An Amazon executive was tragically killed in San Francisco recently. Her death was ironic, as Business Insider reports:
The former Amazon executive Joy Covey was killed after colliding with a van delivering Amazon packages, according to an explosive investigation into the company’s logistics network by BuzzFeed News and ProPublica.
Covey was Amazon’s first chief financial officer. She was riding her bike in San Francisco’s South Bay suburbs in 2013 when a delivery van turned left into her path…
Covey’s collision with a delivery van was previously reported, but the BuzzFeed News-ProPublica report revealed for the first time on Monday that the van was carrying Amazon packages…
The details of Covey’s death emerged as Amazon has come under scrutiny over the impacts of its growing delivery network following investigations by Business Insider, BuzzFeed News, and The New York Times, among others.
In a nutshell, Buzzfeed accused Amazon of neglecting safety in favor of speed. To this, Amazon…
… called the new report an “attempt to push a preconceived narrative that is simply untrue. Nothing is more important to us than safety.”
I’m surprised they didn’t say “Amazon is committed to safety.” Every time a large company gives lip service to something they’re supposed to prioritize, it will say “… is COMMITTED to…” Fill in the blanks.
But back to the point. I seem to remember a recent instance of somebody “pushing a preconceived narrative… Oh yes! It was Amazon – when it chose to censure all of Jared Taylor’s books.
Far be it from me to rejoice in the death of Joy Covey. I didn’t know her, and many truth-loving people would leap at the opportunity to have a job like hers, so I won’t judge her after her death – unless other pertinent information comes to light.
But I do rejoice in the fact that Buzzfeed and the New York Times have attacked Amazon; all three of them are rabid Leftist organs, and purveyors of lies. It’s even more delicious when a pusher of preconceived narratives accuses other pushers of preconceived narratives of pushing preconceived narratives.
Merry Christmas to all of you, and Happy Hannukah to all of my Jewish readers!
This is one of those posts whose main objective is therapy for yours truly. When I read about current events, and become full of disgust, venting my spleen on these pages is sometimes all I can do.
I present to you exhibit A: A man who, acting according to his conscience, lashed out against the LGBT power structure. He infringed upon the property rights of others, and for that he deserves some sort of punishment… but 16 years?! From USAToday:
DES MOINES, Iowa – An Iowa man was sentenced to about 16 years in prison after he set fire to a church LGBTQ flag in June.
Adolpho Martinez, 30, of Ames last month was found guilty of a hate crime – a class “D” felony – third-degree harassment and reckless use of fire. Police said he stole a pride banner hanging at Ames United Church of Christ and burned it early June 11 outside the Dangerous Curves Gentleman’s Club…
Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds said hate crime charges were added because Martinez is suspected of criminal mischief against someone’s property because of “what it represents as far as sexual orientation.”
How many times have we read about Antifa physically attacking conservatives, or “social justice warriors” destroying the property of Trump supporters – and they receive, at most, a slap on the wrist. Perhaps Trump supporters should claim that they support him because he’s sexy. That way, any attack on them could be considered a “hate crime.” Maybe white-advocates should claim that our support of whites is based on our sexual attraction to them. That way, attacks on us would be “hate crimes.” We could be the “W” in LGBTQW. It’s a sexual orientation, and attacks against us will not be tolerated.
Any way you look at it, all decent people should be outraged that a man may spend 16 years in prison for burning a rainbow flag. Murderers get more lenient sentences.
And that brings me to exhibit B: The man who murdered a Jewish woman in Paris, while shouting about demons and Allah, will face NO PUNISHMENT. From the Jewish Refugees blog:
The French-Jewish community is reeling at the news that the killer of Sarah Halimi, who was tortured and thrown out of the window in 2017, will not face trial. Ben Cohen in The Algemeiner reports:
Although it was expected, the court’s decision nonetheless angered the French Jewish community — whose leaders have spent much of this year countering the claim of a court-appointed psychiatrist that Traore’s heavy ingestion of cannabis temporarily wiped out his awareness and his judgement…
The Times of Israel reports: A man accused of murdering his Jewish neighbor in Paris will stand not trial after a French court ruled Thursday he could not be held responsible for the killing because he was in a psychotic state from smoking marijuana.
Kobili Traore is alleged to have beaten his neighbor, 66-year-old Sarah Halimi, to death in 2017 while calling her a demon and shouting about Allah, before throwing her body from the window of her third-story apartment.
The appeals court, whose decision Thursday ended Traore’s detention, ordered he be hospitalized or made to attend a drug rehabilitation program. It also ordered security measures be put in place for 20 years, including a ban on him from contacting the victim’s relatives or returning to the crime scene.
I was under the impression that marijuana does NOT cause people to become violent. In any case, now you know what to do if you want to murder somebody in France: Smoke some marijuana first.
We shouldn’t be surprised if the above “security measures” turn out to be ineffective, and Traore kills again.
It’s the “progressive” way, and it’s emblematic of the depths to which we have sunk – that murderers get a second chance, but not those who burn an LGBTQ flag.*
* Yes, I’m aware that the US, and France, have two different legal systems, but there are plenty of examples of France meting out harsh punishments for “hate speech,” and the US being too lenient with murderers.
I just finished reading Greg Johnson’s “The White Nationalist Manifesto.” Instead of writing just one review on this pivotal work, I decided to discuss each point in separate posts. There are only a few things I disagree with him on – and most of those are along the lines of “let’s examine this more closely, and maybe rethink this.”
Johnson writes (pg. 20):
Second, Jews are a highly influential minority in politics, the media, business, academia, and the professions. Jews are, moreover among the principal promoters of trends conducive to white genocide, such as massive non-white immigration, racial integration, miscegenation, feminism, and sexual liberation. Jewish organizations have also led the way in demonizing all pro-white ethnic activism as “hate…”
I can’t find the source right now, but the ancient Jewish sages stated, “If not for the Torah, Jews would destroy the world.”
All of the crimes, perpetrated by Jews upon white peoples, were perpetrated by Jews without Torah, that is to say, secular Jews. It is secular Jews who are “destroying the world.”
In The Ashkenazi Revolution, Kalman Katzenelson argues that there is no singular “Jewish People,” but rather, a confederation of Jewish peoples. His arguments are based on disparate histories and, by extension, disparate ethnicities/peoples.
There is much overlap, ethnically, between secular Jews and religious (IE. Orthodox) Jews. Through rampant intermarriage, among secular Jews, this overlap is diminishing. Ideologically, the two groups could not be further apart. Secular Jews are, as a group, just as religious as Orthodox Jews, but their religion is Cultural Marxism.
Johnson writes (pg. 92):
It is impossible for non-whites to become members of other white societies. It is difficult for whites to become members of other white societies. It is easier, of course, if an immigrant and his new homeland share the same native tongue and basic culture – for instance, the countries of the Anglosphere.
The transition, from Orthodox Jew to Cultural Marxist Jew is not an easy one. I suspect, however, that it’s easier than the transition to Conservatism, or nationalism. There are serious psychological, and social, hurdles that stand in the way. One’s family may disown him.
Johnson makes it clear, in several places, that there are many “white nations.” There is no such thing as a “generic white.” Why not consider Orthodox Jews to be one of those nations?
One question that Johnson does not address, in this tome, is “What is a Jew?” Of course, racially speaking, the vast majority of Ashkenazic, and Sephardic, Jews are white. They are indistinguishable from other Europeans, though some of us retain Mediterranean features. The main objection to Jews being “white” is ideological, not racial. But this objection only applies to SECULAR JEWS. Most Orthodox Jews are quite conservative; their lifestyle is a wholesome one, they are a high-IQ, low-crime, pro-family-values demographic.
One may object to some Orthodox practices, such as circumcision, but similar objections could be raised about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Are Jehovah’s Witnesses “non-whites?” Russians have issues with corruption and alcoholism. Are these grounds for being excluded from whiteness? In Western Europe, and America, most whites are self-loathing. We seek to address this by changing their minds, not be excluding them from whiteness.
Clannishness, and an unwillingness to intermarry, is one issue that some have with Orthodox Jews. Johnson writes (pg. 90):
What should our attitude be toward people from other white nations?
Ethnonationalists with to preserve distinct European cultures and subracial types, which is the whole point of having distinct homelands in the first place. We do not want to see the emergence of a homogeneous European man or a white monoculture. Therefore, policies toward other white nations must bear this goal in mind…
No white society should allow large populations of guest workers from other white societies, or create conditions that lead to large numbers of its own people to search for work abroad.
Immigration between white societies should be limited. Practically all cases would be due to marriage. The naturalization process should firmly promote normative homogeneity, i.e., assimilation of the dominant language and culture by immigrants…
Regarding the last paragraph, it sounds a lot like conversion.
Because there is no official ETHNIC distinction between religious Jews and secular Jews, when there is an attack upon one group, members of the other group often also feel the pain. When one group is extolled, the other group may also feel pride. Sometimes, the two groups mingle, or join forces. This does not make them the same – any more so than alliances between Jews and gentiles would make them the same.
Orthodox Judaism does not consider secular Jews to be fully Jews. Secular Jews cannot be counted in a quorum for prayer services, and if a secular Jew handles (uncooked) wine, that wine is no longer kosher. In practice, Orthodox Jews treat secular Jews with kindness and respect. This is partly because most Orthodox Jews are nice people, and doing so comes naturally to them, and it’s partly because doing so may draw secular Jews back into the fold. But the fact remains that secular Jews do not hold full “Jewish” status. This is based on behavior, not genetics.
In the same way, white-nationalists should consider Orthodox Jews as “white.” But once an Orthodox Jew strays from his roots, and embraces Cultural Marxism instead, he loses his “white” status – because now he is dangerous, and cannot be trusted. At that point, he’ll join forces with other Cultural Marxists, and seek to destroy the world.
Edit: I wanted to ask my fellow, non-Jewish, white-nationalists about their thoughts on gentiles who convert to Judaism. Do they lose their status as “whites?”
Here’s a screenshot from the Yahoo news page I took today:
As most of y’all probably already know, the victim who was beaten for wearing a Trump hat is white, while his assailants are black. His mother noticed this, and tweeted:
I am sitting in the hospital with my 14 year old kid because he was just jumped by 8 black kids on the school bus, I guess that’s what happens when a kid wears a #Trump hat to school… And who’s the violent ones again? Earlier today they poured milk all over his head.
The anonymous Yahoo journalist describes these tweets as “racially charged — and controversial.”
Yes, we know that in the Temple of Cultural Marxism, it’s “controversial, and “racially charged” to point out black aggression against whites.
In the very next story, we’re told that a “black woman faces prison because of a Jim Crow-era plan.” The plan was to (allegedly) disenfranchise black voters by preventing felons from voting.
We can debate whether such laws were created with pure intentions, but the fact remains that people of all races can be felons. It just so happens that blacks are far more likely to actually BE felons. If it’s “racist” to punish felons, then (by the same reasoning) it’s also “racist” to enforce laws against rape and murder; blacks are always more likely, than whites or Asians, to be ensnared by such laws.
Many on the left are fond of claiming (falsely) that whites are more likely to be child-abusers. Does this mean that, according to them, laws against child-abuse should be scrapped – since they (supposedly) impact whites more than others? Should child-abuser felons be allowed to vote?
As it stands now, regardless of the original intentions, the law is colorblind. It applies to everybody equally, regardless of race, age or gender.
If it’s “controversial” and “racially charged” to point out the racial angle in the first story, how much more so to racialize the second story – which should not even be a “story.”
In addition, notice that the first headline does not say, “white boy attacked by blacks.” No, race is only mentioned when the “victim” is not white.
Since the author of Sincerity.net will inevitably comment that the above behavior is REQUIRED by the corporate media, I might as well get it out of the way and quote him here:
REPORTS ON CRIMES When reporting crimes, it is not permissible to refer to the suspect‘s religious, ethnic or other minority membership unless this information can be justified as being relevant to the readers‘ understanding of the incident. In particular, it must be borne in mind that such references could stir up prejudices against minorities. [GUIDELINE 12.1. by the German Press Council 3]
I love it when fellow Jews visit this blog, and show their support for the beleaguered white race. On that note, I suppose this is a good time to share a video (sent to me by my friend Diversity Chronicle) by my favorite rabbi, Rabbi David bar-Hayim:
Commenting on my previous post, “Ratcheting up Sensitivity,” a reader by the name of “370H55V” writes:
… The Left has increasingly made it clear that they believe that those of us who hold the beliefs we do have no right to exist, and have made themselves the judges, and in some cases, executioners. Unless we realize that this is an existential threat to thousands of ordinary citizens just trying to live their lives unmolested (just the other day I read about a German real estate agent brutally assaulted by Antifa storm troopers in her own home), we will be living our lives in fear.
The only remedy to this is to respond as proportionately with violence as necessary. Let them know that if the First Amendment is going to be trashed, then WE will tell YOU what you can say and think, and back it up by force and intimidation.
And by the way, I’m a fellow Tribesman. I love this blog!
Yes folks, “370H55V” is a Jewish name. Deep in my heart, I’ve always acknowledged 370H55V’s point. No group can survive through endless pacifism, when faced with relentless aggression; to do so would doom us to the fate of the Moriori. A glance at history shows that the forces of the Left are no less brutal than the Maori. When I say “history,” I’m not only referring to Stalin or the Holodomor genocide. I’m also referring to events that are transpiring right now, in the 21st century.
For the past half century, America’s political history has been driven by the Democratic Party’s effort to fire up these constituencies by denigrating the rest of America. As elements of cynical calculation melded into self-images of righteous entitlement to rule inferiors, the boundaries between the party and the constituencies’ most radical parts have eroded.
In the 21st century’s second decade, explicit statements by the party’s principal figures—President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to name only a few—have led their epigones in power as well as millions of followers to think and act as if conservatives were simply on a lower level of humanity, and should have their faces rubbed in their own inferiority. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo simply declared that pro-lifers and other conservatives have no place in his state.
As the media amplified and cheered such guidance from on high, it would be surprising if many ordinary followers have not concluded that harassing if not harming conservatives in restaurants, airports, as well as in their public functions is not just permissible but praiseworthy, and if thousands of persons who exercise power over cities, towns and schools have not concluded that facilitating such harassment and harm is their duty.
Police in leftist jurisdictions have stood aside as violent groups disrupted the 2016 Republican presidential campaign and the 2017 presidential inauguration in Washington, D.C., as racial mobs have ravaged malls and shut down major roads, as conservatives have been attacked physically as they tried to speak or merely observed. The media have basically justified the violence. The other side has done nothing comparable—yet.
But since the ruling class’s condemnations of conservatives as racists, environmental criminals, and would-be terrorists are becoming well-nigh universal, the probability of deadly attacks on conservatives, of intolerable convictions or absolutions, and assassinations, rises to certainty. So does corresponding demand for protection and revenge.
The above article was also published at amren.com. There have been many instances where the courts have shown their bias by refusing to adequately punish leftist perpetrators of violence. For example, Professor Eric Clanton, who struck a protester with a bike lock, causing severe injury, got no jail time. Antifa rioters are regularly given free reign, and no punishment for their violations of the law, in my own city; police are ordered to stand by and do nothing.
Against this backdrop, we are morally justified in striking back in kind. Let there be no doubt about it. Victims of violence are morally justified in also using violence.
The problem is that Cultural Marxists own practically all of the schools and the media. Therefore, it’s not surprising that most young people are leftist; it’s all they know. In a physical fight, young people are usually going to win against hoary pensioners. Among young people, even if we count only WHITE young people, pro-whites/conservatives are vastly outnumbered.
Add to this the fact that the courts, and police, are biased against us, and this is not a battle we can currently win. Even in cases where we somehow DO win, the media will lie, and use such incidents against us.
There are many young conservatives, and pro-whites, but most of them have too much to lose. If doxed, they will not be eligible for higher education, a government job, or even a private job with most companies. I’ve met some of these people myself, here in Portland. They know the score, but they must remain silent. They cannot join a brawl in defense of those on the right. Some day, with luck, some of them will retire and be more outspoken.
We can take comfort in the fact that many young leftist thugs will eventually grow up and see the light. There will come a time when THEY are the hoary pensioners trying to defend themselves from violent black and mestizo hoodlums. By then, the US will mostly resemble Brazil demographically.
In light of the above, I believe that the best course of action, in most circumstances, is to fight for freedom of speech on campuses and in the media. If we make progress on this front, then Cultural Marxists will no longer hold a monopoly on the youth. At that point, when push comes to shove, we can defend ourselves with violence when threatened or attacked.
What happens when we win?
I’ve been reading Greg Johnson’s “The White Nationalist Manifesto.” I highly recommend it, though I think there are a few improvements that could be made.
Johnson writes (pg. 96):
Moreover, within the lifetimes of many present-day Americans, the kinds of laws and policies favored by White Nationalists actually existed, from immigration laws designed to preserve the white majority, anti-miscegenation laws to maintain racial purity, eugenics laws to improve future generations, and even mass deportations of Mexican invaders from border states. These are not utopian pipe dreams. They have already happened. Indeed, some of these laws even seem too radical for present-day White Nationalists.
Thus the first step to creating a White Nationalist America is to dust off these laws and policies and implement them once again.
Personally, I’ve long held that anti-miscegenation laws would be unnecessary, if only we could do away with the relentless PRO-miscegenation propaganda rained upon us by the hostile elite, and protect our borders.
If a white-nationalist state ever arises, I don’t think a Jew should be in charge… but, as a thought-experiment, let’s say that I was appointed king. I would make sure that images of healthy, happy, and fertile, white families dominated the billboards, commercials, government literature and signage. This is the sort of thing that should be promoted in a white ethnostate. If you visit black Africa, you’ll see images of healthy, happy, and fertile black families depicted everywhere; black Africans are not bombarded with miscegenation propaganda – and neither should whites.
Along with sensible immigration policies, and healthy doses of ethnic pride in schools, anti-miscegenation laws should not be necessary. I don’t think the State should dictate who we can marry – but it should definitely dictate who can live within its boundaries.
Thus, a white person who brings home a non-white spouse should not be thrown in jail. Rather, he should be deported to another country – humanely. Israel should be doing the same thing with Jews who choose non-Jewish spouses. Let them live elsewhere; Israel is supposed to be a JEWISH state. There will be plenty of multi-ethnic states that would welcome them.
But speaking in general terms, should a white ethnostate use force against its enemies? We’ve seen what such enemies are capable of. We’ve watched them use violence against us with impunity, and suffer few consequences. If there was any doubt, in the past, about the true nature of Cultural Marxism, there are no doubts now; it has revealed its true nature. Any, and all, measures should be used to prevent Cultural Marxism from rearing its ugly head again. Observe how the Cultural Marxists react any time Nazism rears its ugly head. This is how we should react to Cultural Marxism.
I’ll conclude with a revealing photo from Portland. I guarantee that this graffiti would have been erased within a few hours had it said “It’s Okay to be White.” Apparently, where Antifa reigns, it’s “Okay to be Communist.”
Over the past couple of centuries, Christianity has come to terms with its lower status. It has adapted, and become more tolerant of alternative views. Few Christians today condone the burning of heretics at the stake, or forced conversions. Most American Christians now accept the fact that we have always had homosexuals in our midst, and that they are not going anywhere. They don’t throw homosexuals off of roofs, or hang them from cranes.
But a new Christmas comedy has many Christians up in arms. From Yahoo Entertainment:
A Christmas comedy special which implies Jesus was gay is no laughing matter for more than a million angry viewers, who have signed a petition demanding it is pulled from Netflix on the grounds that it is offensive to Christians.
As the New York Daily News reports, The First Temptation of Christ from Brazil-based YouTube comedy group Porta dos Fundos is causing a stir with its irreverent take on the holiday. In addition to a weed-smoking Mary, the 46-minute special sees Jesus — accompanied by a flamboyant male friend — coming home to a surprise birthday party in his honor. Jesus appears to try to conceal his friend, who later joins the party and belts out an eyebrow-raising holiday ditty that includes the lyrics “In the heat of the desert I saw the size of his huge … power.”
Those upset over the depiction are calling for Netflix to stop streaming the special, with more than 1.1 million people signing a petition. Comments left by critics have accused Porta dos Fundos (which translates to Back Door) of showing religious discrimination and “derision and disrespect for the faith of the Catholic Church and especially for God.”
“No one is obliged to believe in Jesus Christ, but we demand respect for our beliefs…”
I can see how Christians would be upset by this movie – but this sort of mockery has been ongoing for decades. Why are they suddenly so thin-skinned?
I don’t blame Christians; I blame Islam, and not because I’m an Alt-Right/neo-Nazi/fascist/white-supremacist/hater.
It’s not any of that. We need to view things in context, and see past what’s on the surface. On the surface, this is a Christian phenomenon. Dig deeper, and we see that it’s actually (at least in part) a Muslim phenomenon.
As the Muslim population has grown in the West, it has become more and more bold in demanding that everybody else honor their beliefs. When a Danish cartoonist depicted Mohammad in his cartoons, there were…
… protests across the world in late January and early February 2006. Some escalated into violence resulting in more than 250 reported deaths, attacks on Danish and other European diplomatic missions, attacks on churches and Christians, and a boycott of Denmark.
… forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Armed with rifles and other weapons, they killed 12 people and injured 11 others
When Nike released a shoe that appeared to have the word “Allah” on its bottom, it was pressured to recall the shoes.
There are many more examples of Muslim hypersensitivity, and if I were to list them all, this would be a long post indeed. Pressuring non-Muslims to adhere to Muslim sensibilities is a way of projecting power. Each time they do this, Islam becomes a little more alpha. Muslim men become a little more attractive to females, and Islamic political clout increases a little more.
This is a zero-sum game. To a naive person, giving in to such pressure looks like “progress.” To such a person, it means we’re becoming more advanced, and more sensitive to the feelings of others. But the opposite is true. What it actually means is the West is ceding its civilization in bite-sized pieces – to a force that will not, in the long run, reciprocate. I’m not speaking of individual Muslims, but of the Ummah as a whole.
Christians see this, either consciously, or subconsciously, and think, “We’re losing. If this keeps up, we’ll be defeated and overrun.”
What should the Christian response be? If they attack Islam directly, they know they’ll be relentlessly attacked as bigots, racists and Islamophobes. It’s less risky to adapt, and do as the Muslims do: Become as thin-skinned as their rivals. React with outrage every time their religion is mocked. Very few Christians would go so far as to massacre those who insult Jesus; that’s not what Jesus taught (he wasn’t like Mohammad), but they will sign petitions. At this point, it’s impossible to tell how much of Christian outrage is natural, and how much is a reaction to Islamic outrage.
Islamic activism has left Christians with little choice but to react in kind. Islam is partly to blame for the ratcheting up of political correctness, and the insidious loss of freedom of speech.
My friend Diversity Chronicle urged me to see “No Safe Spaces” at a theater, since it’s now playing in the Portland area.
The venue had posters outside the entrance, showing some of the movies currently showing:
Notably absent was any poster advertising “No Safe Spaces.” Once inside, I also noticed that “No Safe Spaces” was being shown at the very last auditorium:
The showing was supposed to be at 8:45, and I arrived at 8:40 to an empty auditorium. In the end, there were about 10 of us watching the movie. This was the last showing of the day; I’m sure there were more at earlier showings.
It had been many years since I’ve been inside a theater, so I showed up on time and took my seat. Somebody should have warned me I’d have to sit through 20 minutes of vile, in-your-face, propaganda (AKA “previews”) before the feature film actually started. Apparently, most people are inured to such propaganda, so they think nothing of it. For me, it was painful to watch.
But once the feature film started, I was not disappointed. I learned some things about Dennis Prager I had not previously known, and I have new respect for the man.
As one would expect, the movie tells the many tales of left wing censorship and oppression, mainly on American campuses, but also within the comedy industry. It was riveting and humorous.
The producers emphasize that it’s not only conservatives who fall victim to left wing oppression; anybody who can think for himself, including some leftists, are vulnerable.
Much of the movie is dialog between Dennis Prager and Adam Carolla. They repeatedly tell us how ethnic groups don’t matter, that all that matters is the individual, and that America was founded as a “concept nation.” That is what will be inscribed on the epitaph of American Conservatism.
I haven’t watched many Prager University videos, so somebody correct me if I’m wrong – but I get the impression that this conservative group is eager to entertain dialog with leftists, but not with white-advocates. I would love to see a debate between Mr. Prager and a prominent white-advocate… or perhaps the “free exchange of ideas” only goes so far with this crowd.
Despite its flaws, I wish this movie were required viewing for all American high school students.
Like any white-advocate, I get discouraged sometimes from all the hate and censorship thrown our way. The cheerful and upbeat Red Ice people (Henrik Palmgren and Lana Lokteff) always provide a boost of morale.
Even though this is old news, I only recently watched it, and it seemed like a good idea to share it here.
In a nutshell, what happened was that Greg Johnson (editor of Counter Currents and the author of several books) had attended the Scandza conference in Norway, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned. They tried to deport him as well. You can read Johnson’s account of what happened here.
There’s a special place, in the Pantheon of heroes, for those who get imprisoned as they fight for their people. It’s a sort of martyrdom that you (hopefully) survive to tell about. Mr. Johnson should wear this honor as a badge of pride.
Since Red Ice has been banned from YouTube – even though they had no strikes against them – BitChute is a good place to find their videos. This interview is a bit long, but well worth watching. Here’s the link (I don’t think it’s possible to embed BitChute videos in WordPress):
I recently had to order some gefilte fish. As a Jew, if I go too long without gefilte fish, I’ll shrivel up and die – and I had to buy it from Amazon, because it was CHEAPER.
Actually, there was something else I had to buy from there, due to a lack of alternatives. At that point, Amazon had tricked me into clicking on the “try Amazon Prime” button. They make it very easy. So easy, that there’s little doubt that millions of people have accidentally clicked on it, thus starting their “free 30 day trial.”
Do you think Amazon sends an email, toward the end of that trial period, warning you that you’re about to be charged? Dream on.
My trial membership was due to expire tomorrow. I visited their website in order to cancel it. I never wanted it in the first place, though I did get my gefilte fish delivered for free.
I’ll admit that I’m not the most computer savvy person on the planet, but I’m not dumb either. Amazon makes it exceedingly difficult to find the “cancel my Amazon Prime membership” button. It took me a long time to find it, and it was NOT located in any obvious places; you really must dig for it.
But that wasn’t the end of it. After clicking the cancel button, I was warned, given second chances, and enticed to keep it, no less than 4 times.
“Are you sure you want to cancel your Prime membership?”
“If you cancel your membership, you’ll miss out on these great deals!”
“Are you nuts? Only an insane person would actually cancel his Prime membership!”
“If you cancel, we’ll send burly men to your home to break your legs.”
I cancelled anyway – and I made sure to keep a screenshot of the confirmation just in case. They did send me a confirmation email.
What truly makes me mad is not what they put me through; I can deal with it. What makes me mad is the knowledge that millions of elderly people, who lack the mobility to shop for things at brick-and-mortar stores, depend on Amazon for basic necessities. People like my mother, who gets her medications via Amazon.
Maybe it makes sense for many of these elderly people to have Amazon Prime. I’m sure if you do the math, they’re saving money on shipping costs. If so, then let Amazon sell this option with honesty and integrity.
Unfortunately, the way Amazon has it set up looks a lot like a scam, and they’re preying upon society’s most vulnerable. If it was so difficult for me to figure out how to cancel my Prime membership, and to actually remember to do it before the 30-day trial membership ended, how difficult must it be for people who are 80 years old, and suffering from dementia?
Bampumim Teixeira pleaded not guilty Monday in Suffolk Superior Court to charges including two counts of murder.
Prosecutor John Pappas said the 30-year-old Teixeira bound and stabbed 38-year-old Dr. Lina Bolanos and 49-year-old Dr. Richard Field in their home on May 5.
On May 8th, 2017, West African immigrant Bampumim Teixeira was charged with the murders of two Boston doctors.
As reported by the Boston Globe, in 2014 and 2016, Teixeira had twice burglarized the same bank. His sentence for those crimes was 364 days in jail — 1 day short of a year, which is to say, only 1 day short of legal grounds for deportation. Surely the judge had intentionally prescribed 1 day fewer than a year in order to protect him from being forced to leave the country.
Teixeira was released from prison in April of 2017, as a result of the three-month remainder of his sentence being suspended.
It should be noted that Dr. Bolanos was, herself, an immigrant from Columbia.
Here is Teixeira:
… and his victims:
The State of Massachusetts does not allow its subjects to keep firearms at home, in such a way that they are useful at a moment’s notice:
Storage of firearms at home
All guns must be stored in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device. Primitive firearms are exempt from this storage requirement. It is recommended that you store firearms unloaded, separately from ammunition, in locked compartments.
But because the voice on the call was muffled and was unable to respond to repeated questions, the operator said she was “releasing the call” and hung up, WCVB reported.
I don’t know, for a fact, that the 911 operator, who hung up on Dr. Bolanos, was an Affirmative Action hire, but it seems likely. Massachusetts does put a high priority on “Diversity” when it comes to hiring such operators:
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Females, minorities, veterans, and persons with disabilities are strongly encouraged to apply.
This could probably be said for all US states, and it’s shocking that anybody could believe that prioritizing “Diversity” would have no effect on quality. In any large scale endeavor, all priorities will come at a cost to other priorities. There is no such thing as an added priority, or goal, that has no cost.
The hiring of inferior Affirmative Action employees does, ultimately, have a negative effect on non-Affirmative Action employees as well. As expectations are lowered for some employees, it brings down the overall quality of work. I’ve seen this myself.
At every step, the Progressive State enabled this tragedy to unfold. It might as well have taken the two doctors into custody, and shot them in the head, as they used to do in China.
