Thursday, 8 June 2017


In 2012, Jack Buckby emailed me, (as the author of the book Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future), to inform me he had started a group called ‘The National Culturists’ at The University of Liverpool, where he studied Political Science.   I was elated.  I had long thought that the meme ‘culturist’ could help us retake universities, and it was happening. 

Buckby continued organizing the National Culturists even as the university’s ‘anti-fascists’ literally chased him, harassed and threatened him. He hired a bodyguard.  But, things got very serious when, rather than defend him from physical threats, the university decided to prosecute a case against him for holding ‘racist,’ ‘offensive’ views.

As this introduction indicates, I cannot provide an objective review of Buckby’s new book: "A Paradoxical Alliance: An Anglo-American Analysis of the Left’s Love Affair with Islam", (co-authored with Matt Palumbo).  I admire Jack for not backing down from threats.  And, the book’s advocating culturist philosophy, policy and rhetoric further undermine my objectivity.

But, from as objective a stance as I can muster, I can honestly say, I really liked this book.

In the book, Buckby describes how the National Student Union (under Muslim leadership) working with the university eventually did get him expelled for his thought crimes.  His story perfectly illustrates the ‘Paradoxical Alliance,’ because in working to silence Buckby, the leftist, multicultural university allied itself with promoters of Islam’s brutal intolerance.

Outside of this personal vignette, Buckby details the paradoxical alliance in Britain by looking at Labor Party Leaders, UKIP, Muslim advocacy groups and more.  While – in the second half of the book - Matt Palumbo uncovers the alliance in America, by looking at Keith Ellison, Linda Sarsour, CAIR and other groups. I love that this book names names and that it taught me who is who in British politics.

Practically, Buckby explains how culturist rhetoric and policy can help save the West, while Palumbo, using charts and surveys results, counters the Left’s excuses for Islam, point by point. Providing further tools, Buckby contrasts the Koran and the Magna Carta while Palumbo compares it to the U.S. Constitution. And, the book has an impressive 188 citations in 199 pages. This book’s angles and stats can help us demoralize Leftists who support Jihad.

But, the book’s overall focus is its greatest strength.  Supporting both gay rights and those who throw gays off of buildings, cannot be sustained.  Female Genital Mutilation humiliates cultural relativists.  So, by focusing on this paradoxical nature of the Left’s alliance with Islam, this book helps us anti-Jihad folks hit the Left in their weakest rhetorical point.  Along with the book’s content, spreading the catchy meme, ‘paradoxical alliance,’ is a powerful tool.

Finally, completely throwing objectivity to the wind, . . .

Jack’s public anti-Jihad work cost him his college degree and has resulted in lost employment opportunities.  Furthermore, ANTIFA recently submitted a fake terror tip to the FBI, so he must now hire a lawyer to renew his US visa. If you can, you should always help public anti-Jihad figures who provoke the Left’s brutal blows; as such, you should buy a copy of Paradoxical Alliance today.


  1. Good point. As also Mike Cernovic pointed out, the absurd inherent contradictions of the leftist alliance is their weakest point and therefore certainly the point to attack, and the meme ‘paradoxical alliance’ should be a very viable tool for it.

    But let´s take a step back and look at what caused the situation in the first place:
    does the book point out the jewish role in non-white immigration to GB? Does it point out the jewish aggression against all those in GB opposing non-white immigration? Does the book point out the jewish connections of StasiFa?

    Without moh´s in GB, the problem wouldn´t exist. All problems that you describe are hence the Jews´ fault. Is that pointed out in the book? If not, why not?

    I suppose the book doesn´t mention the jewish role in all this. That has to be rated as cowardly as it doesn´t speak the truth, it lies by omission, for fear of jewish retaliation.

    Lastly, all your positions are fundamentally pointless as you want to make believe something like "western" "culture" and being silent about the point that without Whites, there is no "western" "culture" which is why any discussion of "western" "culture" is pointless without addressing the racial angle. The racial angle is avoided again for fear of oppression by the White-hating system set up under jewish leadership.
    So the book as well as your article are essentially cowardly, particularly compared to those dissidents who have the courage to be honest and name the jewish root of all these problems and face immeasurably harder oppression than you or the author. Those who name the Jew are the real heroes and the true dissidents, they deserve our support and respect.

    1. Hi Peter,

      I can tell you that, while in Palumbo's half Jews are mentioned in the section on Muslim leadership and hypocrisy in the boycott Israel movement, there is no mention of Jews as you mean it.

      As Jack's friend, (I don't know Palumbo), I can tell you that neither of us see Jews as the big boogie man behind all the West's problems. Our immediate problem is Islam. So, he is, logically, attacking the emergency in a way that has potential, rather than distracting from the Islamic threat in the name of Jew hatred.

      Yet, speaking as a lone culturist, not someone representing Jack, Palumbo or their book - culturism stands for being honest about culture. And, Jews have been cutting edge leftists for a long time. Look at the civil rights movement. Look in academia. And, since Jews have used their media leadership to push multiculturalism.

      I have not read Kevin MacDonald's tomes on this topic, but from my historical analysis, Jews have not always been Left. When they served the courts of Europe they were generally pro-status quo. It was the generation that came to the US (1890s), were anti-csarist socialists. And,their persecution led them to be sensitive to minority rights. I don't see it as a conspiracy that goes back to Biblical times or a 'protocol'.

      And, by the way, the end of our immigration laws happened not because of Jews but because of Catholics. The first minority President was JFK. He even wrote a book about increasing immigration, prior to being elected. When he died, his brother Ted introduced the thing. Jews have tendencies, but they are not America's Iago.

      But, that I don't blame the 'eternal Jew' for all things doesn't make it an issue for culturist should totally ignore. The cultural impact of Jews has been significant. And, in fact, discussing it as a cultural trait means it can be changed. As a Jew, I have talked to Jews about this paradoxical alignment. The view that it is 'the eternal Jew' has not led to much good.

      So, Jack (like I) may just not agree with you. And, I think it wrong to say Jack lack's courage. He has faced physical violence and threats in battling Britain's number one immediate threat: Islam. While culture is always important to discuss, I don't think an monomaniacal focus on Jews helps as much as it hurts the West. And, I don't think it helpful to slander anti-Jihad leaders as cowards.

  2. Muslim Terrorist Attacks in the West are partly the Continuation of the Clash of Cultures between Arab Islamism and African Savagery

    There's long been a violent Clash of Cultures between the Muslim World(especially Arab) and the Afro-pagan World. Arab Muslims considered black Africans to be wild, savage, lascivious, and beastly. So, Arab Muslims not only enslaved black Africans but castrated them to tame their Jungle Nature. It was Jihad Justice against Jungle Junk. This went on over many centuries. Scholars say Arabs enslaved millions of black Africans, seeing them as little more than animals.
    But Arabs also spread Islam among black Africans, and many black Africans became Muslims and waged Culture War on other black Africans who were seen as mired in tribal-pagan-savagery.
    As both the West and the Muslim World were dominated by spiritual institutions, the main thrust of their moral-cultural narrative was directed against black African savagery that was regarded in a negative light, not good for much of anything. White Christians and Arab Muslims felt that black Africans had value only as slaves or converts to Christianity or Islam. They didn't find intrinsic value in black African-ness.

    That was then, this is now. With the ebbing of religion and morality in the West, Pop Culture became the main mode of cultural expression and experience. Also, with the fading of traditional mores of worship, the new religion became Political Correctness or Cult of Social Justice. PC came to be controlled by Jews.

    This gave a huge advantage to blacks. With the rise of electro-amplified Pop Culture, black music or black-inspired music came to dominate the modern world. The most popular music among Western elites is reggae. Among ordinary people, it's Rap or Hip Hop. Also, sports as the new national culture led to worship of blacks as heroes since blacks are most athletic. Also, the erosion of moral values led to sexual licentiousness, and the cult of black twerking booty and hung black dong became iconic in the Western/Modern mind. Black savagery, once regarded as the lowest mode of human existence, became the most popular and in demand(even though this techno-savagery often appeared in the form of imitation by white, brown, Jewish, or Hindu performers).

    1. So, if the religious-moralistic Arab Muslim World and the White Christian World once had in common their low regard of black savagery as just backward, animal-like, crazy, and beastly, those facets of blackness came to be admired, adulated, fetishized, sensationalized, and even revered in the Age of Electronic Mammon.

      White girls now grow up to Rap music and Jungle Fever. White boys now grow up admiring black athletes who routinely beat up white males and colonize white wombs. Cuck-dom is the state of the Modern West, and most white men(except those in the Alt Right) have accepted their cuckdom. Much of Pop Culture in the US and EU are variations of Jungle Fever where white girls imitate black girls and fantasize about having sex with blacks and having mulatto babies. And there is hardly any resistance from white males since they've been lobotomized and castrated. (White fathers are more afraid to say, "I wish my white daughter marries a white guy" than "I'd be proud to see my daughter be knocked up by a black guy." ) Indeed, after these Muslim bombings, these cucked out males condemn Islam in defense of concerts that promote Jungle Fever among white girls and Cuck-wussiness among white males. For most whites, Homomania and Jungle Fever are their main cults or neo-religions.

      But blacks prevail over whites not only with sports, music, and sex. Because of the Slavery Narrative(and milking of 'white guilt' by PC) and the bellowing voice of the Negro, whites also see blacks as the Magic Race, the Holy Race, the soulful people of god. Your average white American worships MLK more than God; your average European worships Mandela more than Jesus.

      But if White Christian West surrendered to Black Savagery, the Arab Muslim World is still in a state of Culture War with Black Africa. Arab Muslims never felt sorry or apologetic for their imperialism in Africa or black slave trade. If Christian morality is steeped in the cult of guilt, such is absent in Islam. Muhammad preached to his followers to be warriors, hardy and ruthless. So, Arabs don't feel sorry or guilty about their historical role in Africa. Also, if Christianity is a spent force and only survives in its secularized form of PC, Islam is still very much alive as a spiritual and moral force. As such, it still continues to see black African culture as savage, backward, beastly, and satanic. If the West gave up its traditional certitudes and now worship Negroes as heroes, studs, angels, and demigods, the Arab Muslims still regard themselves as culturally, morally, and spiritually more advanced than black Africans, indeed by light years.

      So, it must be strange when Arab Muslims come to the West and realize that black techno-savage culture is favored over Muslims by the white natives who are into reggae, jungle fever, black sports, and Magic Negro devotion.

    2. Even though Muslim terrorism is characterized in terms of Islam vs 'Western Values', it is really a Culture War between Arab Islamism and Black Africanism(that has culturally colonized the West and is now sexually colonizing the wombs of white women, with the sheepish approval of pathetic cucked-out white males). It is Jihad vs Jungle, a Clash of Cultures that's been going on over a thousand years. This battle is now being waged on Western Soil since both black Africans and Muslims have been allowed in huge numbers.

      This aspect of the clash might pass under the radar and elude detection because some of the Muslim attackers are black Africans and most of the victims are white Europeans. (Of course, PC pushes the notion of all People of Colors being united against 'white racism'.) But devout black Muslims have made the cultural shift from Jungle Jive to Jihad Justice. They've come to reject Afro-pagan-savagery. Also, those white victims are like 'whiggers' in the sense that their main modes of entertainment and enjoyment are immersion in black sports, sex, and music. In that sense, the so-called Clash of Civilizations we see today isn't Islam vs the West but Islam(still a spiritual-moral force) vs Whiggers(whose main objects of worship are electro-amplified Afro-savagery and homomania).


    Pat Buchanan bemoans the threat of Islamic Terror. European Warriors should see it as an Inspiration.

    See it this way. Terrorists are doing the job white patriots won’t do.

    What did it take Vietnamese to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

    What did it take Algerians to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

    UK should be filled with Brit Cong. They should be using ‘any means necessary’ to deal with collaborators and invaders. But they are addicted to globopium of hedonism, debauchery, and mammon. They are so addicted to fun, homo-decadence, and afro-jive — the culture went from the Twist to the Twerk — that they won’t come to their senses.

    So, it seems the ONLY EFFECTIVE fight against globalism is coming from the Muslims. This is ironic since it was globalism that made it possible for Muslims to end up in Europe in huge numbers. Still, Muslims are throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of globalism and messing it up. That’s something.

    Just think about it. If Muslims really are globalist and want to take over the West, they should not be doing terror. They should just smile and pretend to be nice. That will have a disarming effect on cucked out Europeans who welcome their own racial and cultural demise. So, No Terrorism is actually better for globalism and non-white takeover of the West.

    But these Muslims carry out acts of terror that is making native people think twice about the globalist project. Europeans are now so cucked and defenseless that they don’t mind mass invasion of their own nations by foreigners as long as foreigners take on homomania, slut culture, and jungle fever.
    Indeed, you don’t see any objection to black African immigration since whites are all into ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, and white men are totally cool with white wombs hatching mulattoes than white kids.

    As it stands, most Europeans don’t mind the browning of Europe. They don’t mind ACOWW. They don’t mind non-whites becoming majorities. All they want is for non-whites to accept homomania. And blacks and Asians accept homomania.
    The ONLY people who resist it are certain kinds of Muslims. Also, Muslims are the ONLY ones who resist and denounce Slut Culture and Filth. Yes, yes, I know there are Muslim rape gangs and such, but they aren’t acting religiously. They are just horny men of Muslim background who are just overly ‘boing’. Islam has nothing to do with it.

    Anyway, White Europe now worships Diversity and wants its nations to become majority non-white. White Europe worships homomania, slut culture, feminism, and hedonism. And black Africans and Asians easily assimilate to that culture, so they are welcomed by whites. Many black Africans fail economically, but they have no problem with current ‘Western Values’ that are mostly derived from homo celebration, rap music and black sports, slut feminism, and etc.
    As for Christianity, Catholic Church is led by Poop Francis who’s for open borders and is probably a closet-homo. And most European churches are empty or celebrate homos. Many have black Africans as clerics. Pop music and Hollywood movies are uppermost on the menu of European elites when it comes to culture.

    1. The ONLY effective force that wages any kind of war on this globalism is the Muslims. Now, the Muslim agenda isn’t the same as that of white nationalists, BUT both have the common enemy of the decadent globalists.
      This is why it makes no sense for white nationalists to denounce Muslim terror in their pathetic 'white-knighting' of homos, cucks, sluts, interracists, and degenerates. Those very people denounce white nationalists and call for more immigration-invasion and replacism. They call for more homomania, even the forcing of churches to bend over to homo degeneracy. They call for raising white girls to jungle fever rap and black sports and submitting to ACOWW.
      These globalists are the worst enemies of white nationalists. So, if white nationalists don’t have the will to deal with that scum, they should at least enjoy the spectacle of Muslim terrorists apply the wrecking ball to globalism. I mean, who’d care if terrorists blew up Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Corbyn, May, Khan, Cold Play(they did some good songs though), U2(they had some good songs long ago), and etc?

      Just sit back and enjoy the spectacle. At any rate, national liberation comes only through violence. Just look at the American Revolution. And look at Algerian War of Independence. Algerians didn’t smile goofily like Nigel Farage.

      Muslims, you’re doing great work. Keep it up.

      By the way, this ‘war’ isn’t about religion. After all, Malaysians are not attacking the West. Indonesians aren’t doing it either. Even Iranians are not doing it because Iran hasn’t been invaded and torn asunder by Western Imperialism like Iraq or Libya.

      This is the result of the chaos created by Wars for Israel directed by the US against the Muslim World. To be sure, it goes back to the Cold War when the West decided to arm Jihadis against communism. One thing that the US realized was that Islam is a powerful force against secular communism. After all, East Asia fell easily to communism in China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.
      Confucianism was no match. But communism was stopped cold in Indonesia, a Muslim nation. Communism also made inroads into Catholic Latin America. It came to power in Cuba and Nicaragua. It had powerful footholds in other Latin American nations even if they failed to take power. Communism also took over some African nations: Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola.

    2. But almost no Islamic nation turned communist even though there were some Marxist-Muslim organizations. Communism was like a new religion, and it seemed to be on the move around the world. It seemed to have messianic fervor. Against it, native reactionary values and American pop culture seemed to offer nothing compelling. After all, the Spartan Marxists in Vietnam won out over Coca Cola US imperialism in Vietnam.
      Even though capitalism is ultimately the more productive system, it takes time for capitalist economies to grow and come together. In contrast, communism allows for instant totalitarian unity and power. This was why North Vietnam had the advantage over South Vietnam. If South Vietnam could have been secured for several decades, it could have developed a capitalist economy that could have produced sufficient wealth and arms to defend itself from the North. But in the short term, the totalitarian north was more united and disciplined than the south. Likewise, North Korea could have defeated South Korea until 1985 even though South had double the population and more wealth. North had greater unity and discipline. Capitalism needs time to produce enough wealth and productivity so that it can afford a military that can defend itself.

      Anyway, there was a time when the US really did fear the messianic power of communism. And they feared nations would fall to communism one by one all over the world. Communism offered a simple idea, something like a modern gospel.
      In contrast, the US offered money, but money was without values or meaning. It was mercenary and even demoralizing. Power and loyalty based on money meant lack of true conviction and abandonment of the fight once the money stopped flowing
      US stood for ‘democracy’, but in third world nations, it caused more problems of dissension, corruption, and chaos as they lacked the rule of law and trust culture. Also, democracy allowed leftist subversives to operate. So, democracy became risky, and the US ended up backing right-wing autocracies. But this was bad for America because it got associated with unsavory figures like Pinochet and Somoza.

      But the US realized that Islam was one force that will NOT cower to communism. Islam was a powerful spiritual, as well as political, force. It knocked out US puppet in Iran. This alarmed the US, but it also gave the US an idea, especially as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened at the same time. If Islam is powerful enough to topple the Shah, it is powerful enough to mess up Soviet Union in Afghanistan. USSR would have its own Vietnam. And the US proved to be right.
      US couldn’t do much with Bay of Pigs because the mercenary Cuban exiles were unpopular in Cuba. Also, Castro’s brand of national-Marxism had messianic power in Cuba. In contrast, the Mujahadeen, though cruel and barbaric, were also tough and heroic. They were willing to risk all and fight like hell, like Zealots against the Romans. Also, their David-vs-Goliath struggle inspired many Muslims from other nations to join the Jihad. And as USSR was then close to India, it gave Pakistan a chance to play a key role as an Islamic leader against godless communism.

    3. So, radical Islamism all started there. But why did the Afghan War prove to be far more problematic than the Iranian one? One reason is Iran is Shia, which makes it relatively isolated as a Muslim power since most Muslim nations are Sunni. Also, the war with Iraq made Iran focus mostly on its next-door foe than anything else. Also, Iranian Revolution, despite its internationalist outreach, was essentially a domestic affair. It was Islamic Nationalism. After all, the Iranian Revolution was made entirely by Iranians themselves. Also, as Persians are an advanced people, they maintained a modern society despite some of the Islamic fervor and craziness. They were not like Taliban crazies or Wahabi extremists. Also, it had taken a short time for the Muslims in Iran to topple the Shah and take power.Victory came relatively quickly once the mass revolt took hold across cities.

      In contrast, it took a long bitter war in Afghanistan, and this had a further radicalizing effect as war makes men more bitter and ruthless. Also, as Afghanis are a backward people, they had no means to create a modern society like Iran. Also, the Afghani struggle soon became an pan-Islamic struggle and attracted Jihadis from all over, not least from Saudi Arabia, the financier and sponsor of extreme Islamic ideology. So, Afghanistan proved to be the training and breeding ground for the Jihadis that would come to define so much of the Muslim world after the Cold War.

      Now, if the US hadn't meddled in the Gulf War, there would be no Jihadis messing up Middle East. Sure, there would be some terrorists and extremists, but most of them would be kept under wraps by ruthless regimes of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and etc. Even though all such regimes, like US and Israel, lent a hand to terrorists, none of them tolerated terrorists within their own borders. So, things were mostly kept under check.

      But the Gulf War fatally weakened Hussein in Iraq, and then sanctions weakened it further.
      Still, Hussein was in power to keep things in order. So, terrorists couldn’t run freely in Iraq.
      But US made a fatal mistake. After the Gulf War, it placed US troops in Saudi Arabia, and this pissed off Muslims, especially those who’d been battle-hardened and radicalized in the hell-fire of Afghanistan. So, allies turned enemies. US that had aided the Jihadis in Afghanistan found itself at war with them. Now, if Afghanis had defeated the USSR on their own, it wouldn’t have mattered. Afghanis didn’t much care if US were in Saudi Arabia or not. But because Afghanis won with the aid of foreign Jihadis, they got pulled into the global conflict. As a token of appreciation, Afghanistan opened itself to foreign Jihadis since they’d fought in the Afghan War against the USSR. Afghanis didn’t know that Osama and others of his ilk were plotting global war from the hills of Afghanistan.

    4. 9/11 happened, and the US entered Afghanistan. Even at that point, the horror could have been contained. All the US needed to do was flush out terrorists and Jihadis in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Also, Iran and other nations were willing to help. Syria helped too. Not only did they fear the ire of the US but they too had no use for extreme Sunni terrorists. During the Afghan-Soviet War, those Jihadis had their hands full fighting the Russkies.
      But after the war, they still had trigger-finger and were looking to serve a cause. It’s like German military men after WWI still looking for a fight. So, when US decided to flush out Jihadis in Afghanistan, most Muslim nations were relieved. Better that than have those Jihadis come to their own nations and start trouble.

      But then, the real craziness happened. Zionists figured they could use 9/11 to wage Wars for Israel and reset things in the Middle East. Maybe US could topple existing regimes, prop up puppet ‘democratic’ regimes, and make the Middle East a vassal of the US. But the Iraq War went horribly. Absent Hussein and Baath Party networks, the nation spiraled into chaos. The US invasion threw out the baby with the Baath Party. Iraq soon turned into a haven of terrorists. And contrary to US expectations, the new democratic regime in Iraq grew closer to Iran than to the US.
      US had intended to take out Iraq as a first step toward taking out Iran, but it only strengthened Iran. And this pissed off Jews almighty. So, Jews had to cook up some new scheme to mess things up. Jews kept on stirring up hysteria about Iran nukes to push sanctions to cripple the Iranian economy. And then, under Obama, the US exploited Arab Spring to encourage mass revolts that led to social chaos and civil wars in Libya and Syria.
      And it was then that the US and its allies aided the Jihadis to run wild.
      Unlike Afghan Jihadis who were romanticized as heroes, martyrs, and freedom-fighters by the US Media in the 1980s, the new Jihadis couldn’t be openly supported. They were Alqaeda remnants, and despite American amnesia, people still remember 9/11 = Alqaeda. Also, ISIS was worse. As ISIS terror was shown all over the internet, it was impossible to spin them as good guys. So, the US couldn’t support them directly. But like the neo-Nazis in Maidan in Ukraine, these crazy Jihadis were useful in messing up Libya and Syria, especially if some of them were, time and time again, spun as 'moderate rebels'.

      Though ostensibly modern, civilized, and urbane, the Jewish Supremacist elites in the US are no less radical, zealous, ruthless, and vicious in their animus, vendetta, and deviousness. As supporters of Israeli Supremacism in the Middle East and US globalist supremacy(as US power is now synonymous with Jewish power), the Jewish Supremacist elements in the US will do ANYTHING to further their interests. They may be modern but they have ancient tribal blood flowing in their veins. They are like cosmopolitan Zealots. It’s like their use of ‘gay rights’. It’s not just tolerance for homos but something to be shoved up everyone’s ass.. or you shall be stoned for ‘homophobia’!

    5. Terrorists in the West are the result of the total mess in the Middle East stemming from Cold War against communism in which Muslims proved to be especially useful. And then, after the Cold War, Islamic radicalism that had been encouraged during the Afghan War was made even more rabid by Wars for Israel: Gulf War and Iraq War.
      And it was under Obama that the Jews figured out a way to use this Jihadi terror AGAINST nations hated by Jews. Under Bush II, the plan was for the US to take out Arab tyrants under the cover of fighting terrorists and replace them with democratic puppets(brought to power by US money). But it didn’t turn out that way. US got rid of Hussein but got mobbed with Jihadi problem 100x worse than in Afghanistan. So, Jewish power got bitten by Jihadi madness.

      But under Obama, Jews got clever and figured out a way to direct Jihadi violence against the Arab tyrants hated by Jews. And the opportunity came with Arab Spring. While Arab Spring unleashed genuine populist demand for reforms, things soon spiraled out of control to the point where the Arab world faced one of three options: (1) Free elections and rise of Muslim regimes, like for a time in Egypt. But did Jews want Muslim Brotherhood to take over every Arab nation? (2) Existing regimes remaining in power by crushing populist politics. But this would mean regimes hated by Jews, such as Assad in Syria, would still remain in power. (3) Total war where Jihadis would be running amok and setting back modern Arab nations 30 yrs. Jews figured #3 was the best bet, and the result is Libya and Syria.

      Though terror attacks in the West are unpleasant, they are mere ripples of the true horrors that were unleashed in the Middle East by US globalist meddling.
      But this sort of thing happens all over. Consider what happened to the American South when the North upended the old order. Blacks were suddenly freed, and white southerners lived in fear because more muscular and bigger-donged Negroes were acting wild like in D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION. The chaos led to the rise of KKK that committed acts of terror and counter-terror. And US and Vietnamese meddling in Cambodia led to fall of Sihanouk and rise of Khmer Rouge. And the Japanese invasion into China gave a huge opening to Mao and his radical band of brothers.

    6. So, how about leaving nations alone?

      Anyway, the West is now being invaded and taken over. If most whites are hapless cucks, Europe will turn into big Morocco and US will turn into Brazil. And Canada and Australia will turn into India-China. But if whites wake up and want to take back their nations, they must become like Viet Cong. There is no other way. There is something to learn from the terrorists. Though their ways are crude and ugly, war is cruel and ugly, and a nation in danger can only be saved through war.

      Would the Irish have gained independence without terror?

      Ireland is now under greater threat than ever before. Irish minds are infected with globalist virus that makes Irish want to be demographically taken over by Africans and ruled by a homo hindu.
      In some ways, mental colonization under national freedom is more dangerous than foreign military occupation. When Ireland was ruled by Brits, the potatoheads knew they were under foreign British rule.
      But because Ireland is now independent and free, the Irish are blind to how their minds have been colonized and infected by globalism that tricks them into believing that Ireland is a ‘nation of immigrants’ whose destiny is for Irish women to have black babies under the leadership of a hindu into homo fecal penetration. With their minds infected with PC globalism, they think they are FREELY choosing this radical transformation of their own nation when, in fact, they are acting against national interest under the program of mental virus spread by globalism.

  4. Gubbler Chechenova, I'd like to reply. But, there is simply too much information presented herein for me to reply. If you have a specific thought or two, directly about the articles content, I'd be happy to respond.



by Colin Liddell AUDIO VERSION AVAILABLE HERE In recent days, the news cycle has been dominated by so-called "racism" ...