News

Anti-Defamation League’s Hate List Puts Alt Right And Alt Lite Figures At Risk Of Leftist Violence

341 Comments

Earlier this week, the Anti-Defamation League published an article titled “From Alt Right to Alt Lite: Naming the Hate,” singling out 36 purported members of each movement—including myself—as “white supremacist” and “neo-Nazi.” The intent of this article isn’t merely to ruin the reputations of those on the list (though given the lack of credence most people give to fake news media outlets these days, that isn’t likely to happen), but to encourage violence against us by left-wing lunatics.

Leftist organizations such as the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center (the latter of which targeted ROK publisher Roosh several years ago) have been using this tactic for years. With the rise of political violence in the U.S. since Donald Trump’s election as president—including an attempted assassination of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise by a Bernie Sanders supporter—the ADL’s libels against me and others in the article represent a real threat to our safety and that of our loved ones.

Sex, Lies, And Jewish Media Control

Among the most well-known personalities on the ADL’s list are Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin, (((Daily Shoah))) host Mike Enoch, NPI president Richard Spencer, Arktos CEO Daniel Friberg, and Counter.Fund founder Pax Dickinson on the alt right. The alt lite portion of the list includes author and First Amendment attorney Mike Cernovich, “Based Stick Man” Kyle Chapman, radio host and Vice magazine founder Gavin McInnes, and former Breitbart columnist Milo Yiannopoulos, among others.

The piece appears to have been assembled by a poorly-paid intern, because many of its claims are flat-out wrong. For example, the blurb about me falsely claims that I work for alt right media outlet Red Ice and attributes one of that site’s videos—an interview with Holocaust revisionist Eric Hunt, which they describe as a “Holocaust denial screed”—to me. The ADL also ignores the fact that I dissociated from the alt right a month ago due to disagreements with the direction of the movement.

To make matters worse, several of the figures accused of being “white supremacist” are not white. For example, Vox Day is part American Indian, Jason Reza Jorjani (editor-in-chief of Arktos) is part Persian, and Tara McCarthy (co-host of the podcast Virtue of the West) is part Indian. This sloppy research underscores how little thought the ADL put into their hit piece.

Assassination By Proxy

The ADL published their list with the intent of dividing and conquering the alternative media—which is already wracked with divisions—as well as singling us out for harassment and violence from left-wingers.

Organizations like the ADL and the SPLC are not news outlets, but exist for the purpose of providing unstable leftists with targets to go after. Assassins have already used dossiers and lists of “hate groups” and “white supremacists” to enact violence against right-wingers; in 2013, a mass shooter attacked the Family Research Council after seeing them on an SPLC list of “anti-gay” groups.

Political violence in the U.S. has reached a level not seen since the 1970’s, with antifas and right-wingers duking it out on the streets of Berkeley and other cities and rhetoric from both sides becoming increasingly violent. Last month, James Hodgkinson, a far-left activist, attempted to assassinate House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and other House Republicans at a basketball game. He was egged on by the fake news media drumming up hysteria against President Trump and the GOP.

Virtually all of the individuals on the ADL’s hit list have already been the victims of left-wing intimidation and violence. For example, Richard Spencer was famously punched in the face by an antifa when he attended Trump’s inauguration in January, while journalist Jason Kessler has been harassed and stalked by leftists in his hometown of Charlottesville, Virginia.

I myself have been threatened and attacked by antifas in the streets and they’ve also targeted my family in the past. Additionally, since I now live in Europe—where Holocaust denial is a crime in many countries—the ADL’s defamation of me as a Holocaust denier could have legal ramifications for me.

In response to the list, Mike Cernovich and several other alt lite/alt right figures have launched the #ADLTerror hashtag on Twitter, attempting to bring attention to the ADL’s passive-aggressive attempt to get its enemies harassed or killed.

While some members of the alt right (such as Richard Spencer) have ridiculed the #ADLTerror campaign, the reality of what the ADL is trying to do is no joke. While groups such as the ADL and SPLC have lost much of their credibility as instruments of social shaming, the rising tide of violence against right-wingers cannot be ignored. The ADL’s attempts to attack the alt right and alt lite should be vigorously combated.

Read Next: Alt Lite and Alt Right Hold Dueling Free Speech Rallies, Alt Right Wins

341 thoughts on “Anti-Defamation League’s Hate List Puts Alt Right And Alt Lite Figures At Risk Of Leftist Violence”

  1. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out (((who))) you are not allowed to criticize.”

    1. Disabled Transgender Black Muslim Females with peroxide blonde hair who later convert to Judaism

        1. new drink of choice will be a strawberry daquiri- frozen, not freshly made

        2. All of her high tech gear will turn into dildos instead of weapons or tools. Watch-dildo. Umbrella-dildo.

        5. hes too nationalistic- he will be renamed Capt Earth with a UN logo on his chest

        6. Her car will be a solar-powered rideshare Mini Cooper with 47 gay pride bumper stickers.

        9. No, it’s just a white chick, which is Not Good Enough for Anita Snarkeisian.

        10. she refuses to give up her ’60s Get Smart-style shoe-phone bc it combines the two most important things in her life

        12. She doesn’t carry a gun, but she has a pair of double dildos in a shoulder holster just in case an orgy breaks out.
          She defeats her enemies with creepy back rubs and inappropriately intimate hugs.

        13. she is such an attention whore she livestreams her political assassinations on facebook live

        15. Lol, she instagrams and twitters all her secret missions 24/7.
          She only arrests the white male henchmen, and just lets all the others go with an awkward butt slap.

        16. yep, all non white henchmen get free college tuition, a henchman version of the DREAMERS legislation

        17. She excoriates the (white cishet male) bad guy for not giving his henchmen healthcare, and the gender pay gap between his henchmen and his henchwomen, and she lambasts him for not having tranny positive bathrooms in his evil lair.

        18. Slightly OT: if I’m looking for a part-time career in gooning, do I go through the henchman’s union?

        21. its nuts out there dude- a movie reviewer like Dunkirk a lot, but had to question its lack of people of color and women. Do newspapers not have editors anymore? Any sane editor would tell him to delete and sentence and then call him

        24. or the next superman. or captain america or..
          whatever those fucking leftist want to change sexual tastes, for diversity purposes.
          those bastards.

        27. That’s what Viceland does, too — they pay for spots that “edit” history and add minorities, then elevate them above the actual historical figures themselves. Fantasy / wish-fulfillment provided by a fictional narrative and Photoshop.

        28. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pc83d:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !pc83d:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash393FinderForumPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pc83l..,.

    3. I guess cancer patients and kids with leukemia rule over me…
      A better proverb would be to find out who ENFORCES the criticism rules.

      1. Dumbass.
        That’s poor thinking.
        …
        Why would you want to criticize cancer kids?

  2. I just looked at the list and noticed a shocking similarity between all the named people. Apparently we don’t believe in diversity on certain topics, despite the fact that reality is literally blowing up in our faces. I haven’t even heard of most of these people, and for all I know, maybe they are terrible humans. But because of the obvious agenda here, my takeaway is that if the ADL thinks you’re part of a hate movement, there’s a good chance you are doing something right.

  5. That twisted 3ew program against freedoms and Americans has never stopped….they practice taqiyya just like the muzzies do, but it has NEVER been fashionable to say it.

  7. Good article Matt. Relatively few have the balls to call out the “chosen” in general, or their organizations specifically. The tribe has a lot to answer for with regards to the societal degeneracy and white dispossession we currently face. Then they have the audacity to “monitor” and try to ruin the lives of folks who don’t go along with their program.

  8. Since all the left understands is violence, it’s past time to give them what they want.

    1. Not a good idea. Self-defense strikes only. Like leftie Moldy-Locks getting hit for her voluntary fight participation and Based stick Man defending himself from the lefties etc.
      Don’t strike FIRST. This is why we are getting more recruits. People are figuring out how batshit bloodlusty the left is getting

      1. Do we really want more “recruits” who can’t see the error of the left until it resorts to violence? Self-defense only is exactly the kind of conservative pussification that has allowed leftists to take over this society unchecked.

  9. Judaism is a system for enforcing female values. Christianity has borrowed the righteous, elitist cultural views of the Old Testament – and that’s not what Jesus had in mind.
    Judaism is a Matriarchy disguised as a Patriarchy. Jewish women obey no one – not their husbands, not their God. They are in many ways the mold for the type of women American society is producing. I can’t help it if these statements strike you as racist, sexist or fanatic. I call ‘em as I see ‘em. It’s a free country. I have a right to my opinions. There is enough feminist propaganda. These things must be said.
    But what about those other guys? What about the Catholics? In the Catholic Church, the most available forgiving figure is Mary, not Jesus. Catholics pray more to Mary than to Jesus. It took six hundred years for Mary to creep back into the Catholic observance, and can you guess who Mary is? Mary is Astarte, minus temple prostitution. Mary is a JEWISH MOTHER. Catholics refer to their church as the Mother Church. Does the Pope wear a dress and garnish himself with jewels?
    Protestants feel left out? Give it a few hundred years. It’s beginning to look to me as if the entire history of religion of the past 3,000 years has been some futile attempt to move materialism, motherialism, out of the center and off to the periphery. We haven’t succeeded yet, but neither have they. Despite the intricate machinations of Astarte, something within us still wants to pray to the Deer God.

    1. What makes you think there will be enough Catholics or Protestants in a few years to matter? The way things are going Europe and Canada will be islamic in a matter of decades and America (the rest of the continent) will be so secular Christianity will be pretty much dead.

    2. All saints are false. False idols. Invented by the church(the state) to control people.
      In the past politics was based on superstition. Now we have new gods, new idols. False too.
      Matriarchies don’t exist because females depend entirely on patriarchy.
      What you see is prostitution. Different variations. Political tools.
      Dichotomies:
      To control men, you have to “liberate” women
      To control male sexuality, you have to sexualize girls.
      To emasculate men, you have to masculinize women, e.g. contraception,etc.
      To take away from men their natural rights, you have to give women invented rights.
      etc.
      There is lots of syncretism with respect to Mary.

      1. “Matriarchies don’t exist because females depend entirely on patriarchy.”
        He’s talking about the force behind the throne. The Queen on the chessboard

        2. female force fills the vacuum absented by the male. In this case that’s often the jewish father. I don’t like to generalise. Maybe that’s not always the case, but i’ve never heard anyone suggest that jewish mother’s weren’t hugely powerful within the home. Freud spoke of the revolve against the father, against patriarchy, but that’s the exoteric situation the child encounters within the gentile family, or the traditionally orthodox (patriarchal) family. Does that really marry up with the jewish experience most of the time, particularly in the 20th century?
          (ironically, many consider Freud an archetypally patriarchal figure, but as such a symbol I’m not sure that’s the whole of the truth)

        3. We are not in disagreement about the effect caused by this situation, in relation to fathers. But this effect does not represent a matriarchy or a female force, nor directly nor indirectly. It represents a “defective”/corrupted patriarchal society, for the reason that the roles were reversed between the dominant man and the inferior male that used to be at the bottom of the hierarchy. Those males are our real problem, like females they depend on society being patriarchal to live thus parasitically. We can focus ourselves on the “female problem” giving them importance they don’t really have, and we will solve nothing about society, not until we realize that females/feminism are a distraction.

        4. I’m all for taking responsibility rather than simply projecting it on to some other factor, but the idea that if the wimmins are misbehaving its a problem with the males, even if true, is only helpful so far. If you are saying that the problem is that men allow women to wear the pants and rule the roost, that may be true, and correctible at the individual level – i.e. to borrow from feminist terminology, the individual man in question has to man up. Where we are talking about a system though it’s less clear that we should default to such an analysis. In the case of judaism which might be in whole or part matriarchal while pretending to be patriarchal the issue in question wouldn’t just be a jewish mother bosses the men of the house around – there will always be variations of such dynamics in any household, and sometimes its just down to personality – but also the more verifiably institutional aspects: for example how can matrilineal system fail to be matriarchal to an extent: even if its purpose is to preserve and limits an ethnic / religious cohort it is still the case that it makes identity dependent upon the mother rather than the father. When fatherless families and single motherhood become normalised in society something very similar is happening: kids without fathers necessarily take their identity from their mothers (first at least). The father in both cases is auxiliary. However important he is in the specific scheme, within the institutional scheme he is marginalised and demoted. I would say issues like circumcision reinforce matriarchy symbolically; the male’s virility is from the moment of the bris socially constrained.
          I’m not saying that’s the whole of the story, or that judaism is necessarily like that. It is supposed to be a patriarchal monotheistic religion, and traditionally has sometimes marginalised women to some extent -but that is far less the case now. There has always been a Lilith in judaism, and one might wonder whether she was not currently in the ascendant. Maybe jewish men need to get their house in order in that respect.

        5. – Women’s misbehavior is female’s nature without limitations. Men are forced to be responsible for everything women do. Right?, So it is always men’s fault. Not having limitations means that a woman would need to depend on herself, but then she dies. We all have natural limitations, but women are supposed to be protected by men “for free”, and if man imposes limitations to protect her, he is evil, and if he does not protect her, he is evil too. The reason why men tolerate this is because ALL men are paternal. It is intrinsic, this is why we are patriarchal. But this male-nature is now being used against men. By the state.
          – It is not men who need to adapt to control women. Because men already know how instinctively. What we see in women is a revelation of their true tendencies(self centered), caused by the state who is deliberately emasculating men to control society(MONEY), and it does so, by giving women “invented rights” and technology.
          – We see two sides, the natural and the artificial; man is naturally dominant, the state is artificially dominant allowing so the worst kind of males to be at the top(equality). To stay at the top they need to attack men, to keep men at the same level as women. Non dominant.
          These companies(the state), is the new defective patriarchy, with feminism and homosexualism as their “queen”, with money as a replacement of merit and status.
          We are seeing a reversal, inferior males now rule, they share many similarities with females because they are dependent, opportunists, manipulative, emotional, contradictory. They use man’s instincts(sexuality and empathy for women), to invent laws against men, to invent oppression myths, to keep men as workers, creators, providers, to live from men. Parasitism, thus collectivism.
          Woman is a tool. men are vulnerable because they did not evolve to see females as enemies, so when inferior males are given power, they will kill our fathers and emasculate our children; this is predictable. Equality becomes necessary to neutralize men, thus giving rights to women is the same as stealing the natural rights of men.
          – They are our true enemy. Women are easy to control, they got the vote and so many undeserved rights for that reason(collectivism). That is what inferior males do, they pretend to be protectors of women(like white knights), they are imitators of masculinity(dominance). Those inferior males now empowered with technology they don’t deserve, are attacking men, they will keep doing it. We cannot convince all men to control their women, because we are not equal. So it is futile. Those who have created rules against men must be castrated one way or another. The state must be castrated, and then you will see how masculinity will not let women “misbehave”. Now women are adapted to the state, because they benefit from it opportunistically(lack of empathy for men)
          – They attack fathers, and support single mothers, because the state is the new father, the only father, the super “alpha”, with all women as its wives. It is all about controlling men through women. Women are acting against men, but only when “given” any kind of power.

        6. Women are not our true enemy. They are our true companions. However such a state of affairs depends on their not functioning as our enemies.
          Enemy is a rather extreme term I would say. On what basis would you want to have sex with an enemy? Or marry and have children with an enemy? The term sleeping with the enemy was I think, as the Julia Roberts film reflects, a term with a feminist meaning: heterosexual men, as part of the patriarchy, were seen by radical lesbian feminist separatists as the enemies of women because they ‘oppressed’ them both as individuals and collectively within the institutions of patriarchy. When you say that women are our enemies, and – since this is a ‘game’ site – by implication we would be seeking to sleep with our enemies rather than to avoid them – you are pretty much yourself reversing the radical feminist position, including by implicitly arguing that this time it is we men, who are oppressed rather than they the wimminz.
          The qualifier here is that you rightly say that men should take responsibility for the situation (and for constraining women on account of their self- absorbed natures) and no doubt you are right in thinking that would reflect a healthier state of mind, but I think in talking about nature you are over-fixating on what we might call some kind of natural rights, whereby men are this, and women are that, and strong men and weak men are naturally opposed etc. I am not saying that you are wrong – you argue well, and quite convincingly in places – but it is over-schematised and inflexible. Feminism believes everything is infinitely fluid. It is not. Yet you appear to believe everything is infinitely fixed. I do not believe that that is true either.
          Both women and men have their limits, and we limit each other. What this dire episode in history may permit us, is the possibility for both sexes to discover a little more about what those limits are. Women are not or rather should not be our enemies (although radical lesbian feminists would be happy for it to be so) but the world as it is currently arranged, has set them up to be our rivals, preventing them in important ways from being any kind of worthwhile companion, making sex and relationships fraught, dangerous and unfilling, and generally discouraging meaningful heteresexual congress from taking place, above all within the traditional institution of heterosexual marriage.
          That is a problem and an evil that will need to be addressed and the only way it can be addressed short of the introduction of sharia law or the equivalent is for women as I have said to be permitted to discover their limitations etc.: the drawbacks of being a rival to rather than a complement to men men; of seeking to be all things within the family, both breadwinner and mother and father all rolled into one. Right now they are figuratively speaking possessed by the spirit of lillith judaic mythological fame, and the exorcism cannot occur to soon. But there is no returning to patriarchy on the basis of any suspension of rights, or whatever. You and I both know that is never going to happen, and talking as though it would is merely to distract from the business in hand.
          You’re analysis of the state though is incisive. Women are their useful idiots. As you say just one more tool of the elites who genuinely do wish to keep men in check, and are happy for the state, the collective and the hive to usurp the function of the father, the family, and the nation. This certainly appears to be the logic of collectivism and the tendency of world government, but whether it is necessarily so or whether some concatenation of circumstances has induced such a tendency is less clear.
          The state must indeed be castrated, or at least have its wings clipped as it would itself seek to clip the wings of its citizenry. Those you refer to as inferior males may well be a problem in this regard insofar as they are happy to push for statism, and collectivism over individualism, but one can overstate such things: The age of Ghenghis Khan and his ilk is over. There will be no return to such absolute tyrannies, the apotheosis of absolute right is might etc – which itself is an insidious theory which arguably is nothing like what it claims to be (after all what is ‘might’? Does it play by masculine sporting marquess of queensbury rules or does it involve the same kind of machiavellian manipulation that propelled our corrupt elites to the top in the first place?).
          So Ghenghis has already been usurped, and his wings clipped, and the world is not necessarily a poorer place for it. But that same world has swung in the opposite direction. From extreme individualism to worthless groupthink collectivism and men who think they are women. The heterosexual family, with the male at the head by tradition, and no doubt at the head by consent in the future, never had anything to do with right is might, or extreme patriarchy, even if it did recognise the limits of both sexes and the dangers of unconstrained female desire. So we can deal with those inferior males, but not because they are not alphas – I myself am not an alpha – but simply because they have sold out their masculinity for safety and security, and are conniving with women in the kitchen.
          BTW what do you think of the issue raised previously? Do you think judaism is matriarchal or patriarchal on account of its matrilineal nature? Why are jewish men so keen on feminism? Should they rise up against the tyranny of their mothers?

        7. Michael, realize that all previous comments refer to women as NOT being our real enemies. So there is a misunderstanding:
          – The first comment alludes the church(former state) as enemy.
          – The impossibility of a matriarchy, refers(again) to the state, as a corrupted patriarchy that is using female nature to attack men, what may give the impression of some kind of female power(force), but it is not, it is just the female without limitations(while the man is given all kind of limitations and responsibilities, to control him). Then the following comments included the term “inferior males”(enemies), which does not relate to not being “alpha”, nor to having biological limitations, you can be an unfortunate man, but still a man. What inferiority refers to in this case, is to those “tendencies” to betray your own species, your own race, your own sex, and human nature, specially against those who are more capable and thus having the natural right to be at the top. So be assured that there is no intention to attack people who are “inferior”, because as said in the previous comment, “we all have natural limitations”, which means, we all are biologically inferior, and also relative to certain others.
          Therefore, when you said,
          “force behind the throne. The Queen on the chessboard”… the response you got was: “There is no (female)force. Only the confusion of who is the real enemy.
          – What this means is that women are not the real enemy, but that we are confusing who is our real enemy, which are:
          other males, the government, or collectivism ,or google, or banks, or the media, etc.
          – In their personal lives men may consider women as something negative or even as “enemies” if they want to, but in general that is wrong, because as said before, “women are easy to control”; the fact that men are physically stronger, invalidates the female in our species as a natural rival. And thinking of them as enemies, is nothing but a “Distraction” as said before too.
          Females that men could seen as enemies are those who are specifically trying to attack men, or those who are allied to our real enemy, like feminism is, and even then, they are being ignored as enemies, because those females are actually the enemies of women: Man is the natural protector of women, attacking men is the same as attacking women.. That tells you how absurd it is to consider females in general, as rivals/enemies, or as a matriarchy or as a force, or as the “brains” behind all this mess. But sadly, sites like ROK/MGTOW/etc., are giving them an enormous importance, as if they were males, Which is ridiculous.
          Juadaism is patriarchal, like our entire species, because as said before, men are paternal(and dominant); paternal means that men have a bonding-instinct, that is even stronger that sex, and almost completely INVISIBLE, and for that reason men are vulnerable, because as said before, we did not evolve to see females as enemies(when the state uses them against us).
          Matrilineal only indicates a different system of control, it is meant to keep MEN permanently reoriented to a group or religion; by inheriting their status from the mother’s line, men are forbidden to be NATURALLY dominant(which may result in divisions). Being dominant is something VERY important to eliminate “inferior males”(parasites), and to control “inferior females”(parasites/feminism). But that is what states do, manipulate, indoctrinate, emasculate, steal status, steal technology, and favor collectivism through some kind of equality. Something that only favors opportunists. Men are being controlled through the paternal instincts they have towards women, instinct that even little boys have towards their mothers, but we are still patriarchal, always patriarchal. Being human is being patriarchal, because of this bonding-instinct(empathy).
          If we lose our humanity, if a true matriarchy was possible, we would not be simple animals, the sexes would become true enemies and eventually a new kind of male would emerge, one that would not hesitate killing other females, and supported by their own mothers ironically, that would result in a new patriarchy one without empathy towards women. True rape culture. True slavery. Not paternal.

        8. Then I misunderstood, but it seemed as though that was what you were saying
          I think you are being excessively dogmatic in saying that a matriarchy is impossible. That’s not because I necessarily disagree with your analysis – women cannot survive without men or at least a state which somehow reproduce the protective enabling functions that men provide. Rather I would question your implied conception of what a patriarchy or a matriarchy is. You appear to assume that formal power is always actually real power, when that does not need to be the case. A king who sits on the throne, may represent and constitute the power of the throne or he may only represent it, a public face, where the real power lies somehow behind the throne. This is how power works in politics to no small extent so why should it be otherwise when it comes to a gendered system of control? Do we live in a genuine democracy? No, neither do we necessarily live in a genuine patriarchy because the enemies of patriarchy identify it as such. Indeed it is precisely the identification of patriarchy (i.e. it’s construction as a conceptual and critical tool) that enables its attack.
          So, we always have to look at where the real power resides. Many male rules, leaders, tyrants etc., were genuinely themselves the real power. Many societies, perhaps most, have been patriarchal in nature and character. My measure of power in this respect relates not to who holds office, or executes formal function but whose needs are served. What we see in legislatures etc today is a picture of residual male domination – i.e. a preponderance of male MPs / representatives etc. who nonetheless seem desperate in everything they do to appease feminists, please women, work for everybody but themselves. Is that a patriarchy? Is that really male domination. Esther Vilar in her famous manipulated man, did a great deal to question whether men really were on top so to speak. It doesn’t matter if women might be helpless without men, because men effectively work to attend to their needs? We flatter ourselves by calling women children on account of this; or perhaps we point out our superior skills or abilities in some or other form, however if our labour and energies are directed towards serving the needs of women why should we take pride in that to consider ourselves the masters and they the slaves? Indeed if you are familiar with the hegelian master slave dialect it is precisely being served by the slave that deskills the master and empowers the slave. It would not be difficult to see much of modern history in precisely such terms: namely as a species of male slaves, well trained to serve the needs of their female counterparts who may grant or withhold affection according to whim – at least to the extent that their self-determination is respected – but becoming increasingly masterful as they become ever better able to meet those needs. As such one can see feminism as an effort to reassert mastery – matriarchy – over the slave men who turned, and became so much better and more able than those who thought they could dangle them around their little finger. That’s pretty sloppy anthropology perhaps, but it wouldn’t necessarily be that hard to argue the case, including through recourse to the likes of Norman Frazer (the golden bough) and Robert Graves etc. Ultimately it is less a question of anthropology, as defining what exactly is mastery as opposed to servitude; and what exactly would a system of gendered domination or pre-eminence consist of?
          Having addressed the issue of what it is to control or dominate in terms of gender, I would certainly concede that men inferior or otherwise are enabling women and neutering other (more able men). Such men may well be extremely powerful in their own right, and could be seen to be at the top of the pyramid certainly, but there remains the question as to who’s needs are ultimately served in the first instance. Will we one day have a great king on a universal throne or a great queen? The answer that question is likely to depend on whether society becomes more or less hive like. In nature a hive does not have a king, and unfortunately the tendency today is towards collectivism, the suppression of individuality, and masculinity – when it genuinely is ascendant – does seem to depend on individualism.
          That’s why when you claim that judaism is patriarchal I’m a little uncertain. If matrinealism controls men with a view to keeping them “permanently reoriented” to the group then that is a form of collectivism rather than individualism. I don’t want to make too much of that. All societies or at least most seek to control men in some form or other as excessive individualism can get out of hand, but nonetheless in comparison to say nationhood, judaism seems sometimes to subject the individual male to the collectively identified good.
          Now I do agree that judaism should be patriarchal, and that there many aspects of it that are almost stereotypically patriarchal, but one might argue that has been watered down somewhat in recent centuries. I remember listening to the most beautiful sound of a woman’s voice as I walked past a synagogue in a foreign countries once. It sounded perfectly traditional, only I learned later that women are not even supposed to sing (or be heard singing) in an orthodox synagogue. Reform judaism in particular has subverted much of the patriarchy within judaism. Ever since Shabbatai Zvi the feminine shekinah spirit has been being raised up to the point where today feminism can been as a more or less official ideology of judaism (if not orthodox judaism). The jewish enlightenment appears to have been a feminist one, involving the selective turning upside down of traditionally obligatory mitzvah. Jewish men seem to be fine with that and often seem to be keener feminists than the women. I don’t believe judaism is patriarchal any more. I think it’s inner core is now highly feminine

        9. What are you saying? it is nonsense. You are doing the same many MGTOW do, who see females as enemies, but might want to think they do not, so your previous post is a hypocrite attempt to pretend being fair to women to validate somehow your arguments. Some final points, the rest is already there in previous comments:
          – Being patriarchal is biological, sexual dimorphism, psychological factors, etc. It is determined, anything else is just fantasy.
          – Males are dominant, so bigger brains and stronger bodies…
          – The state attacks men not only through women, but through anything, e.g. children, through divorce laws; sexual clothes, through (false)harassment laws; sex, through (false) rape accusations; through sodomy(rape culture on boys); through circumcision(rape culture on boys), through taxes, etc. etc.
          – The ridiculous and incredible stupid “feminist” Esther Vilar, is someone who fantasized with females having control for being manipulative, an attempt to give women relevance and even to make them equals to men(women imitate men, envy the original). MGTOW and others, fantasize with that book to justify their anger, and so they do the same she did, fantasize.
          – You affirm women are men’s true companions. But then you are describing male-female as a master-slave, where the master is actually some kind of slave, a (secret) matriarchy. So yes you are a beta or in other words and without intention of being offensive, emasculated. Your perspective would be very different otherwise.
          – Women being some kind of oppressor/master disguised as a slave makes her by definition men’s enemy, you are contradicting yourself. You negate our patriarchal nature because you are not including yourself as part of the group of dominant men but as someone who prefers to blame females for personal interests, thus to equalize all men with you, by making them similar to you, “victims”.
          – Previous comments described this situation, too much obsession with women does not let you see who the real enemy is.
          – Females have smaller brains, smaller bodies, and spend their lives acting like animals, but somehow are in control of men, well no, that is just prostitution,the state being the pimp (thieves).
          – Women are children, their brains are infantilized, this is not men flattering themselves, it is science, it is clear obvious, it was described by great minds since long ago and confirmed by what we know about brain development.
          – There is no gender, just sex, what are you a male-feminist..
          – Societies do not seek to control men, that is a contradiction, states seek to control men. Dominant men do not fear inferior males, inferior males need that, because they fear their own inferiority.
          – A man is not slave of his dog just because the dog gets free food, free attention, affection, protection, a place in his home. A father is not a slave of his children either, etc.
          > Previous comments are complementary to this one, you are using anything as if it was an argument, so this is it.

        10. Sounds like I hit a nerve.
          Your position is designed to flatter men into believing they are always in control, whether they are or are not and in doing so, and as such is a position that actually works to justify the ‘corrective’ action of the state. If men are always so dominant, and dominance is the problem – rather than some form of natural right to be celebrated – then the dominant will need to be down-sized. You also bizarrely attack Esther Vilar, one of the most effective critics of modern feminism, for exposing the hidden dynamics at play in male / female relationships. It is only by having completely ignored or denied what she argued that feminism has been able to triumph: if for a moment feminists, or the state had to acknowledge that power does not always, or necessarily work in the way that both they and you describe it as working then this system of redistribution based on male oppression / dominance would need to be dismantled. To be honest I suspect you are fully aware of the implications of persuading men that they are the all-powerful masters of the universe. Indeed if we were to take Vilar’s insights seriously we would see that it is precisely this kind of flattery, the kind of flattery of men as invariably masterful or otherwise inferior, that women have always engaged in to persuade men to do their bidding. Because a big strong man would do this, or do that. Otherwise he’s inferior, or beta, or a virgin, or not a real man. The list of shaming goes on. The same manipulative economy you’re engaged in in fact.
          Vilar may be exaggerating her case, but it is a perfectly intelligible case, and one that you completely dismiss out of hand. Likewise in speaking of the master / slave dialectic, instead of saying I have understood this wrong, or misinterpreted in relation to men and women you again dismiss it out of hand. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the idea, or perhaps it is simply inconvenient to the argument you are trying to put forward, but if you were to engage with its substance you would need to acknowledge that it is anything but what you’ve described. Hegel is describing a dynamic process, and one that never ends. You make a big deal of men having big brains, and superior capacities etc., but then my calculator can calculate better than I can, but until an AI revolution occurs and the machines take over, it is I who am master of my calculator on not the other way round. It is my need that sets its circuits buzzing, and produces a computation far quicker than I could ever achieve. Now when it comes to men and women we do have very different capacities, and very often in history – as you and feminists insist – men have been dominant over women rather than vice versa – and it would be fair to describe this is a patriarchy, but even where you have a patriarch, in a substantive rather than merely decorative form, what rollo tomassi has called the feminine imperative may still be in the ascendant. It doesn’t have to be a black and white affair. The master / slave dialectic is certainly not a black and white affair. A woman might be confined to domesticity but if a man goes abroad to fight for her honour or her safety or whatever who really is the master and who really is the slave, even if the greater status is enjoyed by the male warrior. Likewise what inspired men, motivated them to build cities, create technology, labour saving devices and the like. You could certainly describe that in terms of a static quid pro quo, a trade off, in terms of the master / slave dialectic it makes far more sense to see the ascendant and masterful male as the slave, whose brain and braun have been set free by labour done for a hidden employer. And what motivates men. It may be work and accomplishment in and for itself in the moment, but ultimately it is sex. Women. There may be a question of greater or lesser immediacy but ultimately it is always sex, and not just in the abstract. A woman’s smile, her pleasure, her happiness. These are all things that the masterful man, the supposed master of the universe, whose displeasure may be lethal, is likely to be motivated by. So by building a city for his beloved, incarnated or in the abstract, the masterful man achieves honour and status, but this same man will happily die in the trenches, amongst millions of his fellow gods, for the same. What mastery is there in such self-sacrifice? Who was the master and who was the slave at the battle of the Somme? Does male protection serve the male himself? Is it mastery to die in a bloody mangle, with the image of one’s beloved fading to black?
          The above does not require for women to be enemies, or men to be nothing more than their creatures. What it does require is a revision of the cartoon marxism that both you and the feminist position supports. Nor does it mean women are necessarily manipulators, or at least conscious manipulators. The supposedly weak have always persuaded the supposedly strong to work for them, to protect them, and to die for them.

        11. OK gentleman, you’ve chosen to believe “that”…..
          Explaining why you are so wrong, would require too much time. If at least you had shown some evidence, logic, not just based on ideas but facts other than “women are privileged, because men are slaves”. You see women as enemies, but want them as companions. You see women as evil, but wanting to believe you don’t. You see sex as motivation(why would that be?), but wanting to see women as love. You want to see strength in weakness. This is not about women exactly, it is about you: Sex, love, not an enemy, strength, protective. You are projecting your personal desires…

        12. Remind me again how I see women as enemies, when I explicitly said that they weren’t? As for seeing women as evil, where have I said or implied that? All I have said is that their desires, consciously understood or otherwise, manipulatively expressed or otherwise, provide motivations for men to do the things that men do. That’s to say no more than Freud did when he said he claimed that sexual libido was a core drive, whether it was expressed directly or sublimated somehow. The point is about how you assess mastery; what it is to be the one in control. Even the greatest general, beholden to no-one might be serving the feminine imperative (as rollo tomassi defined it) despite himself. That doesn’t mean a particular system, or particular society is matriarchal rather than patriarchal, but it does justify us re-examining the surface relations. As I have said power may or may not represent itself transparently. Agendas are everywhere and even the outwardly strong do not always know which agenda or rather whose agenda they happen to be fulfilling.

        13. A conclusion that correlates all your previous comments:

          It would not be difficult to see much of modern history in precisely such terms: namely as a species of male slaves, well trained to serve the needs of their female counterparts who may grant or withhold
          affection according to whim […] As such one can see feminism as an effort to reassert mastery – matriarchy – over the slave men

          That is evil(enemy), manipulation is evil, female actions like this require consciousness, not just instinct, something men have affirmed and confirmed in forums like these over and over. You don’t want to see yourself as someone who sees women as enemies, because you want companionship, that is your dilemma. Even worst the idea of a “matriarchy” means systematized evil/manipulation against men.
          You did not misunderstand previous posts, you were trying to look as being someone fair to women. You were IMITATING, that is what many “betas”, do; conscious or not, you wanted to think you are fair by reversing this conversation(the “enemy” thing).
          You don’t understand dominance, and how it is relative, hierarchical, and how women cannot be, as it would affect human reproduction, you do not understand that women cannot use sex to manipulate men except temporarily and this requires murdering of children, the state, technology, etc. You do not understand that sex is temporal, that relationships do not depend on sex, that men are NOT motivated by sex, you are insulting fathers who take care of their families. You do no understand the difference between unnatural vs natural dominance, and how “natural” causes ORDER, while “unnatural” is dependent on men, his technology, money, laws, etc.
          When women insult you, they are IMITATING men, for example: you are a virgin means you are a girl, because only girls can be true virgins; “you cry like a girl”; you can’t get laid, also means you are a girl, because getting laid is always about masculinity/dominance. but you do not understand this correctly, you misinterpret. You don’t see how ridiculous they are, how childish, and how they are insulting themselves when they say these things.
          You don’t understand why women reject low status males, you may thing it is just hypergamy, but then why insignificant males who are seducers are not rejected many times and what is the role of fathers in relation to that, and that to “whites knights”, etc.
          Feminism, so extremely unintelligent, so emotional, so full of hate, and so ridiculous, historically a complete disaster. Always living in the present, making tantrums, evil things, but completely incapable of defending themselves(intellectually) against some kind of oppression that never existed. But the state is another thing it has man power, and it works through excuses to STEAL, and what better excuse than “oppression myths”. So while you are trying to fight windmills, the state is raping you and men’s children..
          In resume:
          – There is a contradictory sense in your comments. Nonsense.
          – Hard to explain without making it sound like an insult, but psychologically you are very similar to those males previous comments allude, they are easy to recognize due to how they think, no matter what they say, as they are IMITATORS. Previous comments allude you as one who confuse who “the real enemy” is.
          – You did not misunderstand, you wanted to make of yourself a fair man who does not consider women as enemies. It is practically impossible not to see that previous comments were excluding women as enemies. You are IMITATING being masculine(FAIR).
          – You are blaming women of being part of some kind of “matriarchy”(a secrete conspiracy), the same thing they do to make themselves victims!!!, PATRIARCHY. So you are IMITATING them, as them being the cause of male oppression, the same feminists do, the same, you see?, self-victimization.
          – Your speech is based on personal ideas, assumptions. While proofs about the corruption of the state, evolution, biology, and true masculinity, are everywhere
          – You are doing what equalists do. Equality is about being part of a BIGGER group, and it happens in two ways: being accepted by the dominant group by being an imitator, or by increasing your own group-size by making of others equals to you, by convincing them they are victims/oppressed, etc. like you,that is what feminist do when they say “oppression”. They want company.

        14. For some reason you don’t seem to like my idea that power is sometimes located behind the scenes, instead of in plain sight; that men, even strong men, even where a formal system of male domination exists, may sometimes be manipulated by those less apparently strong and powerful than them? You seem to exist in a rather two dimensional world, or at least you seem to do so for the purpose of argument. So in your world the master is always he who appears to be the master, and the slave is always she who appears to be the slave. Perhaps you are right. But isn’t that precisely the kind of claim that feminists, and marxists and all those progressive nutcases put forward. I grant that you have rightly identified the state as a chief antagonist in all of this, but again is the state exactly what it appears to be? Is the state in the US Donald Trump? Have you not heard of ‘the Deep State’, of the Military Industrial Complex, of the Israel lobby, and all those corporate lobbyists and billionaires functioning in the background? Do not all of them influence and manipulate from behind?
          But we are not really talking about the state. We both agree that the state is a major problem and a major antagonist, even if as I suspect you would prefer to believe in the surface phenomenon rather than any shadowy groups pulling strings from behind the curtain. Where it seems we disagree is on the subject of women (we were talking about jewish matriarchy vs jewish patriarchy as well but you don’t seem to have much more to say on the matter).
          Now you say because I am saying that men and women are in the fashion outlined by Hegel locked into a master slave dialectic you claim that I am saying women are evil because manipulation is evil, and requires consciousness not just instinct. Moreover you claim that I am too weak-minded to see that this is what I really think because I still want women as companions – i.e. I am inconsistent because I am sentimentally and erotically attached to women, but because of my bad faith in being inconsistent I cannot face up to the fact that I really regard them as the enemy and as evil, and presumably – although you do not say this – I must hate them as well. Basically I am projecting my own inadequacies onto women, who are completely innocent because in your opinion they are completely incompetent and have small brains, and are fit only to be led around like dogs (you did mention dogs).
          Now again I say to your position fits perfectly with that of feminists, and marxists and progressives who want to believe that men are completely dominant, and therefore true and natural oppressors. Obviously by your position men are an uber species and should lead by right of might, or whatever superior capacity. Well most of us here believe men are better at leadership, and spatial reasoning, and making shit etc, but by pushing some kind of male supremacist ideology (analogous to nazism in the progressive mind no doubt) you are promoting an ideology that is actually extremely useful to feminists, marxists and progressives, because to the extent that it succeeds amongst men to the same extent can it be held up by the latter as something needing to be opposed and destroyed – just one more form of dangerous extremism that needs to be policed, and managed etc. Whether you are doing this consciously or otherwise I don’t know but your argument simply reproduces in a different format the kind of thinking that left uses in opposition to control all of us.
          Now you say my ideas are inconsistent or whatever, and keep repeating in capitals some nonsense about me being an IMITATOR of masculinity or whatever. Who knows maybe I am. But my rebuttal would be that you haven’t even engaged with any of the arguments I have put forward. You simply dismiss Ester Vilar – whose argument even if she is wrong is brilliant and requires countering. Likewise, you do not even engage with Rollo Tomassi’s idea that the feminine imperative is always at work beneath the surface – that societies are built around women’s needs not mens? It is an argument even if you reject it, and as such it requires that one consider the philosophical basis of domination? What constitutes domination? Why if men die on the battle field, and women are safe at home, should we consider such a thing indicative of being the master, being the one in control? I put that to you and you ignored it?
          Now, I completely reject the idea that such a feminine imperative, the prioritisation of women’s needs over men’s, needs to be necessarily conscious. If it exists, and is reproduced through history, it would be precisely because it isn’t fully conscious, even where it is partially understood. Moreover, while manipulation may well be a part of it – and would anyone argue that women are not manipulative: it is their evolutionary survival strategy isn’t it? – it has hitherto made a great deal of sense insofar as all society’s had an interest in safeguarding young child-bearing age women for the purpose of continuing the age. The feminine imperative in other words was both a manipulation and a pro-social activity. The problem is that if that is the case – and it is – it makes a nonsense of the idea that men are simply dominant, which would require not merely some kind of patriarchal order but also that their personal, selfish interests were served, that they were privileged rather burdened in the functions that they performed.
          At this point though such a feminine imperative continues – now under the aegis of a beefed up state – but without women performing the kind of traditional reproductive role at the same level that might actually justify it.
          Likewise you have failed to engage constructively in the discussion of the master-slave dialectic. Either you have done this through ignorance or through wilful oversight. The idea of the master-slave dialectic describes a process and a subtle one at that. It is not simply about saying one party is master and another is slave. It is a way of describing relations between any pair or dyad, or for that matter relations between two social groups. The argument which I have advanced, and continue to advance is that men have achieved much of what they have accomplished precisely because they were serving the feminine imperative described above, and that if this is the case then it requires that we rethink the nature of mastery, and of dominance. Work maketh the man, and in this case it may make of a slave a master. You can disagree with that all you like, and you would be in good company, but to claim that it is incoherent is silly.

    3. Don’t entirely agree, but you make an interesting case, and judaism does indeed appear to be a matriarchy disguised as a patriarchy, matrilineal descent and circumcision being the key institutions in that respect, together as you say the jewish mother. I often wonder whether the revolutionary impulse in judaism – aside of its content and strategic purpose – is not displaced sublimated revolt against the mother. Why don’t jewish males revolt against their mothers, against matrilineal lineage, against being brow-beaten by women, the Lilith principle? Why does the ADL & the SPLC support feminism as though it were a universal value? There are tonnes of jewish guys here? Why don’t you revolt, because it’s the only actual revolution there could be. Everything else is displacement?

      1. Jesus did revolt but they managed to use his opposition in their favor.
        … or here’s a thought : Perhaps Jesus was controlled opposition himself? Eighteen years out of the middle of his life – from 12 to 30 – are missing from the record books. Someone buried whatever they found out about him a long time ago.
        Hitler’s biographers have no records for few years of his life prior to his active involvement in politics.

        1. Or, the more sane option, and I’m just throwing this out, the Council in threw away a whole mess of books when making the Bible in its current form. Maybe, just a theory, they thought that details of Jesus bad mouthing Mary and telling Joseph “You’re not my dad! You’re not the boss of me” would be boring reading.
          Jesus “controlled opposition”. Cheese and crackers, the amount of absolute power and competence you cede to a bunch of middle eastern stone age types is just amazing.

        2. well as controlled opposition, he didn’t do a very good job did he? I don’t think he was controlled opposition

        3. I am just throwing this idea in the air, of course, but the peace and brother loving teaching of Christianity was adopted by the most powerful and aggressive world empire at the time.

        4. yes, quite incompatible, but then that was always a question of political pragmatism rather than spirituality or whatever. It was politically efficacious to represent a universal god

        5. Doesn’t it remind you of how today humanism, socialism and egalitarianism are being sold for the masses?

        6. I don’t really need persuading on the issue. Success in this world rarely happens for purely spiritual or lofty reasons. We must weigh the good against the bad in all things

    1. No idea. They originally petitioned the Scots to be secret world overlords, but turns out that the Scottish accent is too funny to take them seriously, so that was dropped.

      1. Funny you should mention Scotland in this context.
        When Scotland Was Jewish: DNA Evidence, Archeology, Analysis of Migrations, and Public and Family Records Show Twelfth Century Semitic Roots
        This book argues that much of Scotland’s history and culture from 1100 forward is Jewish. The authors provide evidence that many of the national heroes, villains, rulers, nobles, traders, merchants, bishops, guild members, burgesses, and ministers of Scotland were of Jewish descent, their ancestors originating in France and Spain.
        https://www.amazon.com/When-Scotland-Was-Jewish-Archeology-ebook/dp/B00AY07478

        1. That is *literally* too silly to take serious. As in literally. There is zero culturally similar between Scots (aka displaced Irish mixed with Picts) and Jews.

        2. Perhaps you could read the book first before you jump into any conclusions. That’s what proper men do, no?

        3. See… it’s always the joooos. Dig deep enough, I bet even Hitler was literally (Hitler) a joooooos.

        4. I’m not wont to buy books that make outrageous claims like that, chief. Sorry. I am a bit familiar on an intimate level with Scottish genetics and culture.
          I’ve heard every conspiracy theory about Gaels/Celts that probably have ever been suggested. There are “books” that suggest that Gaels actually are Egyptians, or Indian (as in Hindudes), etc. I cannot take this seriously.
          They are Irish, who traipsed into Scotland (Scot from Latin scocci, which meant “Irish”) and then mingled with the Picts (another Celtic group). Nothing more, nothing less. Now maybe there have been people from France/Spain who made a path to Scotland and got a Laird title from time to time, sure, but suggesting that the bulk of the power structure and culture in Scotland is/was Jewish is absurd on its face. I know *way* too much Scottish history to give that suggestion anything but a hearty “guffaw”.

        5. Seek and ye shall find ask and it shall be given.
          Did Adolf Hitler marry a Jewish woman? DNA tests ‘show Eva Braun associated with Ashkenazi Jews’
          http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/did-adolf-hitler-marry-a-woman-of-jewish-descent-dna-tests-show-eva-braun-associated-with-ashkenazi-9239784.html
          Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html

        6. Technically it’s pretty well known that he has Jewish blood in him. I remember hearing that in the wayback times of the 1970’s even.

        7. You’re too quick to jump. The book does not claim that ALL Scots have jewish roots, which is why I pasted a short synopsis. Here it is again:
          The authors provide evidence that many of the national heroes, villains, rulers, nobles, traders, merchants, bishops, guild members, burgesses, and ministers of Scotland were of Jewish descent, their ancestors originating in France and Spain.

        8. Meh. I don’t believe in Jews. They don’t really exist. Like aliens. It’s all a hoax.

        9. I know a lot of Scottish history. The claim is absurd on its face. Maybe a handful, at best, but “many” is silly.

        10. I’m no subject-matter expert , but aren’t Scots genetically the same as Englishmen , meaning Anglo-Saxon/ Germanic ?

        11. No. They are Gaelic, which means that they are Celtic. They come from the Irish (and considered themselves Irish until just a few centuries ago, like the 1400’s or so?), and they mixed with the Picts who are another Celtic group. Naturally there has been some mingling with the Saxons (rape, pillage or marriage) in the lowlands, as would be expected, but on the whole Scots are not Germanic in the least.

        12. I thought the Celts only survived in Wales and Ireland. Scotland has to be at least a Germanic-Celtic mix.

        13. No. The Scots *ARE* the Irish genetically and culturally and linguistically (again, with celtic Pict mixed in). Gaels are “q” Celts, while Welsh (and Cornish) are “p” Celts (it’s a linguistic distinction). The only “Germanic” in Scotland is if a Scot chose to marry a Saxon (or was raped by one). You’ll get a bit of a Germanic mix in Northumbria and lower Scotland, but otherwise, nah, they’re Gaels and directly descended from the folk on the Emerald Isle. Hit the Isle of Skye, for example, and you might as well be strolling down a lane in 17th century Ireland (they still speak Gaelic up there as a normal part of life).
          I will say that there was some mixing with Vikings at one point, but nothing like happened in England and Ireland.

        16. I’ve heard that stuff too – that the Gaels are in fact a 12th (or 13th?) tribe of Israele…

        19. Yep. It’s laughable. I think that the Gaelic language sounds so alien to most that it just seems plausible that we are somehow an outsider race. A brief introduction to linguistics and actual history clears these claims up pretty quickly though.
          What’s confusing is how the Irish escape inclusion in this. I mean for freaks sake, they’re the same people!

        23. Bugs bunny got it wrong when he sawed off Florida and let it drift into the atlantic- he shoulda sawed off everything east of the hudson river

        24. I’ve never met anyone from Delaware, or who has been to Delaware, or who has even driven through Delaware.

        26. What about Scott Disick. He is a Scott and a Jew. So there.

        27. there was not just jewish blood in him….i have a feeling from his days in art school there was also jewish semen in him…

        29. The holocaust was all because Hitler got dumped by his art school Jew one-itis fag boyfriend.

        30. I can respect that. As a fellow local centric who doesn’t believe that the world outside his periphery exists I can actually respect a southerner who denies the existence of the north east far more than a new yorker who accepts the existence of the south. I take it a step further of course and am fairly sure that the world stops existing when i blink.

        31. And Sammy Davis Junior was black and a Jew. Heh.

        32. think youre confusing your Battlestar Galatica lore with something else

        36. Dude, how ignorant.
          We wuz Lairdz.
          Geesh.

        42. I don’t deny the existence of New York. It’s just not in the mythical land of the “northeast”

        43. Given Hitler’s documented hatred of physical exercise, that might well have a grain of truth to it, heh.

        44. He means just the smartest, strongest, wisest, noblest, powerful, and mighty Scots were all Jews.

        45. he liked his women platinum blonde, and his
          men black. if that doesnt transcend race and religion, i dont know what does

        46. Lol, yeah, sure. That would come as a surprise to my ancestors of course, but hey, there’s a book on Amazon so it must be true.

        47. the only way you can get to upper manhattan is via beanstalk (our commie mayor installed/grew them out a few years ago)

        48. When I went through college the second time (in my 30’s) just to do something different, I went to art school to learn the intricacies of fine art. I was somewhat disappointed but, one of my first professors was a militant little Jew.
          The very first day of class he asked the class to imagine we were in Nazi Germany as artists (what this had to do with visual studies is anyone’s guess) and where we thought we would end up.
          He went one by one to each of us and had us stand in front of the class and I heard the constant repetition of escaping or being taken to a camp.
          My turn I took gladly. I stood up, look him in the eye and said, “I am tall, blond with blue eyes. Where do you think I’ll be?”.
          That set the tone for an abrasive relationship for four years.

        50. I mean, it is a floating island in the sky, isn’t it? How else you gonna get there?

        54. Given as Hitler himself was an artist, and how much *very* artistic imagery the Nazis employed, I’d suspect that most artists in the 3rd Reich were quite gainfully employed at the time. I mean for fuck sake, those propaganda posters, those sculptures, all of the imagery that they used didn’t just get beamed down from the U.S.S. Enterprise-enlatzenflukheimelschlauss.

        56. They were very well employed as long as it was the mandated style. The ones that insisted on doing “degenerate” art(cubism, surrealism, etc), were shipped off or disappeared.
          Fritz Lang the film director was even offered the top spot in Nazi film but chose to escape instead.

        57. “The ones that insisted on doing “degenerate” art(cubism, surrealism, etc), were shipped off or disappeared.”
          Well at least they got that part right….

        58. Sure. I still don’t get the point of his exercise, except to make it all about the Jews, which I guess, is what he was doing. Who gives a fuck, I say. You’da got shipped off to a Gulag in the Soviet Union too for such a thing and last check, most of the top people in communist circles were Jewish, so…..

        59. Funny, now it’s the joooos attacking anyone who doesn’t do degenerate art.

        60. And I think the ultimate example is Tracy Enim and the garbage she pushes as art. She can’t draw but got put in charge of a noted schools drawing program. She thinks dirty condoms are art.
          All this supported and encouraged by Charles Saatchi, an Iraqi born Jew who commands the art world now.
          Everything we see happening in the world has been happening within the art world in a more concentrated manner.
          Art has become the complete degenerated world and craftsmanship, taste and anything connected to the white male is held as evil.

        64. The black and white cookie
          Also, Dean doesn’t count as black. As much as @ghostofjefferson wants to say it, us eye-talian folk are not blacks!

        66. New York will begin to exist to me only when I arrive this weekend, and will stop existing the moment my flight touches down back home.

        67. again, a fully respectable point of view. This whole idea that the world exists outside ones periphery is pure insanity

        68. I can’t remember who it was here who dropped the name “Schlomo L. Sixmillionberg but I am still fucking laughing about it like 10 weeks later

        69. yet if you go to Rosslyn Chapel, there is supposedly considerable jewish influence. I have no idea if it’s true, but since the jews were massacred in york and then expelled, wouldn’t it make sense for many to north, as opposed to just to france?

        70. That business in York was of their own making I thought. Didn’t they seize a castle and refuse to give it back?

        73. I actually saw an exhibit at the Neue Gallery near me called Degenerate Art which showcased artists who had much of their work destroyed in the conflagration by the Nazi’s as degenerate. I really have to say, all the bullshit about who genocided whom the destruction of literature and art as degenerate really was, to me, absolutely disgusting. Regardless of the source I feel that that is the action of a sick mind and is repugnant on the deepest levels. Forget religion and race and culture and banking and joooos….to destroy art and literature as degenerate is simply unforgivable in my book.

        74. tomAYto, tomAHto……
          Sounds fishy. Just like the pogroms in eastern Europe, like they just happened out of the blue….

        76. sometimes a pogrom is just a pogrom. It seems they did refuse to let the warden or whoever back in, so in effect they did seize it, but the circumstances related to the apparent suspension of royal protection.

        79. I just thought of something – If a pogrom is sponsored by the government or some other entity, would it be considered………
          “Paid Pogromming”?

        80. I don’t know but If it involves drowning it would probably be considered “Pogromming in C”.

        82. How’d I miss that?!?! that’s a keeper.
          I’m still proud of my Beardo MacFlannelface the hipster too.

        83. I’m not saying that there might not be influence here or there, or particular people assuming some level of influence. But “many” of everybody important and “culture” is just patently silly.

        84. That’s kinda true. A lot of the Irish were replaced by Vikings, who became more Irish than the Irish, but that was after the actual Irish left and migrated to “Land of the Irish” (Scotland). Then we have the re-importing of the Orange Scots through the English much later. Interesting.

        85. Either there is evidence for it or there isn’t. I’ve heard the assertion a few times, but I’ve not really looked into it. It’s a bit counter-intuitive

        87. Sammy revealed to the world that only vaginal intercourse can be considered cheating. There is no infidelity involved in assfucking a roadwhore, especially whilst enjoying a martini.

        90. Dude you’re not black black. You’re a gateway minority. Kind of like bacon is the gateway meat that lures vegans out of their stuppor and back to eating meat.

        94. I think I’m turning Japanese
          I think I’m turning Japanese
          i really think so…

      2. If you want something done properly you’ve got to do it yourself. Goes for world domination too

    2. I don’t know but they really do have a knack for sabotaging western civilization.

      1. White people are just as good at sabotaging western civilization as any other group, culture, cabal, or secret conspiracy.
        Until we face that and take ownership of it, we’re gonna be fucked.

        1. True, but at least for the others you can understand it as the group wanting to be dominant and actually achieving that. Whereas the jews just seem to incite chaos and know they will never be a dominant group. If Israel was in west palm beach instead of the middle east everyone would be better off. Same amount of sand less almost apocalyptic bloodshed.

        2. This might be one of the greatest comments I’ve seen in a long time. Nice work and wording.

        5. Thank you for pointing that out. The only reason these Marxist policies and other degenerate crap get put in place is because most people(whites included) accept them.

        6. You would have been completely overrun by the Arabs if we were not here. You do not understand the first thing about what is happening.
          You are in the middle of a civilizational war that has been going on between the East and West for millenia, back to Darius and Greece. This is just the latest incarnation of it. You assume that the Arabs would love you but for The Jew.
          The Arabs actually hate you even more than they hate us, and that is really saying something. They regard us as European influenced interlopers. They regard you as flat out heretics and idolators.
          Bat Yeor warned everyone nearly two decades ago that the European powers had already decided on plan to bring the Muslim populations into Europe. The only reason people on the alt right are turning against it is because they are realizing that the Muslim religion is one of constant open Jihad against LITERALLY everyone who is not Muslim.
          I saw a video by a Christian historian who clearly was not in love with Jews, and he did took a map and showed how over time the Muslims brought Europe to its knees during the middle ages. All he did was show the various battles that took place over time. It wasnt the German tribes that broke you, it was the Arabs. Once you crushed Israel there was no one there to hold them back. Your lines were simply extended to far, and you lost Mesopotamia, then Syria, etc. then he showed a map of modern attacks by Muslims. Most of those attacks are absorbed by Israel, and it spreads out from there.

  13. ADL has jumped the shark for sure.
    I’m surprised they haven’t gone full potato and put Trump on that list.

    2. PS I wonder how many Muslims are on that list (Linda Sarsour?) or people who actually are responsible for violence against Jews.
      I doubt they’ll ever put one of their leftist “allies” on the list.

  16. The Jews in the ADL want to cover up the real issue here, and they hope we don’t notice their deception: The Alt Right promotes a vision of human flourishing and the good life in line with the humanist tradition, but it rejects the universalist ethics of the last century’s model of humanism which we can see now clearly doesn’t work. Instead it focuses on the long-neglected good for white people, while assuming that other peoples can solve their problems with their own resources.
    So in short, you can call the Alt Right’s world view a kind of pro-white humanism. But the ADL Jews want to call this perspective “hate” for some reason, even though they operate according to the same principles when they look out for the interests of their people. I don’t grudge the Jews their pro-Jewish humanism, provided it stops short of exploiting white societies (yeah, I know about that discussion). And in return I just ask that they tolerate our pro-white humanism.

    1. so basically by abandoning universalism you’re subscribing to what you think is their real agenda – i.e. the promotion of particularist ‘ethnic’ interests? But if the bottom line is that they are secretly self-interested rather than universalist and you are affirming the principle of self-interest on what basis do you argue that they should ‘fight fair’? Effectively you’re saying to a group you think isn’t fighting fair to please fight fair to please lets all play by marquess of queensbury rules

    3. These elitist leaders believe that the earth is a living, sentient entity called Gaia, and they want to bring mankind into a beehive consciousness with her through transhumanism, drugs and hallucinogenics, social engineering and mind control techniques: becoming one with the earth goddess – bringing Global Citizens into a covenant with her. They call it connectivity.

      1. A great number of ‘educated’ people lack crucial and practical skills. There’s a pipe dream being peddled about in academia that success and big money can be made by aping the ways of the iconic elites. Many idle but educated jews fall for the notion that you can make money right out of thin air if you pursue the grand ponzi scheme. The wealthiest citizens of iron curtain countries during the cold war were all members of the communist party while non members waited in bread lines. The ‘in club’ economy of elitism tastes good to the jew or any other citizen without morals or scruples, and this entices young western jews, liberals and and anyone who achieves status in the leftist academic meritocracy. They flock to any industry or government service that serves globalist ends where the sweetheart deals and perks bait new followers to join and this feeds the ongoing growth of the cabal and its minions.
        Not all jews are crypto jews or babylon mystery religion followers but they count as wannabe crypto jews because they believe that’s where the status, power and money lies. When youth, whether jew or indigenous are stripped of morals and then enticed with a pipe dream, a large number of them seem to have no problem selling their country and culture down the toilet for a reward of being in the club with the elites, even if a wannabe, and sharing in the perks with the globalists who are painted as the movers of mankind. They’re lowly scrough and traitors, all of them.

  17. Sigh.
    I’m tired, soooo tired, of identity politics. No matter what angle, no matter what “side”, it’s a waste of my time.
    Anybody agree?

    2. Nope, I plan on spending most of the weekend trolling the interwebs inciting tantrums among liberals.

    3. Yeah, I’m tired of it too. Especially in real life when I hear people talking politics, and it ALWAYS ends into a shouting match.

      1. I meant **identity** politics, which occurs when two different demographics argue over who’s more victimized. It’s always a clusterfuck, and nothing ever gets resolved.

        1. you know jammy you really make clusterfucks sound terrible. I have been in several cluster fucks and have thoroughly enjoyed each and every one of them

    6. I agree, but I don’t see a solution. So many organizations exist for the sake of identity politics, that identity politics has become politics. I think that up until a few years ago, the view among many (whites) was that it’s all distasteful and gross, and it is best not to engage. Now, the view is more like an identitarian arms race, with each political niche defining itself to greater and greater degrees.

      1. Yeah, whites waited the longest to get into the identity politics bitchfest, maybe because we have controlled the power structures for so long. Now that society has become more of an even playing field, the white fringe element has been unleashed, and is bitching about victimization just as loudly as any other segment. It’s all a waste of time.
        I love that RoK helps individuals improve themselves. I don’t care for how RoK occasionally adds fuel to the victimization fire.

        1. Until one day you realize that your self-improvement efforts and bounded by corporatist ethnic networking glass ceiling.

    7. If you don’t do identity poltiics, someone else will do it for you. And you are not gonna like it.

    8. I agree like I always say the whole blame Jews and the elites for everything is no different than blacks/latinos/women who blame the white man for everything. At the end of the day the only things in this world you control is your mindset and your actions. Use this knowledge and live the best life you can

      1. Except that jews are objectively those in power/ the elite, and dominate every industry, from academia, media, judicial, politics, finance to European royal families and aristocratic families (who are all jewish since at least the 1700s). Whites don’t dominate those, so black and latino people whining about whitey oppressing them is completely erroneous. At best they can say ‘jews are white’ in trying to blame whites, yet jews are vehemently opposed to be labelled white/ European.

    9. Cohesive groups outcompete individualist strategy.
      Its a nice thought to live in the ‘we all bleed red’ crowd but you will be overtaken and easy prey to those that form strong homogeneous networks with similar goals.
      A tenacious minority will overcome an indifferent, divided majority.

  18. “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel.” – Henry Kissinger, 2012
    So according to Hank, we only have like six years to wait…

  19. I thought the ADL was the anti defecation league and was working on a pill making it unnecessary for humans to shit. Now i feel bad about all that money i donated.

    1. At this point I’d be happy with an initiative to get EVERYONE to at least shit in the right place.

      2. I am one of the few males who vehemently insists on the toilet seat being down. I honestly believe that airborne fecal matter is the single biggest issue facing the world today.

        2. I actually will not flush until the seat AND lid are down covering it.

        3. Never understood why people don’t. Makes no sense. How is this an issue? Are comedians just hamming it up?

      3. Ot but i thought you might find interesting.
        Mike tysons mysteries is an incredible show. I suggest you watch it if you haven’t.
        Mike and norm McDonald, what more do you need?
        ..
        So I was watching simpsons the other day.
        Episode where homer becomes a prison snitch.
        Homer sees drederick Tatum(obviously mike Tyson) has a tattoo, snitches on him for it.
        Tattoo is gms.
        Galactic mystery solvers.
        Drederick says it was a mystery solving team he used to be on.
        ….
        !!!!!
        ….
        Just like president trump was foreseen.
        ..

      4. I wish Manhattan had more public restrooms. I had to walk a mile to take a shit once….not a nice walk!

      5. What you said isnt a joke. In the event of a breakdown of services, whether due to economic chaos or something burning out the electrical grid, a lot of people are going to die of cholera once the sewage starts to pile up.

    2. Or it should be Accelerated Defecation Legion so that way I can shit more often and harder all over them and their kind.

  20. I recently looked at ADL’s website and was surprised to see their obsession with all kinds of conservative issues that have nothing to do with Judaism and defense of Jews per se. The website made clear to me that the ADL appears to advocate left-wing politics while claiming to represent Jewish interests. I believe this is why it involves itself in political issues (Federally owned lands in the Western U.S., etc.) that have nothing to do with the defense and well-being of Jews. The problem with this is that by sticking its nose into issues that have nothing to do with Judaism, they inadvertently reinforce the views of anti-semite types that consider Jews to be busybodies involving themselves in and politicizing issues that have nothing at all to do with Judaism, thus increasing the incidence of anti-semitism.

    1. You shouldn’t be surprised.
      The ADL and their ilk are leftist, Progressive, Reform Jews that would rather be at a gay pride parade than a synagogue, would have a female lesbian rabbi marry a woman to her dog and call it a Jewish wedding, would rather waste everyone’s time with identity politics than lead a Jewish lifestyle, and would rather have all Jews painted as subversive just so they can virtue signal against the right.
      They’re no more allies of Israel and Jews than George Soros is.
      But, being leftist, of course their name is a false front to their true motive.
      They are no more “anti-defamation” than the Congo is a “Demcratic Republic”.

      1. the thing is, internal jewish strife may well be incredibly bitter, but even then they still keep it all in-house. Some zionists were appalling anti-semites (re. old fashioned jews), but as far as the rest of the world is concerned antisemitism is a gentile sin. Half the time it isn’t, and I’m not just talking about antifas faking antisemitism in order to control it (that kid in israel comes to mind) but actual blood secular jew versus orthodox jew hatred.

        1. You are correct, but the world doesn’t care.
          As far as they’re concerned, (((Jews))) are controlling everything and are all to blame.
          Jews in Israel are usually doing their own (nationalistic) thing and are not overly concerned with pushing immigration or gay rights or feminism agendas, heck, they suffer from it too in the media, the IDF is being forced to accept women into combat units and parrot how wonderful it is, New Israel Fund and their subsidiaries are promoting LGBT, pro-palestine and feminist agendas, as well as anti-male divorce and rape laws.
          I keep breaking my head against the wall arguing that NAJALT but it does get frustrating.

        2. martin crevald is a good commentator on women in the israeli army, and all the PC madness. Re. inter-jew strife it may partly be that the world doesn’t care but I think there’s also a bit of a tradition of always handling such things internally, however bitter it gets. I think that’s a policy that might usefully be considered. It isn’t good for everything to become the joos versus the rest of the world. Forces like the ADL are only interested in controlling / managing anti-semitism, if they really wanted to challenge it, they’d relax if not necessarily breach the inside / outside boundary in the respect I’ve discussed

        3. I tend to disagree, I think ADL etc. have moved on from opposing antisemitism where it actually exists, to a progressive liberal worldview that promotes the leftist agenda feminism, LGBT, immigration, anti-gun laws etc. etc.
          I no longer believe that they are simply trying to help Jews in their own way, they have hitched their cart to an evil doctrine, and they will be its first casualty.
          Normal Jews that respect nationalism and traditional views and do not label everything as antisemitism, should support the alt-right and Trump.

        4. I could never work out why the adl supported feminism. I know the SPLC does, but then it’s always been a left wing if not actually marxist organisation, pushing the ideology of anti-hate. The ADL seems to have extended its specific concern with antisemitism to the full package. When that means officially supporting feminism, with the implication that not supporting feminism is an example of hate or extremism or whatever, then its clear we not just dealing with a community trying to keep its people safe. I see no reason whatsoever why jews should not be concerned to look after their safety, as any community would, but the ADL seems to want staying secure / combating intolerance to partake of a much broader political ideology

        7. For the same reason churchians support feminist rebellion. Dalrock talks about this a lot. The same patterns repeat themselves all pver the west. God help us. I have a very bad feeling about this summer.

        8. I think it’s deeper with reform / progressive judaism, and because of traditions like the shekinah (and even to some extent sabbateanism as response to traditional patriarchy). Any links for the Dalrock?
          “God help us…..bad feeling about this summer” – that’s very dramatic. Can you indicate what you’re worried about?

        9. Ah, youre probably right. Im probably just overreacting
          Dalrock.wordpress.com

        10. Thanks for the link. I haven’t read the whole thing, but I didn’t find it that alarming. There’s a lot about the modern church that is cucksome, but whatever the fruits they are merely trying to work out what ‘submission’ in the new testament sense should mean in modern circumstances. If such a concept is still meaningful then it would have to be on a voluntary basis. How exactly could it be ‘forced’ and stay within the law even if that were desirable. The issue of headship / leadership is the substance here, together with the debate on ‘abuse’. Neutering the husband in this regard will simply nullifying any notion of leadership, something which will become obvious in time as such things continue to be ‘worked out’. The ‘abuse’ issue is an old one. It’s no different in principle to the kind of agonising of 16th century legal theorists who wrote things like Vindiciae contra tyrannos asking whether there might ever be a basis for resisting a king who breached the law of God. Nothing new.
          You still haven’t said what you’re overreacting to. Last year everybody was worry about the shemitah, a land war or the collapse of the petro-dollar. I’m not sure what it is this year.

    2. That whole movie irritated me in that it implied such a widespread and particularity stupid antisemitism in a country I otherwise knew nothing about.

      2. Great, the pro-Kazakh shill brigade has arrived. How much do they pay you, Ultarak?

  23. Some of you guys might find this a little interesting; I know I did.
    Donald Trump’s great-grandfather was Friedrich (Fred) C. Trump – aka Friedrich Drumpf. The family changed its surname from Drumpf (Oy vey!) to Trump, but the exact timing of the event isn’t clear – https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/09/09/why-donald-trump-better-than-donald-drumpf/7ltKCyRasCa5TY2l1Tr4HP/story.html
    Below is a news photo of Fred C. Trump, Donald’s great-grandfather, and as you can see, he is attending a ground-breaking for the Talmud Torah of the Beach Jewish Center, for which he donated money. (Oy vey!)
    Two of Fred Trump’s married sisters were named Elisabetha Freund and Syblia Schuster. (Oy vey!)
    Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, married Jared Kushner. (Oy vey!)
    Both of Donald Trump’s parents died at Long Island Jewish Medical Center – https://www.thoughtco.com/ancestry-of-donald-trump-1421916 (Oy vey!)
    Nothing to see here…move along.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2801f7eed0057c673706c03a0bc1f9b228484df66a149de5cb1b55d05b19c9f3.jpg

    1. You gotta understand NYC has traditionally been LOADED with joos. If the Trump clan wanted to be in business it paid to make nice with them. Same with their supposed “mafia” connections. And donating land is a sweet write-off.
      Also, LIJ is an excellent hospital I could dig dying there.

        2. It’s not a Jewish name at all. There are two theories to its origin. One, it derives from the Normans via France and made it’s way out to both England and the Continent from there, and it more or less meant coronet and/or trumpet (no surprise there). The second is that it’s straight Swiss (Alemaic) German in origin and literally means “Trump” as we’d use it regarding playing cards, or alternately, “drummer” (as in military drummer), depending on context or who is speaking.

        3. In Trump’s biography, “The Art of the Deal”, he lied about his grandfather’s country of origin, stating it was Sweden instead of Germany. Now why would he do that. Trump was brought up in Jamaica Estates, Queens, which has a large Jewish population. He went to Kew-Forest School, which has a high density of Jews. Its other notable alumni include Katherine Weber, Jewish, Gideon Yago, Jewish, and Hank Azaria, Jewish. Trump’s father was on the Board of Trustees at Kew-Forest.
          Trump and his father ran with the top Jews in New York, including Samuel Lindenbaum and his father Abraham (Bunny), and Roy Cohn. Jews don’t typically enable non-Jews in the fields of business and politics. And virtually everywhere you look, you see red flags pointing at Donald Trump likely being a crypto-Jew. The jury’s out, because nobody’s talkin’, and nobody can prove it with certainty, but my money’s on the Trump/Drumpf family being Jewish.
          You know how Hollywood stars change their last names, allegedly to avoid anti-semitism. Same deal here, I think. Anyway, it’s interesting.

        4. Famous people change their last names routinely. Trump said his family’s origins were from Sweden, in “The Art of the Deal”. Guess he made an honest mistake, as they emanated from Germany. (Hell if he did, he lied.) The point being – nobody can be certain about this subject. But I like spit-ballin’ about it…

        5. The source is not Trump himself, but rather just the known history of his family and their original city of origin. Lots of Americans, back before the Interwebs and Ancestry.com, knew almost jack about their actual origins. Johnny Cash thought he was Irish, when in fact his family came from Scottish royalty (that he wasn’t even aware of).
          Today yeah, you can find origins pretty easy, but 1980’s you’d normally just go by what grandma and grandpa told you. I’m not saying he was being honest or lying, just noting how it used to be for a lot of folks, as I recall anyway.

        6. I hear ya on that one. It makes sense. But as I was pointing out in another comment, you know how Hollywood stars change their Jewish surnames. Michael Orowitz, aka Michael Landon. Etc. Those people are legion. I’m just running with the theory that the same deal happened here. First, we went from Drumpf to Trump. Why? Didn’t want to be associated with Hitler? Who knows. But the gaffe in “The Art of the Deal”, well, that speaks volumes. Somebody wants to hide something. The question is, what is it. Who knows. Maybe the family came from Mars. As an example we have Bruno Mars. Hey, we are on to something here…

        7. Yeah, I know about Hollywood. I don’t think changing from Drumph to Trump is that big of a name change, as T and D are nearly interchangeable in German to the English ear and likely was pronounced “Troompf” Dropping the “F” seems kind of trivial, it sure wouldn’t put me off if I was a private investigator tailing the guy, heh.
          Hell on Ellis Island the Americans working the reception areas would sometimes change your name to something more anglicized for reasons that I was never clear on. Like you’d reach the desk as Umo Saantuuinen from Finland and leave Umo Smith, new resident of New York. Weird shit they used to do.
          As to Sweden/Germany, I really don’t know if that’s a big deal or not. If it is, then Johnny Cash also has something to hide apparently, heh.

        8. “Hell on Ellis Island the Americans working the reception areas would sometimes change your name to something more anglicized for reasons that I was never clear on.”
          I know what you mean, anglicized or not. Like in “The Godfather”.
          Vito Andolini from Corleone.
          The Ellis Island guy writes down Vito Corleone.

        9. Absolutely off topic, but I just noticed something. Corleone. Does that actually mean “Lion Heart”? It may not and just have a passing resemblance, but man, if it is, that would be a hell of a great last name to have (or town to have lived in).

        10. That is awesome, if so. Don Lionheart. I think we could live with that name…

        11. Well, it’s from Wiki, but I get this.

          Another belief is that the name derives from an Arab fighter named
          Kurliyun (Lionheart), who conquered it for the Aghlabids in 840

          Of note too, the city heraldry is a red field with a yellow lion with a paw over a red heart. So I’m thinking….hey…might be.
          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Corleone-Stemma.png

        14. I’m well aware that Hollyweird types do this almost religiously actually. That’s not real a secret.

    2. I said this from the very beginning. Too much naivety and innocence from individualist Americans.

    3. I vaguely remember way back seeing a nature program that did a special on Brooklyn/Long Island examining the habitat of the Jewish animal. It depicted how jew creatures were busy with all sorts of activities as they scurried about:
      http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/970223_10151936221483066_591373786_n.jpg
      This jew is a streetcorner mime:
      http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wolverine_costume_12.jpeg
      This jew is busy making HIS women a sammitch:
      http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bagel-man-screen-capture-800×430.jpg
      Now on to the back streets where this jewess shopowner crafts large women’s hairpieces so that other jewesses can peacock:
      https://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/photo/2012/04/1333475585.JPG/larger.jpg
      Like this bbw jewess
      https://crownheights.info/assets/2014/02/1140.jpg
      Well, I’m Marlin Perkins and I hope you’ve enjoyed so join me here next week at the same time for another exciting episode of Mutual of Omaha’s “Wild Kingdom; JEW”

    4. Interesting. He may or may not have Jewish ancestry but one thing is clear.
      His family has a history of sucking Jewish cock and even way back when you had to keep the Zio mafia onside to do business in NY

  24. I never realised how powerful the ADL was until I saw a video of Abe Foxman lecturing the new Ukrainian President on the need to handle any reference to ukrainian genocide ‘sensitively. The head of a charity effectively giving instruction to the head of state of another country, and the latter agreeing without demur.

    1. “There aint room in this town for TWO holocausts, pard’ner….”
      Ukraine is once again dead. They are a puppet state of global financial interests. They’d have done better cozying up to Crazy Putin.

      1. pretty much what he said lol. Ukraine is a proxy for the west versus russia. it’s sad for them

        1. According to my favorite historian Ukraine was never really a functional country….

        2. as far as Victoria Nuland is concerned it’s never gonna be a functional country

  25. Why no Lauren Southern on this list? Why no Molyneux? Saving them for the next round, or are they so reasonable they need individually target initiatives?

  26. The Unkosher Pigs of the ADL give Jewish people a bad name, they can’t keep kosher so they work to make everybody else miserable, they pimp the dead of the holocaust to legitimize every liberally embraced abomination.

    1. Ashkenazi Jew Sarah Silverman makes a better kvetch chicken salad of the ‘Holocaust’ meme than the ADL or SPLC ever could:

  28. The alt-right is currently no more than a bunch of atomistic individuals surviving with clickbait. That is why they are so vulnerable. The resilience of the internet nomad has its own limits.

  29. “The piece appears to have been assembled by a poorly-paid intern, because many of its claims are flat-out wrong.”
    IT IS ALWAYS extremely difficult for a member of one race to understand, or even to appraise fairly, the mentality of another race. I have often commented on a puzzling aspect of the Jewish mind, the strange desinvolture–no, it’s more than that: the downright negligence with which they perpetrate hoaxes that an Aryan would not attempt without spending an hour or two to make sure that his canard was plausible. –REVILO P. OLIVER

  30. Some charitable organizations who’ve been mischaracterized by SPLC are fighting with a lawsuit – using the same legal foundation that was used against the KKK. While we don’t wish for any harm, anyone who is harmed by their ‘targeting’ (like the FRC) needs to sue them six ways from Sunday and break them financially. (It was a huge mistake for FRC to not sue them, IMHO.) Make them pay and keep paying.
    The problem is that no-one on the right has compiled a list of left-wing hate organizations (probably because we have jobs and don’t have time). That needs to be rectified – and publicized. God only knows how many otherwise-conservative citizens are duped into donating to these left-wing-loony organizations.

    1. The left’s funding is retroactive through taxation. Embedded leftist activist bureaucrats and leftist activist workers in socialist agencies are guaranteed pay and protection. They have turned the state in Europe and N America into a big looney left wing organization. The chants for swamp draining must continue. We the people aren’t being herded into gulags under Trump which WOULD be the case under Hitlery. Realize there’s a stay of the box cars for the trad right at present while trump is engaged in an ongoing headlock with the swamp creature. The time for WE THE PEOPLE to assert is now.

    1. But you see its NOT a phobia, its a legitamate fear based on logic Islamohphobia my ass.

    1. Nice!!!
      I remember Vinny from the comments of a past article.
      We need to turn this Vinny guy into a meme. Make it viral. What would Vinny Pringo do.

      1. Vinny would kick somebody’s ass and still be home in time for corn flakes.

        1. Everyone needs to start making references to Vinny pringo all over the interwebs, it will be funny

        2. Consider it done.
          If anyone refuses to do it, Vinny Pringo will find them and rip out their toenails with rusty vice-grips.

    2. Vinny Pringo is like Tyler Durden. Does he really exist, no one knows. Maybe there is a Vinny Pringo in all of us

      2. Chuck Norris cannot kick Vinny Pringo’s ass…it would be a stalemate until Vinny called in a hit on him….

      1. Yeah, that was quite uncomfortable to watch. Especially with the two “aggressors” being fags and all.

        2. He broke his ankle tripping on the steps?
          I am trying to be on this guy’s side, I really am.
          But running from fags, breaking his ankle from tripping on steps (that most 80 yo men could handle)…he is not making it easy!

        3. Looked like he was limping before he fell. I’m not trying to be a hater, but that video was pretty weak. I believe in promoting strength at all times. I’m thankful for the countless life or death situations I have faced which have allowed me to know my own mettle

        4. ” I’m not trying to be a hater, but that video was pretty weak.”
          It sure was.
          Embarrassing even.

    2. In Germany girls got told to keep one arm length distance from agressive refugees. He executes this tactic very well.

  36. These leftist assholes are really starting to double down on folks they see as a threat to their insanity that the fuckers at the ADL have created a “hate list” as a desperate attempt to silence their opposition or worst use it as a way to justify more leftist political violence against them.
    It’s funny how these leftist cocksuckers champion themselves as moral human beings but they are the ones constantly on the attack doing vile underhanded shit like this in order to ruin the lives of those who refuse to drink the Cultural Marxist Kool Aid.
    These pricks need to have the steel boots put to their collective skulls as soon as possible before things get even more out of hand then they already are.

    1. The leftist scrappers and thugs serve the function of making legitimate cases costly in the long run. Say if you win a court case against the left and then leftist thugs burn your house to redact your previous legitimate win. Or a clusterfuck of leftist bureaucrats and regulators come trying to use system machinery to strip you. The enemy is numerous and very imbedded and entrenched. It really is a hot war to defend ourselves. Living and expressing our culture is only a luxury of pax and peacetime of our kind. Now the attack is constant against our being and our existance as a coherent and definable tribe and bloodline. The zomboid brown mongrel waves slam our turf and our own females are turned zomboid. I’ve dealt with screaming kids when the bitch was on the rag but this insanity with our females across the board is unreal. It’s like being put into a kung fu movie where you have to spin in the air and fight precise, throat punches, throwing stars to the temple “whiz, zip” to the left and to the right. When the bitch forces, the system forces, the jews in suits and the satanists from hell all converge against you in a clusterfuck, you canretreat and get small, fold and lose your ground, your home and culture. Or you can know what’s comin/ down the pike and be aware. The enemy prays and chomps on the agreeable and passive wasterners like cooked lamb. That’s why the tables will flip and we will rise with our shields on golden wings. Our warrior spirit churns and awakens in this hour.

    2. In Germany they made that too
      http://www.agentin.org/index.php/Kategorie:Person
      I’m so emberassed to be German. They just don’t learn. They don’t understand freedom. They have the DNA of shamus and slavish obedience. I more and more understand how the Nazi era and the DDR became possible. Only 4 million of 22 million fled the DDR when they still could for the wall was not buildt yet.
      It’s horrible when you don’t feel like that.

  37. The SPLC is nothing but an anti White anti Christian hate group. They should be at the top of their own list.

  38. We should be compiling our own lists of these fucks and bring them down.

  39. Freedom of speech should apply to private citizens. However a business or organization should not be allowed to print people’s names with slandering accusations without permission. This could be considered libel.

  41. Well good, I am glad normal, intelligent
    people are finally taking note of you racist, misogynist, facsist and Un- American freaks. If I had it my way most of you booted out on your asses. You and your oppressive ideology have no business residing here. Go! Get thee gone!! And please make it forever and ever..

    1. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pc82d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !pc82d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash392ShopForumPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pc82l..,…..

    2. More like…
      The European Council on Theft and Redistribution (of wealth). 😉
      Shafting the tax payer in any way they can.

      1. more than that. If you question climate change on work place they put you into a seminar to lern it correctly. Same for racism. Refugee critisism and so on.
        There are organisations NGOs who are led bei Ex DDR Stasi IMs.

Comments are closed.