Certifiably insane — or?

Jean-Claude Juncker has said that the EU will never give up on their open-borders policy, despite the growing migrant crisis and the ramped-up terrorist acts in Europe. He says the EU will not give up on the so-called ”free movement of people” within the EU.

“This is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the founding Treaty of Rome. It is an inviolable principle,” he said.

[…]Speaking after Islamic terror attacks left 130 dead in Paris last November, Mr. Juncker rejected calls to rethink the EU’s open doors policy on migration from Africa and the Middle East. Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr. Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” – that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.”

Apparently this statement was before the most recent attacks, which resulted in an elderly priest in Normandy murdered in his church, his throat slit. Some reports say that he was beheaded, but as we cannot automatically assume the media is giving accurate and complete information, given the fact that their marching orders from TPTB are to lie and mislead so as to further the agenda; the days of honest and objective journalism, insofar as they ever existed, are now a distant memory.

In response to the latest outrage, Hollande the globalist stooge says that the French people are ‘at war with ISIS.’ Shades of George W. Bush saying we were at war with ‘terror’, not with Islam, the “religion of peace.” Anything to avoid naming an enemy, an enemy which is not an abstraction. And saying that the enemy is ‘Islamism’ or ‘extremism’ or just ISIS, is a copout, a politically correct way of narrowing the blame down to ‘just a few extremists, a few bad apples who don’t represent Islam.’

If Juncker and his fellow globalist lackeys are sincere believers in their evil agenda of destroying nations and peoples, they are, as I’ve said for years, either insane or evil. Some people attribute the actions of Merkel, Juncker, and all their sorry kind to incompetence or to simple power-hunger.  Even now, some people can’t seem to see that this bizarre Camp-of-the-Saints scenario is not just the result of blundering or of simple political party ambitions (for instance Americans saying “it’s all about keeping the Democrats in power, more Democrat votes,” etc.) or ‘cheap labor’ for business — although that last apparently is a motivator for big business and small business too, in some cases. No, the madness we see playing out has method to it. They are working to a purpose, and working furiously to accomplish their malevolent goals. Nobody does this kind of evil, of this magnitude, for ordinary reasons.

And for my Christian readers, yes, we are fighting against ‘principalities and powers,’ and ‘spiritual wickedness in high places.’

Oh, and I am waiting for the claims that ‘this was staged; nobody died; the survivors are crisis actors and the blood was ketchup.’

Strange and portentous times we are living in, but then we knew this was coming. It was predicted, and even some who don’t read the Bible or believe prophecy sensed that this was taking shape. Yet some still don’t see the larger significance of it.

The lying media at it again

Are they ever not lying?

Since yesterday’s post there are more details coming to light on the Munich murders. But how much of what the media says is trustworthy or true? The BBC baldly states that there is a link between the Munich murderer and Breivik. The only link that is evident is that the shootings in Norway and this one in Munich occurred on the same calendar day, five years apart. But the media are so desperate to connect the Munich event with any White person, particularly one who is supposed to be a nationalist, so as to tar all nationalists with the same brush as a deranged Mohammedan, or the deranged Mohammedan of the day. Blame Whites wherever possible, seems to be Rule #1.

A German speaker, on a Free Republic thread discussing the BBC article linked above, checks the BBC’s account of things against a German-language account of the story in Der Spiegel. He gives his translation of relevant passages:

Der Täter habe sich intensiv mit dem Thema Amok beschäftigt, daher gehen die Ermittler davon aus, dass er sich auch mit dem Fall Breivik beschäftigt habe. Das liege auf der Hand, sagt Polizeipräsident Andrä. Freitag war der fünfte Jahrestag des Amoklaufs in Norwegen.

My translation: The culprit has interested himself in mass shootings, therefore the investigators assume that he also has interested himself in the Breivik case. That’s obvious, says Chief of Police Andrä. Yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the mass shootings in Norway.

Now, you can go back to the BBC piece, check the first page of the Daily Telegraph etc etc and see how a false story is made. “

The phrase that I bolded in the quote above tells the story: investigators assume. The politically correct police seem as much to blame here as the anti-White mendacious media.

Another way in which the media have deceived us on this story: his name was at first (after some delay) given as Ali Sonboly. Later reports gave his name as David Sonboly, David, of course, not being a Moslem name usually. So we are told he was a convert to Christianity. And his ethnicity was given as Iranian. However, Walid Shoebat says he is not Iranian but Syrian, with Turkish loyalties.

“Why then advertise him as an Iranian which would make him a Shiite Muslim? Is it possible that Germany wants to avoid the repercussion when Germans know that Turks or Syrian refugees who are entering Germany by the droves are the culprit?”

Obviously the media have been told by their puppetmasters to conceal any link to the ‘Syrian’ ‘refugees’, so as not to arouse xenophobia and ‘Islamophobia.’

There are Alt-Right bloggers who are quibbling over whether he is Iranian because, they say, Iranians do not commit terror acts. I am not sure of the veracity of that claim; I haven’t researched it, but it seems a bit of a sweeping general statement, to me. In any case it’s moot, if it’s true that Sonboly was not Iranian at all. Shoebat asserts that the surname Sonboly is a Syrian name and he seems more credible on that than most Western journalists (many of whom are Third-worlders, including Moslems; remember journalism’s ‘diversity mandate’?). I will trust what Shoebat says over what the rest of the media tells us.

Again, other bloggers are arguing that the killings in Munich were not terror or jihad because he was just a troubled individual who was a loser and felt suicidal. But why would a merely suicidal person kill others on their way out of this world? Why not just kill oneself, and not innocent strangers? Then again, I am not a believer in armchair psychoanalysis of every killer or criminal out there, nor do I put much credibility even on the opinions of professional psychologists or psychoanalysts. Those ‘sciences’ are not hard science; there is far too much subjectivity and ‘trendiness’ in the mental health field, and it is now politicized, politically correct, far too often for it to be credible.

And what about the tedious media discussion of how this unfortunate young man got ”radicalized”, as if believing in Islam was not radicalizing enough? Who radicalized the original jihadists as they came out of the Middle East slaying and conquering and converting by the sword in the 7th century or so?

The overriding fact is that Sonboly was out of place, in a country that was not his ancestral country, and he was angry and bitter towards the native people of his host country. He was an immigrant, and he, like all the other jihadists or terrorists or whatever we choose to call them, illustrate not just the folly of promiscuous immigration practices, but the fatal consequences for innocent people in the host countries.

Another attack

Yet another attack, this time in Munich, at a shopping mall. Ten are dead, as of the writing of this, some of them children. More are injured.

And yet another shameful job by the Western establishment media in ‘reporting’ this story. As is usual in any crime or atrocity by one of the ‘protected groups’, the media deliberately obfuscated details, claiming that there was no certainty about the identity or especially the ethnicity/race of the attacker. The local authorities were also culpable, in issuing statements asking people to refrain from ‘speculating’ about the attacker.

The American media were especially brazen in trying to link the attack to German nationalists (which, in their twisted parallel universe, translates to ‘haters’ and ‘bigoted Whites’). Shep Smith, the light-in-his-loafers Fox News personality, was blatantly pushing this storyline. It may have been Shep who mentioned the Utoya shootings of several years ago, since the Munich attack occurred on the anniversaary of that incident. You will notice that the article I link above also makes a point of reminding readers that this was the anniversary of Utoya.

I am sure that many significant events have happened on this day, so why is that one alone so significant, that it must be mentioned? Is the point that ‘White men, right-wing nationalists, do this kind of thing too‘? I don’t know what else to take away from their pointedly telling us about that anniversary, which most of us would not even be aware of.

Now of course we know that the shooter (who targeted children, real children, not post-pubescent teenagers as in the aforementioned attack in 2011) was Iranian by ancestry, though apparently a German citizen. It appears he had a verbal exchange at the site of the attack with a German who referred to immigrants: the shooter said he was ‘German’ by virtue of having been born there.  Again, as Wellington said, being born in a stable doesn’t make you a horse, and this Iranian killer was not German, regardless of an accident of birth or of citizenship papers.

The shocking thing about this incident is that the killer apparently lured children to the McDonald’s at the mall where the killings took place. He posted on Facebook about ‘free food’ for children there.

Though the media portray any ethnopatriot or ethnonationalist Whites as evil people consumed with ‘hate’ for anyone different from ourselves, I personally cannot conceive of hating anyone, especially strangers, so much that I would even think of doing something like this. The real ‘hate’, the kind of burning, visceral hate that allows someone to lure and kill children because of religious/racial/ethnic grudges is just foreign to me. These attacks only confirm in me the belief that these people are of a completely different makeup and mindset to Western, European-descended people. We have dangerous people amongst our own but not on the scale of what the Islamic world produces.

The media lackeys are colossal hypocrites who point the finger of accusation and condemnation at their own kinsmen while whitewashing and covering up and apologizing for the evils of the ‘sainted’ Others in our midst. These ‘white’ collaborationists are a disgrace to us and if we could excommunicate them from our folk, banish them, make them outcasts, that would be fully justified. All lefties and multicultists should be required to relocate to the Third World country of their choice, which if they are consistent, they would happily agree to.

Terror in France — again

It was only a matter of time.

All Western/formerly White countries are living with a ticking time-bomb as long as they allow lax (or no) border control, promiscuous immigration from Islamic countries (and the Third World in general).

The use of a car or other vehicle to mow down pedestrians is not really a new tactic by these jihadi maniacs; I seem to recall a few cases in this country a decade or so ago, though some commenters have said that this is a new method of killing for them. Here’s an article from a couple of years ago wherein Moslems were being exhorted to use such means, among others.

Nice - weeping bird

The above graphic, with the picture of a cute, weeping bird to symbolize grief and mourning, is possibly well-intentioned but it’s also symptomatic of the passive, weak response to the terror attacks. The liberal/multicult’s response to any attack like this is to hold maudlin ‘candlelight vigils’ where everyone holds hands, shares group hugs, and where signs denouncing ‘hate’ are usually featured, along with nondescript prayers to some vague deity or other.

This is a feeble and totally ineffectual reaction to preventable, deliberate mayhem and carnage. A civilized people would not react this way; too many White people have had all their spirit whipped out of them, making them childish and passive when it comes to recognizing naked evil, let alone opposing or combating it. As long as this flaccid response is all that we in the West can muster, we will continue to be run over in more ways than one.

Actually, I tell a lie about liberal whites lacking any spirit; they surely have ‘spirit’ when it comes to denouncing anyone who does show a backbone, and who dares to speak politically incorrect truths. The propaganda-meisters have channeled any aggression the Left feels into lashing out at their own kind. The liberal left have been turned into a kind of zombie army of ‘anti-racists’ who are more than happy to attack their own kinsmen in the name of some hostile ‘Other’ group whose blood kinship to them is all but nonexistent. This is perhaps one of the greatest crimes by the ‘powers-that-be’: that they’ve destroyed the minds of many White people, made them useless at best and dangerous at worst. They’ve weaponized many Whites against their own kind.

How long can the left continue with their criminal appeasement policy, their insane demands for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, even at the cost of innocent blood?

 

Are police to blame?

In the wake of the Dallas murders of policemen, there is a lot of discussion of whether police officers are ‘our enemy’. A significant number of people on alt-right or pro-White blogs declare that they are.

Have so many people had unpleasant encounters with police officers? Is it really that bad out there? I understand the feeling that the police are being made to conform to political correctness, to ‘stand down’ when the ‘protected groups’ are involved in some kind of disturbance — at the expense of innocent White people — Kris Kime comes to mind, as the late Sam Francis describes in a piece from some years ago.

Police departments all over the country have been actively seeking to add more nonwhites (alias ‘Diversity’) to their numbers, for some years now, ever since the Civil Rights uprisings of the late 60s. As is often noted by those with an ounce of awareness, “diversity” in effect means ”fewer Whites.” So most police forces in this country have fewer Whites, and they have also lowered standards for recruits in an effort to find ‘qualified’ nonwhites, because having the correct threshold levels of ”diversity” trumps standards.

So there are fewer White police officers, and yet complaints come in from nonwhites that there are too many Whites, not only in law enforcement but at higher levels.

I’ve personally noticed that there are more female police chiefs in big cities, and that they are usually, as the Canadians put it, ‘visible minorities’, like Heather Fong, the former police chief of San Francisco. A ‘twofer’. And if the female happens to be a lesbian, so much the better, though I don’t know Fong’s sexual orientation, in some cases women in similar positions appear to be lesbian, openly or not.

So political correctness is driving some of the changes in police departments. The idea is always that supposedly a ‘diverse’ police force reflects ‘the community’ and therefore can be appropriately ‘sensitive’ to the various ‘communities’ concerns and above all can win the trust of the people they supposedly protect. We might also say that minorities, in particular blacks, are suspicious of White police officers, believing that Whites are always out to get them, to keep them down, and to outright kill them in cold blood for absolutely no reason. This last is an article of faith for many black people.

Maybe in light of that exaggerated fear of Whites, blacks should in fact have only black police officers patrolling ‘their’ neighborhoods, but the boundary lines between neighborhoods is not always clear-cut, so how would that be accomplished?

The fact that many blacks have a fear and loathing for Whites would indicate that they would welcome separation — but that separation was what the ‘Freedom Riders’ and the orchestrated ‘sit-ins’ in the 60s were meant to abolish, at gunpoint. 

The protesters got what they wanted — and now they object to the result.

Liberia was created so that blacks could have self-rule in a country of their own.

They declined. They stayed, and yet they hate living amongst us. And it’s our fault.

Meanwhile, as policemen have had to become more militarized in response to heightened violence (amongst which segments of the population?) and as they have become more hardened and cynical as a result of our society becoming more corrupt, they are no longer the ‘Officer Friendly’ we were taught was our friend back in grade school. This should not surprise anyone; it is unavoidable in our current society.

We can’t blame police for that.

Personally I trust the police in my town, but then I am blessed to live in a town which is (for now, at least) homogeneous except for the increasing Latino presence. For now, my town has little violent crime. Until recently many people did not lock their doors. Truly. This town has a mostly Northern/Western European-stock population and the police force reflects the demographics. No ‘diversity’, and there is mutual respect between townsfolk and the police. I do sympathize with urban White folk because for years I lived in urban areas including the big, bad NYC area itself. I have not lived a sheltered life. I have seen both sides.  I’ve lived in the North and the South.

Personally? It seems to me that much of the cop-hating sentiment among Whites originates with libertarians or those who have been influenced by libertarian ideas — as have most young people and these days, most ‘conservatives’ who are more libertarian than conservative. Most such people I’ve known were recreational drug users who see ‘the Law’ as at least potential enemies because they know they might be arrested for their drug use or possession. And there is more of an anti-authority feeling on the ”right” than there used to be in the days of the old ‘law-and-order’ kind of right-winger.

A disclosure: I do have one person in my extended family, a second cousin, who is in law enforcement. So maybe I am not impartial here, but I notice that fewer people now are willing to give the police a fair shake. However, if things become more chaotic and out-of-control, some of us may find that that ‘thin blue line’ might be a necessary presence, and we might find that we have some like-minded allies, people who, like us, value our kinsmen and our families first and foremost. Treating them as our enemies won’t help us.

Dallas shootings

By now everyone is aware of the situation in Dallas, Texas, with 11 police officers shot, 5 (as of now) killed.

Given that all the major media outlets are dishonest and fully compromised, there is no real reliable live source of news and commentary. This link is as good (or bad) as most.

I’ve been busy reading the reactions on many blogs and forums, including alt-right blogs as well as ‘mainstream’ conservative ones. There’s been a wide range of reactions. On the ‘conservative’ blogs, the usual colorblind faction is pleading for the rest not to make it a ‘racial thing’, after all, every group has some bad apples, and we mustn’t generalize or condemn the ‘good ones’ because a few are bad, and maybe it was White leftists doing the shooting, so we hope. The usual ‘virtue signaling’ cuck behavior. NABALT, as usual.

Then there are the hardened skeptics: “False flag. Crisis actors. Staged event.”

Some keep repeating that the protest at which the shootings happened, which was a protest by BLM, was a ‘peaceful, nonviolent protest‘, and that some kind of outside forces opportunistically happened along to start shooting law enforcement officers. I am not buying this. I think that whoever did the shooting (suspects in custody as of now,  a woman included, all unidentified) were part of the BLM contingent; maybe not everyone there was ‘in the know’ but the major actors knew. I think the protest was an occasion for gathering a lot of police officers in one place to pick them off.

Just my opinion, of course. Some say “it must have been carried out by White leftists because blacks aren’t organized enough.” Why assume that? There are always exceptions to every rule. Some claim blacks are generally not good sharpshooters and thus are unlikely to be snipers. Three words: John Allen Muhammad.

In any case we don’t know much about the whole picture as yet, but my point is that anything is possible, and sadly, a lot of White folk want to deny any racial aspect to this out of hand — because they fear the reality that there is a real racial conflict in this country that is escalating, fueled mostly by an anti-White power structure, aided by the compromised, inflammatory media. And they blame us, the law-abiding citizenry, for all of it, as they continue to act as provocateurs.

Prayers for the families of the murdered police officers, and for our folk, and for our broken country.

 

Orlando nightclub shootings

One would think that last night’s massacre at an Orlando nightclub, with gay (mostly Hispanic) victims and a Moslem immigrant shooter would pose serious conflicts for the leftist multicultists and their media arm. You would think that they would have to choose between sympathy for their gay heroes and their Moslem mascots, but no, like all good leftists, they have no problem with holding two contradictory positions at the same time. Gays are the victims and Moslems are victims. Both are victims of Whites, especially White Christian males, according to the alternate-reality delusions of the left. So somehow the leftists are championing both the murdered nightclub customers AND the fiend who killed them.

What else could we expect of ‘psychotic’ leftists?

Somehow the media are spinning this to make it the fault of Whites, especially White Christians, and of course guns are likewise culprits.

Who benefits from this kind of thing? The left. Their narrative manages to get reinforced because they control the media and through it, most gullible people’s minds. Both gays and Moslems will gain more sympathy, at least from the unthinking portion of the masses. The Moslems will be loudly defended by their media friends and their ‘advocacy’ (read: propaganda) groups like CAIR; they will be painted as just good people who are unfortunately being profiled and persecuted for no good reason, and gays will gain more outpourings of sympathy from the media and the kinds of people who eat up all the media swill. Expect a massive outpouring of defenses of both Moslems and gays, and expect to hear the terms ‘homophobia/transphobia’ and ‘Xenophobia/Islamophobia’ slung around like never before.

Donald Trump, needless to say, will somehow be blamed by the usual propagandists.

One last thing to note: the shooter was an immigrant. A LEGAL immigrant. A naturalized citizen, in fact, just as American as you or me in this proposition nation.

And his parents were ‘refugees’. Imagine.

San Jose attacks: the perpetrators

Since I heard of the disgraceful attacks on Trump rally attendees in San Jose, I’ve been following the reactions around the Internet, especially our side’s reactions.

The photos give the impression that the rabble who attacked the rally participants included the ‘usual suspects’: Latinos/Mexicans, blacks, and assorted ‘white’ riffraff, mostly young people, the usual college radical poseurs and attention-seekers.

I saw ‘Mexicans’ or other Latinos, while many people on various right-wing blogs saw ”illegals.” Maybe I’m missing some hidden clue, but how are people able to look at an obviously Latin American/Indio/mestizo and discern his immigration status? I surely can’t.

Some Texas kinfolks of mine used to say that you could tell the wetbacks, — excuse me, mojados, excuse me, ‘recent arrivals’ or ‘newly-minted Americans’ by their “roach-stomper” boots, or their preference for garish colors. I’m not convinced that it’s that easy. Maybe you can tell by their English skills, or lack thereof — but then I can show you people who have lived here for decades (and who may have citizenship papers), or even American-born Hispanics who don’t speak fluent English. So how do you sort out the illegals or recent border-jumpers from the second-generation or long time resident? You can’t, not by sight.

Yet lots of ‘race-realist’ people seem to see only ”illegals” when they see people like the feral mobs in San Jose.

Legal or illegal — and how can we know? — the relevant fact is that they are Mexicans, or Latinos of some nationality. In other words, they are not us. They are not of us. That is all we know and all we need to know.

Do people have this meme so hopelessly embedded in their minds, this idea that ‘illegals= bad, legals= good’? It looks that way.

Did an ‘illegal’ say the following:

“Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die.”

Or this:

“We’re here today to show L.A., show the minority people here, the Anglo-Saxons, that we are here, the majority, we’re here to stay. We do the work in this city, we take care of the spoiled brat children…. we are the majority here and we are not going to be pushed around.”

The man who said those things, way back in 1996, some 22 years ago, was not an ‘illegal.’ He was an “activist”, or more accurately, an anti-White agitator. There were many more such ‘activists’ saying similar things decades ago. Many of these were people who were educated and nurtured in this country, accorded all the benefits and rights thereof, who repay this country and its too-tolerant people by this kind of hatred and incitement to violence.

And there are plenty of other such statements from Hispanic ‘activists’, many if not most of whom are American-born or considerably ”assimilated”. Augustin Cebada is not an exception or a rare case.

If you look up some of these quotes, you will probably find that Snopes.com questions their legitimacy. But Snopes is biased and should not be considered the final word.

No doubt my readers are aware of the anti-‘gringo’ animus of many Hispanics, but just in case you have relatives or friends or colleagues who are still clinging to the politically correct illusions, please inform them. There are still too many wishful thinkers and naively trusting people among our folk.

The shameless liars of the Left

From The Other McCain, a post about liberals and rape, pointing out how liberals, true to form, contradict themselves on the subject of rape.

The post is titled ‘Obsessed With Sex?’, and the title reminded me of the late 1990s when the Clinton sex scandals were in the news. Hard as it may be to believe in 2016, there were actually a few lefty journalists who were not happy about Bill Clinton’s behavior, but the Clinton spin doctors were on the 24-hour news channels, spinning like dervishes to deflect blame from Clinton, and one of the main talking points was that special prosecutor Ken Starr was ‘obsessed with sex’, and this was the reason for his persecution of Bill Clinton. Then the talking point was that all conservatives were ‘obsessed with sex’, being hypocritical puritans. So I’m surprised that they are still getting mileage out of that sophomoric accusation. But then again, the left tends to repeat like a broken record; one might think they were reading from a script.

The brazenness of the left knows no bounds; they are possessed of not one iota of shame, and will lie without batting an eye and make the most outrageously hypocritical statements, contradicting their own supposed principles all day long, without any shame. They are not troubled by any scruples.

The blog piece from The Other McCain discusses a debate in Toronto on the subject of the “refugee” flood in Europe and the suspicious increase in rapes that happened to coincide with the arrival of the ”refugees”. When fellow guests Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage alluded to the rape epidemic, “British” [sic] academic and sometime TV talking head Simon Schama (good old Anglo-Saxon name there, professor) sneered:

“I’m just struck by how obsessed with sex these two guys are, actually. It’s a bit sad, really.”

So yes, they are still using that old accusation against the normal people like Steyn and Farage who have the gall to notice obvious patterns. Again the left projects and accuses people on the right of the very thing they are most guilty of. The left are the most sex-obsessed people on the planet, excluding perhaps their “refugee” mascots.

That’s what’s ‘‘sad, really“, Professor Schama. It would be pitiable if it weren’t so offensive, this shameless finger-pointing from the shameless Schama — and the rest of the conscience-free Left.

The one segment of the Left that has most to answer for here is the feminist brigade. Again harking back to the Clinton years, when this country took a turn for the worse morally, the feminists were shown for what they were in no uncertain terms; whereas they claimed to champion women who were raped, and proclaimed that every rape accusation should be taken seriously, they vilified the women who accused Bill Clinton. Remember the Clintonista’s ”nuts and sluts” defense? The rape accusers had their names dragged through the mud and their character assailed mercilessly. Some even had death threats made against them or their families. How any woman could be fooled by feminists’ claims to be champions of women after that disgusting chapter is beyond my comprehension. But leftists are liars and without any conscience; politics is all to them, and they would, I think, defend even murder if the guilty party were one of their own, one of their political fellow-travelers.

And what’s even worse than helping a rapist evade justice is their more recent practice of actually recommending that some political ‘enemy’ on the right be raped as punishment for being ‘racist’ or just ‘right wing’, like Sarah Palin. I remind you again of how that loathsome Sandra Bernhard, an alleged ‘comedienne’, said publicly that Bristol Palin should be ‘gang-raped’ by some of Bernhard’s black ‘homies’. Have we become so jaded that  we don’t even recoil from such an ugly statement? Yet other leftists have said similar things about people on the right and few people expressed the disgust and shock that such comments should elicit from civilized people.

Leftists are beyond ‘sex-obsessed’; they are politically obsessed. They don’t even regard people to their right, even moderate conservatives, as human beings; such people are subhuman enemies, to whom no mercy is to be shown. As the nice, mild-mannered Canadian audience at this event did, they will laugh at mentions of rape, if the intended victims are political enemies — or just plain White people.

After all, these progressives ought to know that most people in Europe are, sadly, ‘progressives’ like themselves, and by their reckoning, not deserving of rape or murder — but then I suppose being White is enough to make Europeans deserving of such a fate, in the twisted, race-obsessed, amoral mind of ‘progressives.’

Trump’s would-be attacker

It seems that the ‘SJW’ who rushed the stage at the Dayton, Ohio rally for Trump has quite a history as a leftist ”activist” (read:thug), and announced his intentions via social media. I was ready, after reading some of this person’s Tweets, to condemn Twitter for not banning his account, since they claim to disallow ‘hate speech.’. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and Twitter apparently has deleted the account of this Tommy Dimassimo, the Trump assailant.

DiMassimo has a history of highly theatrical Hate Whitey statements, threats, and gestures like dragging an American flag around as part of an anti-white protest. Here’s an archive of his tweets.

His mother Faye DiMassimo is an important executive in mayor Kasim Reed’s Atlanta city government.”

And way back in August of last year, we read at the Occidental Dissent blog about this same Dimassimo, then seen trampling on and burning a Confederate Battle Flag at a Stone Mountain, GA rally.

tommy-d

Clearly in the photo above he is deliberately trying to provoke a response from the people in the stands. That’s always what these types seek to do: ideally, to get the other side to attack you so you have the supposed moral high ground, and can feel vindicated in denouncing the other side (normal White people) as ”haters”, as violent bigots. Then you get to play the wronged victim, always the cherished role for the SJW types.

Dimassimo also said in his Tweets that ‘martyrdom’ was his goal.

I see that his Facebook page is not available now; no surprise, usually such a page is scrubbed quickly when the person behind it has suddenly attained notoriety. The disgusting thing is that Dimassimo was apparently released on bail. Would a ”right-wing” person charged with such a crime be released so easily? Of course not, and it probably doesn’t hurt that his mother is in Atlanta city government.

Dimassimo, though typical of the leftist ‘foot soldier’ and professional agitator (he apparently is a small-time wannabe actor and a rather old ‘perpetual student’) is not the author of all this; obviously the organized left finds people like Dimassimo useful, and we’ve seen how groups like MoveOn.org and BLM and individuals like George Soros have claimed ‘credit’ for these recent events involving Trump. So Dimassimo is a bit player in this particular drama, though he may think he is a man of significance.

The troubling thing is that there are so many like him who are willing to use violence for political aims, and that there are monied, powerful interests willing to use such deluded political fanatics.

Even worse, though, is that it is not just the left that is party to all this, but the establishment, ‘respectable’ right. Witness Cruz’s statements regarding the rally violence:

“When you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.”

So the establishment Republicans are essentially siding with the leftist/ethnic thugs who perpetrate the violence, placing most if not all the blame on Trump and those who support him.  Good. Now maybe people will see the true colors here. Enough of the masquerade.

But Cruz and the other establishment candidates are not the worst. Gateway Pundit here calls attention to the anti-Trump Republicans at Red State, resorting to what looks very much like incitement to violence against Trump. The following is a quote from Neil Stevens:

My advice for reporters and protestors visiting Donald Trump events is simple: You have a right to keep and bear arms. Use it. If Trump’s brownshirts know their targets are armed, they’ll get less handsy, fast.”

At the very least, this is irresponsibility. Is this how desperate the establishment GOP, namely, the Cruz backers, are to thwart Trump and his supporters? Because it is just as much about Trump supporters as it is about the man himself: these ‘respectables’ see Trump supporters as The Enemy, as much or more than the Left. To them, Trump’s supporters are White trash, rednecks — essentially the same laundry list of insults that the Left throws at ordinary White people. Maybe people are instinctively taking sides, sorting themselves out now. And that’s good; there has long been a group of very dissimilar people under the GOP ‘big tent’ and many normal White people are seeing in very stark terms how they are not welcomed, not wanted by the ‘Respectable’ Republicans, cuckservatives, or whatever name we choose to place on them. Leave the GOP to the multicult, the Cubans, Sikhs, Hindus, Hispanics, their preferred constituencies. White people are so yesterday.

Good. Let’s see who is who. This is a learning experience, if we can receive it.