Battle Cry

Battle Cry

By

R.E. Prindle

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10212369520566491&id=1034444755

When did our national discourse become so consumed with the state of our national discourse? Rarely has so much public dialogue been dedicated to arguing over what can’t be said, who can’t say it and just how they shouldn’t put it. It has always been politically profitable to frame your opponents’ rhetoric as irrational, cruel, even dangerous. But our now-constant public skirmishes over speech have moved to another level entirely: These days, the closer you can situate your opponents’ words to actual violence, the better.

When James Hodgkinson opened fire at a Republican congressional baseball practice in June—wounding Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana among others—he was killed in the attack and left no manifesto to explain his actions. But the shooting immediately became, for many, a chilling example of the consequences of someone else’s rhetoric, and commentators raced to track down who that “someone” might be.

A Newsweek headline asked if “anti-Trump” rhetoric inspired the shooter…

Amanda Hess NYT

Magazine 8/20/17

This post concerns a discussion on Michael Sellers’ Facebook page.  It should be of interest.

Cc: Johannes Rebhan, Alan Derian, Ian Hawke, Scott Rosen

Gentlemen: In reply to your comments I had written a reasoned comment that attempted to deal with facts and historical opinion. However, since reading your comments among others on Michael Sellers’ post of the last couple days of scurrilous ad hominems and defamation I didn’t think you deserved it while it would be futile as you refuse to answer arguments preferring to resort to slander. Therefore I am going to tell you how you appear to an intelligent reader of your comments.

Scott Rosen is a mere thug with a mouthful of canards and insults. In addition he is not so bright as he spells the Adolf of Hitler Adolph with a ph. Scott is no longer welcome on my site.

Next, let’s consider Alan Derian. His reply was very interesting because he cleverly manages to threaten me with dire consequences if I don’t fall in line without exposing himself to the casual reader as he says it is my choice whether I want to be beaten or whatever thereby exculpating himself.

His comment is very well composed, he obviously knows what he is doing.

Quote:

OK, RE. Before anyone else reacts to your last discussion about the science of the abilities of the races, let me address two points.

Unquote.

Here Alan admits that there is a science that addresses the relative abilities of the races. This is an important point because he admits that there are races and that they have differing abilities.

As an aside the Liberals on Seller’s thread always speak of scientific disciplines as if that knowledge is wholly different and separate from other knowledge. They speak of scientists as though they were a different race, almost alien, rather than merely someone whose specialty is physics or chemistry etc.. In point of fact anyone with the necessary intelligence can take up a scientific specialty although those who excel at them possess superior qualities and are few.

Scientific disciplines are one thing while the use of the scientific method is available to anyone and applicable to any task. When I was in college we were told to not take the course information too seriously but if we got the method that was the point. I got the method. You Ian, although a fine fellow do not have the method although you have an overweening self-confidence in your opinions.

Alan then continues:

Quote: First, you are correct in saying that in Communist countries opposing speech was censored and how America is supposed to be different [exceptional] and allow free speech. But that term “free speech” is a misnomer. America has freer speech, it has a wide range (of) what kind of speech it allows, BUT, all countries, in order to survive, must enforce their core values and reject and suppress those who work to undermine those values.

Unquote:

As we all know, America is a diverse society of many cultures each vying for dominance. Aryan culture did not inhibit the speech of any culture or political point of view. In other words whatever core values the Aryan society of the nineteenth century possessed and expected all immigrants to accept has now been split into competing cultures with different core values who wish to inhibit speech. So, Mr. Derian leaves open as to which core values he is referring to. As he here offers a tactic of the Jewish culture, which has no provision for free speech or conscience, it is obvious to which diversity Mr. Derian belongs and whose core values he wants to protect.

As Judaism is a semi-autonomous culture, as now are the Negro and Moslem cultures, while he seemingly speaks for Americans in general or universally his concern is for Jewish core values. In the struggle for cultural supremacy the Jews at present are leading the rest. Mr. Derian is also an Israeli citizen; a dual citizen who carries an Israeli passport or can obtain one but it is an important consideration. One needn’t ask where his primary loyalty lies.

Now, these White demonstrators characterized as Nazis by Mr. Derian are specifically guarding the core values of the Aryan population of the US. As Mr. Derian points out they must do this or be submerged. The problem is that they are competing with Jews, Negroes, Moslems on the same basis. Quite obviously they are the enemies of Mr. Derian and his Jews and vice versa. Virtue is not the issue here as all are fighting for the same cause but who they are. There is no possible way of faulting the Aryans without faulting Negroes, Jews and Moslems.
The Aryans were also shouting, according to reports: The Jews will not replace us. Given the competition for supremacy between the Jews and others this is a legitimate war cry. They are also reported as shouting Blood and Soil. As their core values, which Mr. Derian admits must be defended by any means necessary are based on blood as are Mr. Derian’s Jews as well as the Negroes, not so much the Moslems, and soil which means that as they are Americans they have no other soil to claim. This is not the case with Mr. Derian and his fellow Jews. Anywhere they hang their yarmulke is home to them.

Now, Mr. Derian says that ‘free speech’ is a misnomer and that in defense of a culture’s core values anyone who challenges them can be forcibly shut up by any means necessary. This is strange, as Mr. Derian then invokes the Constitution of the United States which guarantees unrestricted freedom of speech as well as assembly and has been confirmed by the recent decision of the Supreme Court as a core value of the United States. Mr. Derian is subjecting himself to a forcible rebuke.

He then quotes the words “all men are created equal” from the Constitution out of context and says that this is a core value that must never be attenuated as if a mere phase could be attenuated. He neglects to complete the sentence to: “in regard to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There is no reference to preference of certain people. The rest of the sentence changes the meaning imputed by Mr. Derian as the evidence for all men being created equal makes it an oxymoron. Quite obviously all men are not created equal as a certain percentage of births are stigmatized with often horrible birth defects.

Further, in the broader sense, Mr. Derian has already admitted that there is a science of racial differences which implies that all men are not only not created equal but those differences persist throughout life.   Thus, Mr. Derian is hoist by his own petard.

For Mr. Derian it is enough to impose his opinion on US law even though no laws support his points.

Thus while other countries have draconian laws to protect ‘their ‘ core’ values, one of which in most European countries is to never, never criticize the Jews or their interpretations of the holocaust and WWII or you will be put in concentration camps called prisons and have at least a portion of your assets confiscated. It should be clear whose core values take precedence both in the US and Europe and that those values are not endemic to any European country.

The difference in the US, he says, is people might lose their jobs, that is, their means of subsistence, get screamed at by counter-protestors, that is, competing cultures, deprived of their core value of free, not freer, speech and otherwise to be made to feel bad. That is defamation, insults, directed hatred, which, one imagines are acts of tough love to bring the deluded in line.

To cap his climax Mr. Derian makes this dire threat, which one is led to believe is backed by the full force of the Jews and their auxiliaries.

Quote:

Bottom line: all men are created equal. Not all men are more or less created the same depending on your race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Men. Equal. Period. You either adopt that or you get crapped on. Your choice.

Unquote.

So, Mr. Derian ends his diatribe with the threat that you either go along with his and the Jews’ program or they will fuck you over like you have never been fucked over before. Your choice: On your knees before your masters, slaves, or what happens to you you have brought on yourself. Your masters are free of guilt; you have been warned.

So, American democracy has come to that. The Jews are staged to replace Whites and the Aryan demonstrators were quite right to chant Jews Will Not Replace Us. That, does however, remain to be seen. The war is on, not over.

Advertisements

How To Solve The Moslem Problem

How To Solve The Moslem Problem

by

R.E. Prindle

 

Europe and the US have no one to blame for their Moslem problem but themselves. They developed a social system like no other social system that had ever existed on the planet. Completely foreign to human psychology and then they expected the world to embrace it on first sight. As might be expected, other more traditional social systems being confronted by what they considered a monstrosity considered the Western system to be an existential threat. It had to be destroyed.

The most virulent of this opposition was aroused in the mind of the Moslem world. But what was the method to be to destroy the West? It was obvious that the pure military destructive power of the West could not be equaled by any effort of the Moslems. Since military warfare was out of the question they resorted to an asymmetrical warfare taking advantage of Western psychology that they had thoroughly analyzed.

The Moslems learned the rules of Western society and how to violate them with impunity. As I say the West has caused its own problem confident in their military superiority they bombed Moslem countries virtually into oblivion. This created vast numbers of displaced persons who migrated into the countries that had just destroyed theirs. These countries failed to see that they came as avengers intent still on destroying the Western social system and replacing it with theirs.

Once in place they began to put their asymmetrical methods into practice. Their warfare methods were treated as crimes no matter how horrendous they were. A perfect example is the bombing of the World Trade Center in the US, NYC. This sensationally successful operation cost them nothing other than 19 dead operators. Their explosives were two hijacked commercial airliners loaded with jet fuel which were flown into the towers. The result was not only that the two towers crashed to the ground but several ancillary buildings also, the total value was billions of dollars, three thousand dead civilians and the disruption of NYC for months while people as far away from NYC as Portland, Oregon feared an attack on its lone tower. The not very bright US president, George Bush, shut down the entire US for four days costing billions and fatally weakening the economic structure of the US. Bush’s further response was to spend trillions of dollars in a knee jerk reaction bombing the crap out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This ran the national debt deep into the trillions of dollars. Altogether this action that cost the Moslems nothing was perhaps the most successful military operation ever.

Not bad results for very little investment.

In addition the Western reaction was masochistic. They treated this horrendous act of war as a mere crime, rounded up some hapless Moslems who may or may not have had anything to do with the assault and put them on trial in a court of law. All the perpetrators died in the assault. If it was a mere crime this situation ended with their deaths. The Moslems must have thought: These guys are suckers! We can take them!

Then began a peaceful invasion of the West aided by Western politicians whose motives are still unclear. They’ve never been analyzed. Thus, now going on decades, Moslems have been committing every type of act of war with impunity while colonizing whole cities including London, Paris and NYC. In England, they recruited hundred’s perhaps thousands of young English girls to work as prostitutes, sanctioned by the government lest stopping it might be called, get this, racist. No kidding. Can’t you see the Moslems laughing their asses off around their hookah making obscene jokes.

They bombed the Boston Marathon injuring hundreds, the American masochistic response was: Don’t go off the deep end here. Not all Moslems are bad; these were terrorists. Well, OK, then what? The Moslems have been terrorizing Paris for a decade where dozens of cars are burned every night. If what I read is true, Saturday June 10, 2017 Moslems are going to begin a terror campaign of suicide bombers, armed assaults with AK 47s, bombings and whatever that will continue until Paris is destroyed. And France dithers.

In England the Moslems bomb a concert filled with children and all is forgiven. The West looks at a picture of a little Moslem child injured and goes off the deep end. But, masochistically accepts the bombing of English children? The Moslems get another big laugh.

Something must be done, the Moslems are about to conquer the West, but what? Military operations are out of the question, we would merely be destroying ourselves. OK. Why not take a page out of the Moslem book? What do the Moslems do when they conquer countries? What will they do when they conquer the West?

Quite simply, they will impose civil disabilities. Read your Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. I’m serious. Go out and get a copy now if you don’t have one.

As Gibbon tells it, when the Moslems conquer a country they impose civil disabilities on the non-Moslem population. Thus, even though the Moslems were a small part of the population they were able to control the much larger majority. Among the disabilities the natives were forbidden to ride horses being restricted to asses and donkeys. Those they had to ride facing backwards inculcating a feeling of inferiority and humiliation. There was an extra non-Moslem poll tax and other humiliations. Of course, one could escape these disabilities by converting to Moslemism. Thus, the non-Moslem majority was turned into a Moslem majority.

In today’s struggle the Moslem minority, while having more chutzpah than a whole tribe of Jews, is attempting to seize control of the narrative by ceaseless atrocities that the silly West continues to treat as crimes thinking, I presume, to solve the problem by removing the perps from the streets. Of course there is no bottom to the number of fanatics willing to be imprisoned or die.

The only possible solution to the problem that is viable is to impose onerous disabilities on the Moslems including a heavy poll tax. The option of renouncing Moslemism is available otherwise Moslems would have to endure the humiliation of civil disabilities or leave for Moslemland.

I’m sure that those who haven’t realized that the old democracy disappeared with the Twin Towers, as the Moslems intended, will object. They have to be overridden or we might as well turn Moslem now. There is simply no other viable option. Impose disabilities now. Sent the Imams back to Arabia and make the rest shave their beards.

This must be done if the West is to survive and done now. Let us hope President Trump has the courage to do the necessary.

China, Hollywood And The ‘Correct’ Point Of View

China, Hollywood

And The ‘Correct’ Point Of View

by

R.E. Prindle

 

A very interesting story about China and Hollywood appeared in the Wall Street Journal of today (4/19/17). It confirms the continuing marginalization of the US and the threat to the survival of its Constitution.

It seems that Part 8 of Fast and Furious opened in China to 169 million compared to about 70 million in the US. (Inflated to 99 million in the reporting by including Canadian receipts, so China can now dwarf North America. (US, Canada, Mexico). Thus, implications go far beyond mere Box Office considerations. China has now surpassed the US in screens adding 25 a day, that is, 25 a day! Chinese admissions are half the US so the Fast and Furious receipts could be doubled to 338 million. China soon will have a bigger annual gross than North America with plenty of room to grow.

Anent political considerations the WSJ story makes two very revealing admissions:

Tensions between China and the White House have accelerated since the presidential election. Mr. Xi is seeking to strike a contrast with President Donald Trump as a champion of globalism, and he appears eager to advance China’s narrative- both by pressuring Hollywood studios to portray the nation favorably and in the long term, by adopting Western filmmaking techniques for China’s own industry.

So, what kind of favorable portrayal do the Chinese insist upon, which is actually a form of censorship, because they won’t show US movies that might be critical. For instance in a movie portraying the Trump, Xi, Kim Jong Un situation it would be necessary to show China as the moral and ‘correct’ champion with the US and Korea as squabbling brats. Hollywood will have to accept an inferior position for the US.

Here Mr. Xi should horrify US Liberals and have them condemn him and China as Neo-Nazis. Indeed, as Mr. Xi states:

We must make patriotism into the main melody of literature and art creation, guide the people to establish and hold correct views of history, views of the nation, views of the country, and views of culture, and strengthen their fortitude and resolve to be Chinese,” said Mr. Xi at the Beijing Forum on Literature and Art in October 2014.

So, there you have it, conditions no Liberal will tolerate in the US but are acceptable to them when imposed by China. In pleasing the Chinese to retain access to the Chinese market Hollywood does violence to everything the US professes to believe as guaranteed by our Constitution. In point of fact, as far as movies go Hollywood is now the tail and China is the dog. The Hollywood tail is not going to be able to wag the Chinese dog.

In fact Hollywood’s relationship to the market now becomes like that of France, Germany or Japan to the US market. i.e. foreign films. China within perhaps as little as a year or two may produce more movies than the entire West let alone Hollywood.

The mass market in the US has then disappeared. With the mass market gone the way is open for other cities than Hollywood to produce movies designed specifically for the US domestic market or US-European markets. In any event Chinese control of ‘correct history, culture and mores’ must not be allowed to control US filmmaking.

As Mr. Xi’s comment indicates his notion of globalism is simply Chinese domination of the globe. Foolish Americans if they allow that to happen.

A Discussion Of Crispin Sartwell: How We Got This Way

How We Got This Way

A Discussion Of Crispin Sartwell’s

The Postmodern Intellectual Roots

Of Today’s Campus Mobs.

by

R.E. Prindle

 

The major problem in discussing today’s political affairs is dealing with the authoritarian position of the Liberals as to the indisputable certainty of their views. They are so certain that they are willing to use physical violence to enforce this view on everyone. One is reminded of the Communist Soviet Union of the 1920s and 30s.

Crispin Sartwell examines the development of this state of mind in the above referenced essay. Unfortunately the essay appeared in the Wall Street Journal of 3/25/17 and the Journal’s policy prevents its republication; hence no link.

Sartwell attributes the attitude’s rise to what he calls ‘the second great era of speech repression in academia.’ Apparently his professor, Richard Rorty was instrumental in propagating the attitude. In 1998 Rorty published his views in book form: Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought In Twentieth Century America.

Sartwell quotes Rorty, ‘objectivity is a matter of intersubjective consensus among human beings, not of accurate representation of something nonhuman.’ A perhaps interesting opinion but that leaves us with the task of explaining what ‘intersubjective consensus’ is and how it is to be obtained. We’re dealing with a lot of alchemical air here in which subjective thought is transmuted into objective thought by being shared by humans and Rorty means the whole of humanity. To me it sounds like something along the lines of J.G. Jung’s ‘collective unconscious’ in which the racial subconscious is somehow transmitted from generation to generation, and just as subjective.

What it amounts to is that a number of ‘human beings’ get together and agree to agree that something is so whether it is or is not and having once ‘objectified’ their subjectivity by agreeing with other they are willing to punish anyone who disturbs their pleasant utopian fantasy. In other words, twenty-first century Communism by another name with new terminology by a collectivity promoting their unsubstantiated viewpoint.

Something like Des Cartes: I think, therefore I am. While this formula takes the young by storm and they go around repeating it as though irrefutable truth actually I am therefor I think is more logical. A thought requires a thinker to think it not the other way around. I am, therefore I think.

Thus adherents to Rorty’s viewpoint having devised this reformulation of Communism have set about to impose their utopia by force.

Rorty condemns any opposition as heretical:

It is doubtful whether the current critics of the universities who are called ‘conservative intellectuals’ deserve this description, for intellectuals are supposed to be aware of, and speak to issues of social justice.

So, the ‘intersubjective consensus’ controls the narrative while determining the rules of the game. We may understand ‘social justice’ to be the Party line and any deviants don’t the name of ‘intellectuals’ or thinkers. To the outer darkness with them.

And then Sartwell says: ‘By that logic it is defensible to eliminate such people from graduate programs, to deny them tenure, even to shout them down.’

Yea, verily, even to beat them up, prevent their entry to campus and deny them voice. Eventually to murder them as the Soviet Communists did to dissenters in the nineteen twenties and thirties.

Thus, we have the attitude towards President Trump in which any objective view that looks outward at the object instead of inward at wishes is denied validity. One doesn’t describe the situation per se but the utopian, that is the Communist political correct diktat.

The real problem with President Trump and the Liberals then is not Donald Trump himself but the fact that he denies the ‘the intersubjective consensus’ viewpoint. He points derisively at the naked emperor. This cannot be tolerated by them. He must be impeached before he opens his mouth.

During the campaign then you saw criminal violence committed against the Trump voter. Many were beaten fairly seriously while the disruption of Trump’s rallies was so severe that his Chicago rally was cancelled by the Communist mayor for ‘fear that Trump’s rally would cause rioting.’ That shows how violent these people are prepared to be supported by the authorities. Of course the rioting and burning of cars after the inauguration confirms this. Other examples…but they are well known.

Let us hope the President can defuse this situation without having to resort to equally repressive measures. Let us just say that the Liberals are tempting fate.

The Lunacy Of Our Political Situation

The Lunacy Of Our Political Situation

by

R.E. Prindle

 

For anyone who expected differently our political situation should be clarifying. It is clear that President Trump has aborted the Post ’45 Liberal Agenda. His approach follows a different narrative. Always fanatical the Liberal reaction has intensified. Like all reactionaries they wish to destroy the new order.

The street reactionaries are obvious but while noisy they should be able to be subverted and cauterized. The only question is how quickly the President can build up his own street organization. Yes, this gets more reminiscent of Weimar Germany. More important is the resistance embedded in governmental departments.

They have been staffed and led by members of the Council On Foreign Affairs for decades. As such they are committed to the ideology of the Post ’45 agenda that President Trump’s ideology cuts across. It should come as no surprise that all his appointments have come from outside the CFR framework. It should also come as no surprise that four leading members of the State Department quit in an attempt to sabotage the President’s administration. Undoubtedly more key civil servants will depart in the attempt to paralyze that administration. If one checks they will probably be CFR or connected to it.

Most people probably are unaware of the what and who the CFR is. The CFR arose out of the wreckage of the League of Nations fight. Having lost that battle the CFR was established in 1921 to gain control of the electoral process. Every candidate for president beginning in 1924 has been vetted to conform with CFR ideology. After ’45, of course, it became the political agenda until the President’s election.

Today, you can read the CFR magazine, Foreign Affairs, for the official line. On the internet you can call up a list or a partial list of the CFR membership. Not only have all the presidents been CFR vetted but a very large proportion of key governmental post have been filled by CFR members. Johnson’s administration was the high point at 57%

Thus, President Trump who is the first elected president since 1921 who is not CFR has to free himself from CFR sabotage. It was a gift to him when those four key State Department employees quit.

As a quick read to verify this account I recommend Curtis B. Dall’s F.D.R. My Exploited Father-In-Law: An Intimate Account Of The Man, The Regime, And The Legacy. Dall was a close eye witness to these early proceedings from 1921 to 1941. As a member of the Wall Street fraternity he was also privy from that side as well as Roosevelt’s.

The Trump administration is going to be a battle for the soul of America, so bone up.

Red Star Over Hollywood

 

 

Red Star Over Hollywood

by

R.E. Prindle

 

Ye Editor of the WSJ blunders along in his (or her) 10/18/16 article entitled Red Stars Over Hollywood celebrating the Chinese cultural invasion of Hollywood buying up studios and theatre chains. Ye Editor opines ‘Chinese investment in US movies isn’t a security threat.’ Ye Editor is stone cold wrong. It is a security threat among others.

What is cheerily called Globalism is actually an asymmetrical cultural war for Global cultural supremacy. That is if you’re not too starry eyed to see it. Two of the most significant Communist texts are the Frenchman Montesquieu’s The Spirit Of The Laws and the American Graham Sumner’s Folkways, a study of mores. It is through the base of laws and mores that one subverts another culture. The Communists (Red Star is code for Communism) have known the importance of these two studies from the beginning and laws and mores are key elements in their strategy.

With the success of Freudianism and the rise of TV/movies the equivalent of cultural atom bombs their effectiveness is manifold. The Jews have successfully used the media to mold American mores and their lesson has apparently not been lost on the Chinese.

Ye Editor apparently realizes this as he says: The movie business is a competitive market with none of the immediate security risks of defense contractors or power-plant operators. The key word here is immediate. Correct, not immediate but long term. The corrosion of mores and laws is like rust; it is visible but you can’t see it working but it does 24/7/365. Ye Editor seems to accept the consequences of Chinese media control while totally opposing any resistance to it. We don’t know how much the Chinese are paying him.

He says: Chinese censors tightly control access to this market [in China] allowing in only 34 films a year, so Hollywood studios compete to curry favor by dumping Chinese for North Korean villains…including Chinese product placement…and having China save the day. Ye Editor apparently doesn’t realize these concessions are anti-American propaganda. He says: No authoritarian regime has ever had as much power to broadcast its narrative (not to mention the abominable Nazis) and silence or buying off its critics, (Ye Editor?) including the US and other open societies.

We have cognitive disconnect here. While seemingly admitting that Chinese propaganda is operating in the US, an attack on mores, he says: Americans (that is Deplorables, knuckle draggers and other reprobates) bothered by a filmmaker’s approach to China can take their entertainment dollars elsewhere and fund independent projects…. Well, up yours too, Ye Editor.

How disingenuous can the Journal and Ye Editor be? First, he, she, it, puts the entertainment industry in censorious Chinese hands including the power to distribute films then he says it is possible to buck the censoriness of the Chinese mores and work on independent projects. With no hope of distribution one adds.

Americans are not even able to buck censorious Liberal control over the media. The entire movie/TV/press opposition to Trump’s candidacy is such that he is reviled nonstop and this includes the ‘conservative’ Wall Street Journal.

So, in essence Ye Editor endorses and applauds the takeover by the Chinese of American culture and mores.

As no resistance has been permitted to Western Communist takeover of US laws and mores there is little reason to believe that there will be any resistance to Eastern Communisms’ efforts either. Americans either don’t know or they don’t care. They’ll take whatever comes along so long as it’s Red.

Let us hope Trump triumphs in November as I’m sure he will. It is necessary and I think inevitable. Let us hope, ‘the common man’ can live up to his reputation for wisdom and think straight.

 

Vote Trump.

An Incident In The Semitic Struggle For Supremacy

An Incident In

The Semitic Struggle For Supremacy

by

R.E. Prindle

 

A matter of importance occurred this Monday (10/2/16).

 

The first Monday of October is set for opening the new Supreme Court session. This year there was a conflict between Semitic Jewish law and that of US law. October 2 coincided with the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah. This posed a problem for the three (3) Jewish members of the US, that is United States, Supreme Court: Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan.

Although sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States which means giving precedence to US laws and customs the three traitors chose to give precedence to Jewish Semitic law. Just as Moslem Semitic Sharia law has been rejected so should now we reject Jewish Semitic law.

The Trashy Trio should be removed from the Court now as they are unable and unwilling to fulfill the oath they swore upon voluntarily accepting, even lusting for, the appointment.

If Obama refuses to act responsibly by demanding the resignation of the Jewish trash then Trump when he is elected will have to act more responsibly than Obama or his acolyte Clinton are capable of.

The 21st Century Jewish War is on.

Obama Defends Kaepernick

 

 

Obama Defends Kaepernick’s Protest

by

R.E. Prindle

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/09/05/obama-defends-kaepernicks-national-anthem-protest/89879478/

 

President Obama said Monday that NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick was “exercising his constitutional right: to bring attention to racial injustice by not taking part in the national anthem…

 

…Obama said he did not doubt Kaepernick’s sincerity to highlighting social issues and noted the player was the latest in a long line of professional sports figures to do so. The president also acknowledged that Kaepernick’s silent protest was a “tough thing” for many members of the military to accept.

 

“When it comes to the flag and the national anthem and the meaning that holds for our men and women in uniform and those who fought for us—that is a tough thing for them to get past.” Obama said. “but I don’t doubt his sincerity. I think he cares about some real, legitimate issues that have to be talked about. If nothing else, he’s generated more conversation about issues that have to be talked about.”

 

Our great Constitutional scholar has spoken. He says that there is a Constitutional right to bring attention to a racial matter. I don’t know what Barry was smoking or snorting but it’s not clear to me where he read there is a right to bring attention to any problem. In fact I don’t see a Constitutional question involved at all. Barry has invoked a right too far.

What we do have is the broader question of respect for others (frequently invoked as ‘offensive’) and following established mores. People don’t talk much about mores anymore but what is occurring now is an assault on mores to exchange established mores for more race based mores. Kaepernick launched an all out attack for Negro Supremacy by discarding mores followed by American citizens for a replacement of those mores by new Negro mores. Mores govern how a society functions.

For those with an ear to the ground, finger on the pulse and an eye for flashing changes being imposed on Americans by this traitorous president what is being attempted is clear. The Negro is rejecting White mores and the unpleasant past of slavery. Negro Revolutionaries form an entirely different set that displaces American mores. Thus disrespecting the flag that represents slavery and Jim Crow to them. Photos of revolutionaries of any color standing on the Flag or burning it is not so much disrespect for the Flag as a rejection of what Negroes think it stands for. There is no more outstanding image of the move to replace what some call ‘the historic American nation’. That nation, weird old America, and what they call White Supremacy is anathema to them.

If you’re really listening to the rhetoric, following the photo images this should require no explanation. What more do you need to see this clearly than the hate law that the coloreds and their ally passed making White heterosexual males second class citizens? I am amazed that there is no outcry against this. My voice is a solo coming from the wilderness.

Boy Obama himself shares this disrespect and hatred of White Americans. Just listen to the precedence he gives to the grumbling of this privileged multi-millionaire athlete over ‘those who fought for us.’

When it comes to the flag and the national anthem and the meaning it holds for our men and women in uniform and those who fought for it—that is a tough thing for them to get past, but I don’t doubt (Kaepernick’s) sinceri

Do you see the arrogance, hear the sneer of this nit picked off the streets of New York City, given a law degree from Harvard and pushed into the White House without a single qualification? He says to the returned vets of Viet Nam, that dirty little war, not all returned, tens of thousand of their spirits haunt Nam, says to them and their surviving brothers: Fuck y’all. Get over it. Why? Because he doesn’t doubt Kaepernick’s sincerity. He doesn’t doubt his sincerity!

And this arrogant buffoon, Barry Obama, places a football player’s sincerity over the sacrifice of a million or more men who put their bodies and sanity into the jungles and swamps of an ungrateful Viet Nam.

If you voted for him, shame on you. If you voted for him twice (two different elections) you should bury your head in the sand and leave it there. If you intend to vote for his surrogate, Hitler Clinton this time around you will have to do penance.

If anything Obama has shown how easy it is to change the mores of a whole nation, however such rapid change makes them more fluid and even easier to direct the flow. For us it is to reject Obama’s mores and direct the flow into a better and more reasonable channel. Our Lives Matter. To do so requires the rejection of Liberal and Negro influence and their marginalization. As unpleasant as that task may be to our mores it must be taken up. Contempt for Obama is rising; it must be amplified.

As Obama himself says: ‘I’d rather have…people who are engaged in the argument and trying to think through how they can be part of our democratic process than people who are just sitting on the sidelines not paying attention at all.’   President Obama, you have found us.

Heil Obama! We are paying attention. Take up our arms, we’re marching again. Our democracy will be established with liberty and justice for all not just the Liberal few. Re-enfranchise the White heterosexual male – down with hate laws.

Vote Trump

Listen To Donald Trump; Your Lives Depend On It

 

 

Listen To Donald Trump: Your Life Depends On It

by

R.E. Prindle

 

Since Trump began being briefed for the presidency, no matter how badly, the tenor of his speeches has changed dramatically. Perhaps the FBI has disclosed their private information on the machinations of Obama that they were unable to disclose under Obama’s thumb.

When Trump now announced that Obama has strategically placed one hundred thousand Mexican paramilitaries (Trump doesn’t use this term) he, Trump, says that he will as his first move arrest the whole lot. My impression is that this accusation is very, very serious. As Trump says, you, we, are not bigots, we are good people and as such have every right to protect our lives, our loved ones lives and our children’s lives.

You may be sure that many Moslem communities as well have been strategically placed so that on the signal all will rise as one. Knowing the danger of predicting the event it is in all likelihood very close, perhaps on the eve of the election or alternatively the eve of Trump’s inauguration. Remember that Obama has categorically said that Trump will not be president; take him at his word.

It behooves you to listen to what Trump is saying; he is telling you something, as much as he dares.

Despite what you may have been led to believe Trump is an honest candidate. He cares for the United States and its survival. Put your prejudice behind you, discard all the slander of the MSM, Hillary and the administration. You have been taken. Put your support behind Trump now. He is putting his life on the line for you and for our country. Make no mistake the next four three months will be the most critical the country has ever experienced.

Evil times await you if you don’t support Trump. The abyss yawns.

The Birth Of Two Nations

 

 

The Birth Of Two Nations

by

R.E. Prindle

 

In 1915 D.W. Griffith and Thomas Dixon Jr. released what is perhaps the most famous movie, silent or talkie, ever made. The movie that depicts the aftermath of the Civil War, that is Reconstruction, was the biggest spectacle ever produced to that time, and also the highest grosser.

The movie was addressed to the North. For the North the Civil War was a war of extermination intended to kill all the White Southerners. That they didn’t succeed is a mere accident of history. For instance, read War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco. After a hundred and fifty years later Southerners finally feel free to tell the truth. The book will help you understand Griffith’s Birth of a Nation.

Thus the nation Griffith and Dixon referred to was the unity of the Aryan Nation. The Birth was its hoped for reunification after the horrors of the Civil War. The plea was never to kill each other again; especially avoiding the genocidal horrors of Generals William Tecumseh Sherman and Phil Sheridan among many other Northern commanders.

Naturally the movie was seen as racial and racist and a great hue and cry was raised by Negroes and Jews but not by the men who fought the war either North or South. While the movie in many cases was viewed by participants and survivors of that great conflict, and thought to accurately represent the situation a barrage of defamation was directed at D.W. Griffith, the director, and Thomas Dixon, the writer.

Dixon who was a best selling author of talent and a good story teller was gradually turned into a racist monster having no place in American literature or culture. Both he and Griffith’s careers began a precipitous decline following the movie and both died penniless and in obscurity.

Now, a hundred years later in an effort to co-opt history a new film also titled Birth of a Nation has been written, directed and acted by Nate Parker. Nate is a Negro. His film deals with a slave uprising led by Nat Turner in Southhampton County, Virginia in 1831. The rebellion was a murderous, bloody, rapefest that ended as it must have once the surprise was over and the Whites organized. But, what is meant by Nate Parker’s filming the movie? Is it merely to mock Griffith and Dixon or is he calling for a unification of the present Negroes to exterminate present Whites?   In other words, a serious call for the birth of a Negro United States or Nation? The film certainly excites the Negro people to do battle with the White Demons. And that at a time when the Negroes are already working themselves into a lather finding excuses to kill, burn and loot.

The very people who denounce Griffith and Dixon now applaud Parker as the auteur of a fantastic picture. They little know that they are the projected victims of the film.

However Nate Parker has complicated the matter by having been tried for raping a White girl in college, sort of following Griffith and Dixon’s script that was denounced as defamatory.   The White girl is described as being unconscious, thus one imagines drugged, hence unable to give consent as Parker claims while having gratified his hatred of Whites on the girl’s body. Having gratified his hatred Parker invited his Black roommate into the room to have some too. So we have a gang rape.

So the Griffith film in which a Negro gratifies his lust on a White girl seems to have been reenacted by Parker even though the scene in Griffith’s film was called inaccurate and racist.

Parker, of course, represenst his rape of the girl as a mere youthful indiscretion and he’s put all that behind him; convenient for him although his victim subsequently committed suicide at the age of thirty. Collateral damage.   So let’s forget about the mistake and concentrate on Parker’s movie that calls for lots more murder and rape.

Let’s try to place Parker and his movie into a historical continuum. The Nat Turner uprising occurred in South Hampton County, Virginia in 1831 as noted. The uprising was not too far distant in time from the 1804 revolt of Toussaint L’Ouverture in Haiti which established the independence of Haiti from the French. Haiti was a major event in the consciousness of nineteenth century history. While Toussaint did not in any sense defeat Napoleon as some historians claim he did defeat troops of the Empire. The reaction among Whites was stupendous. Some feared an uprising in the US like that of Nat Turner other lauded Toussaint as the greatest military figure of all time surpassing Washington, Napoleon, Caesar and whoever. Just the greatest and that because he was a Negro. Matthew Clavin in his fine book Toussaint L’Ouverture and the American Civil War details the reaction to Toussaint’s victory. All the White men were massacred while the White women were given the choice of a horrible death or marriage to Negroes, but a real marriage not a mockery of one. Most women chose to submit to the Negroes.

The Whites not murdered during the Haitian Revolution fled to the nascent United States. While France had sold Louisiana to the US in 1803 New Orleans was still considered a French colony to which many of the slave owners repaired bringing their slaves with them. Many of the slave owners were mulattoes and Negroes thus New Orleans had a large corps of Negro slave owners at the time of the Civil War.

Others landed along the Gulf Coast so news of Haiti was general in the South among both slave owners and slaves. This Haitian rebellion then both incited Nat Turner and terrified the Whites. So, the result was murder, theft and rapine what it would seem Nate Parker is inciting with his movie. As far as rape goes he knows what he’s talking about.

Efforts are being made to prevent the theater release in October, not only by Whites but by Negroes also. This would seem wise. In the event of a Negro uprising that could occur before election time or at least inauguration that might seem to justify martial law and the continuation of Obama rule. Some worry about this and their worries may be justified. We’ll see. I fear that the US is now two nations and not one.

Vote Trump anyway.