychology, and their thinking is still very influential today.

…Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has always pointed toward a chilly, unsatisfying version of self-fulfillment. Most people experience their deepest sense of meaning not when they have placidly met their other needs, but when they come together in crisis.

Through this distinction, we can see what conservatism is not: it is not any order based in the individual, all of which depend on egalitarianism or meritocracy as a means of reducing individuals to a uniform standard and then elevating the most obedient, which is a hallmark of control. Tyranny, totalitarianism, the managerial state, bureaucracy, administration and external discipline are all forms and methods of control.

We can see now why “classical liberals,” sometimes called neoconservatives or Libertarians, are not conservatives. They refuse to consider anything at a level above that of the individual.

They are correct when they defend capitalism, because unlike socialism this is not centrally controlled and so is low entropy, but incorrect to make it out to be more than it is. Capitalism is an economic system, and it requires inputs from culture and leadership to function; if we remove those, it becomes self-serving like anything else and consumes all in its path.

Conservatives are not strictly capitalist, but see capitalism as a means to an end, which is that of implementing a flexible economic system in which results are more important than human intentions or desires.

In fact, the only civilizations which we can plausibly call “conservative” belong to the category of designs which are oriented toward a singular goal through flexible, independent methods, and these cannot be classically liberal, because in those the goal is determined by individuals, and thus the system becomes self-serving like anything else and consumes all in its path.

For these reasons, people who discuss individualism and capitalism as the cornerstone of conservatism have missed the boat; conservatives are those who aspire to being as great as ancient Greece and Rome, who defend the monarchy, and who believe strongly in the genetic roots of populations. Our unstated and informal goals are to restore Western Civilization and make it great.

“American conservatives,” who are essentially classical liberals who like a strong defense budget and Christian-ish morality, are not conservatives; they are a hybrid with Leftists, like the National Socialists, who do not realize that their methods will lead to social breakdown just as any other Leftist approach will.

The Alt Right came about from a fertile brew of influences — libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, neoreactionary, human biodiversity, Old Right, radical traditionalism, anarcho-monarchism — which ultimately synthesized into a Right-wing movement which favors hierarchy and social order over individualism. This was not random.

The analysis above shows that there are only two options, Right (order) and Left (individualism). We cannot escape the duality of approaches inherent to being human. Neither should we try, since to avoid one is to embrace the other, which means that any “third way” will ultimately distill to one or the other, as the evolution of the Alt Right in recent history shows us.

Mestizo Murderer of Kate Steinle on Trial

The California failed state recently declared itself a sanctuary. But a sanctuary for what? The question can be answered by a quick glance through recent headlines. There is simply no better place to avoid the consequences of being a (((Hollywood))) sex pervert or child molester, a homosexual degenerate who wants to intentionally spread GRIDS, or a Moloch-worshipping transsexual who likes corrupting children. Of course, in a state that lies prostrate in worship to the toxic jewish agenda of White genocide, sanctuary is most readily bestowed on the hordes of hostile, bowel-movement brown invaders who serve as biological weapons for the rat-faced men seeking to destroy a formerly safe White homeland.

Kabbalafornia’s abject collaboration with the insane talmudic plan to extinguish the White race by flooding White nations with violent, low-IQ savages has a long history. In San Francisco alone, there was the infamous “migrant-offender shield” program that used taxpayer dollars to protect Honduran illegal alien crack cocaine dealers from deportation by flying them outside of US jurisdiction temporarily, before assisting to bring them back to the US. And who can fail to appreciate the supposedly critical contributions of the Aztexican invader to the violent “vibrancy” that the jews want us to believe is (((our))) greatest strength? Reaching into the memory hole, one can still find the not-too-distant case of the murderous Edwin Ramos and the cold-blooded “mistaken” execution of a father and two children. Never mind that this Aztexican primitive had a history of murdering its fellow Mestizo monsters, the sanctuary state protected its dangerous pet from deportation and ensured a continuation of violence. It must be a complete coincidence that the Yiddocracy then uses the existence of the violence it promotes through the untenable proximity of incompatible racial groups as a pretext to browbeat Whites about “racism,” take away any remaining meaningful liberties, and promote the eradication of Whites through miscegenation with lower, darker forms of humanity.

For the jews, it is important that we learn absolutely nothing from the past and remain ignorant about the true, disastrous effects of flooding our homelands with dangerous animalistic dullards from the Central American sewer. That’s why the murder of Kate Steinle by Jose Garcia Zarate, despite getting some national attention when it occurred (primarily as part of an effort to further restrict gun rights and disarm the population), has been tagged for expurgation. Now safely out of the media spotlight, the Mestizo who, after being deported five times, gunned down a beautiful, innocent Aryan woman in the prime of her life is being put on trial. In the Californian clown-court, the despicable Jose Garcia Zarate is being prosecuted by his co-ethnic tribal compatriot Diana Garcia.  Don’t hold your breath waiting for justice to be served.

A beautiful Aryan woman sacrificed to jewish lies about multiculturalism and economics.

The undocumented immigrant accused of shooting and killing Pleasanton native Kate Steinle was aiming toward her and knew what he was doing.”

An undocumented invader uses an undocumented shooting range, and something goes terribly wrong. Despite its resemblance to a creature from The Island of Dr. Moreau, the Zarate animal was at least dimly aware that it was viciously attacking a White woman as it took aim and shot her in the back. Pay no attention to the Mestizos overrunning your communities and gunning down your women, White man. Hey isn’t that negro ball on the talmudvision?

This piece of Aztexican garbage purposefully gunned down a White woman. The jews want more of this in our homelands.

The closely watched case has attracted national attention because of its connection to immigration policy – Garcia Zarate, a Mexican citizen, was released from a San Francisco jail two and a half months before the shooting instead of being deported because of the city’s sanctuary city policy.”

The conspicuous surrender of our borders to rampaging inferiors is explained away by rat-faced men, bleating about immigration policy and “the right thing to do.” It’s never mentioned that Zarate and the millions of identically hostile, anti-White Aztexicans have nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with invasion, colonization, and the displacement of Whites from the communities they built. To the unredeemable and corrupt jewish puppets running San Francisco, hunting down and violently diversifying every last White person is much more important than your safety or the life of Kate Steinle.

Garcia Zarate, who was spinning around in a chair on the pier, aimed “towards” Steinle with the gun and fired, Garcia argued. Steinle, who was walking with her father, fell forward…The only thing she could say was ‘dad, help me, help me.’”

With an IQ that would be considered retarded in a White, the “hardworking” Mestizo monster spends its day hanging around the pier and spinning in a chair. Reaffirming those strong Aztexican family values we hear about, Zarate then shoots Kate Steinle dead in front of her father’s eyes. Apparently this is all perfectly acceptable because a jew said It’s The Right Thing To DoTM and muh GDP. How about another million of these morlocks next year?

[Defense lawyer Matt Gonzalez] said Garcia Zarate, who was homeless, had found the gun on the pier, wrapped in a cloth, and picked it up. “He did not know he was handling a firearm,” he said.”

A primitive, brown-skinned idiot, living a listless parasitic life in the remnants of a once-great culture it cannot understand and can only destroy.  The moronic malevolence of the Central American simpleton on full display.  It didn’t know it was handling a gun, but it somehow could aim, and put its paw on the trigger. All those years ago, Kipling was right:

Take up the White Man’s burden –
Send forth the best ye breed –
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild –
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

The Kate Steinle tragedy is symbolic of what the catastrophic jewish century has wrought on our once proud and prosperous society. The needless and avoidable death of a young lady who epitomized the peerless beauty of Aryan women, at the hands of a malformed genetic alien from a miscegenated, degenerated branch of humanity. The jews brought the Mestizo creatures to our homeland with lies about how important it is for the White race to sell its birthright and its future so that a meaningless economic indicator will increase by a fraction of a percent. The Mestizos may be here for a better life, or for family values, or because they’re natural conservatives; but they will never be here for a better life for Whites, or the values of a White family, or the conservation of the White race. They are a separate, competing species and their presence in White homelands can only lead to the violence exemplified by the nightmare that befell the Steinle family. A nation does not exist for an economy. It exists to provide a safe space for a race and that race’s culture to flourish, or it doesn’t exist at all. The Mestizos continue to invade our country at the behest of the jews, who use them to impoverish, displace, and violently kill Whites. They are a tool of the jewish-orchestrated White genocide, and we should not forget the human faces of their victims, like that of Kate Steinle.


Source article: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/23/kate-steinle-shooting-trial-san-francisco-opening-statements/