“NY Times Tries to Have a Pregnant Woman Murdered”

November 28, 2014

I got this post from Free Northerner, who got it from another site. I am re-posting it, as should everyone in the manosphere. These two slimebags deserve to have their lives ruined.

“Jim has noted that two NYT journalists published Darren Wilson’s home address so the Ferguson mob can lynch him and kill his pregnant wife.

In response, common citizens can help show them not to wage war on us. I do not have a big a platform as the NYT but I can help boost the signal. Here is the information on the two responsible for doxing Officer Wilson:

Julie Bosman
5620 N Wayne Ave Apt 2
Chicago, IL 60660-4204
Cook County
Twitter
Work Phone: 312-552-7204
Mobile: 646-753-2052

Campbell Robertson
1113 N Dupre St
New Orleans, LA 70119-3203
Orleans County.
Twitter

bosman

.

Niggers riot in Ferguson, Somehow Whitey Is to Blame

November 25, 2014

Niggers riot in Ferguson, MO, and, mystically, whites are to blame.

Magically, all whiteys have caused all darkies to behave like chimps.

Everything is whiteys’ fault, Negroes are blameless.

Blacks are perfect, whites are the devil.

Etc.

Fuck the subhumans. Fuck their enablers. Burn them to the ground.

No Hope In the Era Of Hope and Change

November 11, 2014

In the era of Hope and Change

There is no hope

There are no jobs

There is no future

There is change….

The gas is up

The unemployment is, too;

The niggers riot daily

and the leaders ignore black evil.

The world is collapsing

And everyone is afraid

Of being called a racist, a homophobe, or a sexist.

Fuck you, trash.

 

Lena Dunham Molests Children; This is What a Child Molester Looks Like

November 4, 2014
Lena Dunham: Child Molester

Lena Dunham: Child Molester

Lena Dunham, the pre-op version of Boss Hogg, is a minor celebrity who has recently admitted she molested her sister.

Previous to copping that she copped massive feels on her own flesh and blood, Dunham was feted by the fags, Jews, feminazis, and other supercilious jackasses on both coasts for allegedly making a little-watched HBO show called Girls. Girls is so little-watched that it doesn’t even average a million viewers per episode. Truth be told, no one is watching Girls except TV critics, who laud the shit out of it due to the excellent P.R. work done by the show’s producers. The very fact that this failure of a show got this fat hog of a child molester on the cover of Vogue is proof that the concentrations of power in this country are very small indeed.

Now before Dunham revealed herself as a child-diddling fucking deviant, my biggest issue with her was the fact that I don’t think she actually makes the show herself.  The biggest boost to Girls‘s buzzworthyiness came because Dunham was only in her mid-20’s when HBO greenlit Girls, with her ostensibly in charge; thus she was hailed as the “voice of a generation” and a wunderkind, thus getting critics to pay attention.

I immediately smelled a rat, especially when I found out that her parents, Laurie Simmons and Carroll Dunham,  are rich, weirdo avant-garde artists. I remember the J.T. Leroy scandal, and how people in showbiz are so desperate for a hit they’ll make up false fronts, names, etc. just to break in.  All-in-all, HBO taking a risk on a 25-year-old with no TV experience made no sense; but taking a risk on her parents doing the show for her and using her as the front man? That made sense. HBO doesn’t really care about the truth anyway, as its left-wing propaganda shows.

But now Dunham has admitted that she molested her kid sister. Bear in mind Dunham is 6 years older than her sister. In her recent memoir, she laughingly recounts three episodes of abuse to her sister:

  • She admits that, when she was 7 and her sister was 1, she pried open her sister’s legs to view her vagina while watching her sister. There is also an implication at this point that Dunham then stuffed rocks into her sister’s vagina and tries to blame it on her 1-year-old sister.
  • She admits that she used to manipulate her sister into lying in bed on top of her while she (Dunham) masturbated.
  • She admits to bribing her sister with candy and other ruses to make out with her—and calls her methods “anything a sexual predator might do.”

All of which Dunham recounts as humorous and exploratory.

Now I will mansplain a few things to you guys. Sexual deviancy laws do apply to children. Children who touch others is sexual ways are punished, placed in foster homes, and put on sex registries. What Dunham did to her sister are enough that, were Dunham not a privileged celebrity cow, she would be registering with the local police for the rest of her life. And no, that’s not a joke; Dunham has literally admitted to crimes.

Lena Dunham is a molester of children.

Now Dunham is facing a backlash because she not only got away with these acts (perhaps—depending on what the statute of limitations were in the states she did them in), but because she thought they weren’t bad acts. In fact, she has tried to deflect criticism by an ironic swat:

That’s right, you guys, it’s soooo weird that you’re freaked out by her actions. Stop being such a prude! Everyone does it!

Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you left-wingers are mentally balanced and/or are morally good. Lena Dunham is their moral and mental leader.

Dunham, being the left-wing ‘tard she is, is desperately trying to stop all dissent. She is threatening to sue people who merely repeat her own admissions to child molestation.

Well fuck you, Lena Dunham.

You’re an unrepentant child molester.

You are an evil fucking ugly cow.

And you don’t even run Girls, a show no one watches.

Just a reminder: The Bible says you should judge

October 20, 2014

Lefties invented and perfected the Big Lie. The National Socialists used it to great effect, but other leftists (Soviets, Cubans, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Libyans, etc.) also abused it to death.

One part of the Big Lie is repetition: people will truly believe anything if its said by enough people. Peer pressure wasn’t just something your D.A.R.E. officer told you about to scare you; it is very, very real.

One Big Lie the left likes to tell is that Jesus commands people not to “judge” others, and by judge they mean “say that someone is doing something bad, or that a person is evil.” In fact they often quote Jesus’s words (twistedly, of course): “Judge lest ye be judged.”

Of course they’re lying.

Jesus never says don’t judge someone as sinning or being evil. The context of his quote is that Jesus is saying “don’t be a hypocrite when you judge people.” This is the whole “remove the mote from your own eye” argument-context. In fact, Jesus was condemning the Jewish high priests for their hypocrisy, as they would condemn people for sins they themselves or their family were committing and getting off scot-free.

Jesus had no problem for you condemning another’s sins if you were free of such sin yourself. In fact, in both the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus orders his followers to do just that.

What Jesus hated in sinners was hypocrisy, which the Jewish high council had in droves. Compare Jesus’s treatment of prostitutes, thieves, and tax collectors.  He dines with them because they know they are sinners and want t do better. Jesus curses those who sin and don’t care, or worse complain abut others doing their same sins. Compare, again, Jesus’s treatment of the two thieves he is crucified with—one has no repentance, and demands Jesus save them; Jesus ignores him, likely knowing that, that day, he would see him in hell. The other begs Jesus’s forgiveness for his crimes; Jesus pardons him and promises him heaven.

For example, if you don’t molest children, condemn homosexuals.

Fuck the left. Yay Jesus. Condemn sinners.

Got what she fucking deserved

September 30, 2014

Got what she fucking deserved.

This is what you nigger-fucking and nigger-worshiping whores get and deserve: death and suffering at the hands of subhumans. lol

And no man will bother to save you anymore. Because you don’t deserve it.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Let’s hope it gets out and kills a dozen more of you worthless bestiality-loving skanks. Because you don’t deserve to be saved.

Team Negro!

(h/t: heartiste)

In order to overcome the left, we need social clubs

September 28, 2014

The left has partially  spent the last 70 or so years in the U.S. dismantling social clubs of the anti-left, whether they were openly anti-left—e.g. the Klan, the John Birch Society, the Minuteman border-enforcement movement—or else suspected of  harboring future/underlying opposition to the leftist agenda—e.g. unions, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, the Rotarians.

I’ll note that the only organization that is prominently anti-left today and not being diminished by leftist actions is the NRA.

Now, you might find it surprising that I would include unions as one of the groups that leftists have sought to dismantle. After all, aren’t unions reliably pro-democrat? Haven’t communists and socialists always supported and led union organizing? Didn’t Obama use the bailouts as cover to give taxpayer money to the unions that helped his election—a blatant kickback?

Yes, yes and yes. But the unions pre-1950s and the unions post the 1950s are very different things.

Pre-1950s unions were run on ethnic lines. Irish unions, Italian unions, Polish unions, etc. were the order of the day. While they often were under umbrella organizations like the AFL or CIO, the local union first and foremost looked out for local ethnic interests. This meant exclusions of other ethnicities when possible from local contracts, especially Negroes. In fact, the cooperation possible under the AFL and CIO between ethnic unions was largely driven by overt agreements to keep blacks from taking jobs from civilized humans. The patriotism displayed by such unions was designed to both quell communistic fears and for the pleasure of the members, who were genuinely pro-U.S.

The post-1950s social engineering of the left was designed to break non-black and non-Jewish ethnic solidarity. Hence unions, which had long supported leftists, were targeted by leftists with being forced to take black members. The pre-1950s unions would have never allowed the disaster of Detroit of the 1960s and 70s; however, once blacks were gerrymandered into union power and ethnic solidarity discouraged/threatened, the unions were the mere puppets of lefist social engineers and severely weakened.

Make no mistake that the free trade movement has been turned and used by leftists to destroy ethnic unions. The only unions in the U.S. left today are those where blacks and illegal immigrant Hispanics have mucho power. This is by design. And these are the unions who supported Obama.

The left also used the 1960s onward to attack ethnic-only clubs–while suspiciously leaving black and jewish organizations alone. Such ethnic-only organizations served as powerful local  voting blocs, enforcers, and buffers for years against Negro savagery and leftist amoralistic propaganda. Your grandfather probably was very strongly encouraged by his elders to join at least one organization; today, precious few are.

Any victory over leftism must require the re-emergence of these social clubs, guilds, and, yes, unions, based on ethnic lines. Such clubs, when functioning well, ofter powerful political and social resistance to the left. This, of course, requires legal victories in court. The moment leftists suspect that X organization is just a front for non-Negro/non-Jewish ethnic interests, they will use the Civil Rights Acts to rip them apart and the media to demonize them. Long -term legal planning and propaganda planning would be necessary. This is not a victory we would see in this generation, just as the founders of the Fabian Society did not see the victories of their socialistic policies in their lives.

But it can be done.

Are You Date-Worthy? A Quiz for Women

September 11, 2014

This post was inspired by this unintentionally hilarious article. Go read it, please.

In case of tl;dr, the woman writer complains that women need to start asking men out on dates because men are too weak/stupid/unmacho/ungentlemanly to ask women out on dates anymore.

That’s right; according to authoress Lauren Martin, women deserve to be taken out on dates—proper, old fashioned, man pays-and-buys-flowers-and-holds-doors dates—and the only thing stopping this wonderful thing is the failures of men.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Now, at first, I was going to just link to the article and laugh.

Then I thought, nahhh, I should respond point-by-point, giving the shiv of truth to each and every one of Lauren Martin’s lies.

Then I thought, nahhh, too much work for soon-to-be-forgotten Feminazi whack-a-mole articles like this. Instead, why not give the girls some chick crack—e.g. a Cosmo-style quiz—while at the same time having each question mercilessly fisk and fuck their delicious little egos into fillet, sending them running to their wine cabinet and therapists and Girls reruns and gay bffs and feminazi studies classes for at least 5-10 years of rehab.

Excellent plan.

So ladies, please see the quiz below. Answer all the questions and answer each question truthfully.  At the end, we can tally up your score and find out if you are truly worthy of a man taking you out on old fashioned, fun, dressed-up, he pays, he holds the door, dinner-and-a-movie, flowers-candy-card, classy dancing, sweet-peck-on-the-lips-on-your-front-stoop-but-nothing-more-expected date.

Ladies, Are You Date-Worthy?

  1. Are you a virgin?
  2. Have you had 3 or fewer sexual partners?
  3. Have you ever had a one-night stand/fuck buddy/”it’s complicated” relationship that included physical sexual gratification for either of you?
  4. How many men have you kissed?
  5. How many men have you made out with?
  6. How many men have you given blow jobs to? How many of those have you swallowed? Allowed to cum on your face or body?
  7. How many men have you given hand jobs to?
  8. How many human penises have you deliberately touched?
  9. Have you ever had sex with a black guy? If so, how many?
  10. Are you lying about your answer to question #9?
  11. How many black guys have you kissed?
  12. How many black guys have you given a blow job to?
  13. How many black guys’ penises have you touched?
  14. Have you ever felt attracted to a black guy? Please explain.
  15. Have you ever said out loud that a black guy was attractive, “sexy”, or in any way sexually worthy? How many times and to whom?
  16. Do you listen to rap/hip-hop/whatever marketing word they’re calling it this week? Have you ever been to a rap/hip-hop/etc. concert?
  17. Have you ever had an abortion?
  18. Do you believe abortion should be legal? Paid for by the government? Celebrated as a right?
  19. Are you a feminist? If not, how much of feminism do you agree with?
  20. How often do you masturbate? Do you have a dildo?
  21. Do you vote Democrat, or anything that Fox News would call left-wing?
  22. Are you proud America elected Obama?
  23. Do you think we need more blacks and/or women and/or other minorities in political power?
  24. Do you believe that blacks are held down because of unfair racism against them, and that they are just as smart and good and kind as anyone else, or more so?
  25. Who do you think was right: Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman?
  26. Who do you think was right: Michael Brown or the cops of Ferguson, MO?
  27. Do you think nationalized healthcare is good for America?
  28. Are you in favor of affirmative action?
  29. Are you in favor of gay marriage?
  30. Do you believe gays and transgender people are just born that way?
  31. Do you believe gays and transgender people are normal?
  32. Do you want to get married and have children?
  33. Did you major in a humanity? If so, did the title end in “studies” or “theory”?
  34. Do you have a graduate degree?
  35. Are you overweight according to the BMI scale?
  36. Have you ever kissed, fondled, or had sex with another woman?
  37. Have you ever been involved in a sexual encounter involving more than two people? Kissing, making out, and light petting count here.
  38. Do your friends consider you sexually adventurous?
  39. Have you ever taken a naked selfie, or one where you are dressed provocatively? Have you ever sent it to a straight male or posted it where a straight male could see it?
  40. Are you on Twitter?
  41. Do you think a man should be king of his castle?
  42. Do you think a woman should obey her man?
  43. How often do you get drunk? (note: “tipsy”=drunk for the purposes of this quiz).
  44. How often do you use recreational drugs/illegal substances? When was the last time?
  45. How often do you date or have sex outside your race? Races for this quiz: White, East Asian, South Asian, Arab/Persian, Native American/Red. If you are considered “mestizo”, you may claim both races. Jews can group themselves by skin color here.
  46. How often do you date or have sex outside your ethnicity? Your ethnicity is the country of origin of your parents’ ancestors. Don’t be obtuse; if you’re a mutt but mostly Northern European, use most of those countries, but if you’re 100% Irish or Chinese, use that one nationality alone. Jews count as a separate ethnicity here.
  47. Do you go to the same house of worship for services at least 2x a month?
  48. Does that house of worship have only male clergy? What percentage of the administrators are female?
  49. Do you believe in your religion’s teachings? Do you believe in God (or gods)?
  50. Does your religion/church support homosexuality, abortion, affirmative action, government-provided healthcare, or any other planks of the Democratic party?
  51. Do you have a gay bff? Is he promiscuous?
  52. Do you believe a woman should have a career when she is 22?
  53. What is the proper age for a woman to start having children?
  54. At what age do you want to have children?
  55. Would you or have you ever gone backstage or on the tour bus or into a VIP lounge with a male celebrity?
  56. Same question as #55, but with the condition that you have been on or have gone on at least one date with a guy that went well and you two are texting?
  57. For older girls: were you Team Aniston or Team Jolie?
  58. Have you ever cheated on a man you were dating? Kissing, making out, holding hands, touching each other’s bodies, foreplay, sex are all cheating.
  59. Have you ever competed with a man for a job or promotion?
  60. Is it ok for a woman to cheat if she’s lonely, depressed, or she’s fallen out of love with her man?
  61. Did you ever beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  62. Did you ever want to beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  63. Can you cook a complete meal? Do you do so at least 3 times per week?
  64. Can you clean? Is your home/apartment/room clean?
  65. When not dressed for work, do you dress feminine?
  66. When not dressed for work, do you wear dresses? How often?
  67. Do you watch reality TV? Talk shows? TV dramas? TV scripted comedies? Which ones? How many hours per day?
  68. Do you watch pornography?
  69. Do you have tattoos? How many? How large? Are they visible when wearing any of your own skimpy summer outfits?
  70. Do you believe organizations and companies should be allowed to be all male and exclude blacks?
  71. Have you ever flashed anyone?
  72. Do you swear? How often?
  73. Do you ever say or think that you get along better with men rather than women?
  74. Is there a box of condoms in your room?
  75. Do you believe a woman should look pretty for her man?
  76. If you are overweight, are you ruthlessly trying to get underweight?
  77. Have you ever participated in or cheered on a Slut Walk?
  78. Do you believe women have a responsibility to dress appropriately?
  79. Do you believe single mothers are good mothers?
  80. Do you believe in divorce?
  81. Have you ever been divorced?
  82. Do you agree to raise any children in the religion, town, and way your husband decides?
  83. Do you believe sex is about intimacy, or is more physical?
  84. Do you believe a woman in a serious relationship/marriage has a duty to sexually please her man even if she isn’t in the mood?
  85. If you get into an argument with a man, would you ever throw a drink at him or hit him in anger? Note that “playful hitting”=hitting. If so, and he punched you or slapped you hard, would you consider that fair?
  86. Do you know that regret is not rape?
  87. Do you watch “Keeping up with the Kardashians,” “The Daily Show”, “The Colbert Report,” any kind of talk show, “The Today Show”, anything on MSNBC, or anything on Bravo or E!?
  88. Do you listen to top 40 radio? What about NPR?
  89. Have you ever embarrassed a man who was trying to flirt with you? Ask you out on a date? Get your phone number?
  90. Have you ever liked a man, only to have your gfs/gay bffs dissuade you from dating him?

Quiz Answers

As you can see ladies, the questions really answer themselves, don’t they? That is to say that, immediately upon reading each question, you knew–almost instinctively–what answers would be correct and render you still date-worthy, and what answers would be wrong and render you not worth it for a man to take out on a date. You knew it in your gut, though you hated the fact that you knew it, and that you knew it so well.

And, for some of you, what hurts even more is that even for so-called left-wing men, the “correct” answers and the “wrong” answers remain the same. That is to say that, even though certain men that you would date would express the views that my questions are stupid/don’t matter, you know instinctively that such men still would greatly prefer the “correct” answers.

Some of the questions are super-damning for wrong answers, while others aren’t so much deal breakers.  I mixed and matched according to my whims and what struck me at the moment. Like a good psych quiz, I asked the same questions different ways, and followed easy questions with hard ones, just to keep you off balance. I’m awesome like that.

 

But I don’t need to really tell you if a certain wrong answer is super-damning or merely hurtful to your date-worthy chances; if you aren’t sure, ask a few gfs, or even your token gay bff. The more offended they are by a certain question, the more you can be certain that that question is a super-damning, automatic-disqualifier if you give the wrong answer.

By the way, this list is by no means exhaustive; I barely grazed the anti-male area of family law, for example. But it is comprehensive enough to give 90% of women out there a very, very good idea of what men want out of women, and, equally as important, what they, in the strongest terms, do not want.

What Date-Worthy Really Means

What Date-Worthy really means, ladies, is whether you are worthy of a long-term, locked-down relationship/marriage. You know that and we know that; that’s why, when you really like a fuck buddy, you’ll start whining or setting up circumstances—such as meeting for drinks around dinner time before you’re going to fuck—that will encourage him to lay down some change, hold a door, and otherwise be a boyfriend-on-a-date.

You know that if a man invests his money, time, and charm in public on you, it starts to lock him down into relationship status. Men who put time, money, and effort into courtship behavior are setting themselves up for relationships, whether they know it or not. It is instinctual and natural; when we invest effort into something, we expect it to mean something.

Once upon a time, most middle class women in America gave the “correct” answers to all the questions on this quiz. This is why men then took women on formalized dates; such women, because they gave the correct answers, were deemed date-worthy, and dates were designed to further test the waters for lifelong commitment, i.e. marriage. Other women—the sluts of their times—were not taken on dates; they ended up as bar floozies, prostitutes, yoked to underclass or unrespected men, or else lonely and alone in their lives. Johnny the Good Boy didn’t marry Suzy the Floozy, he married Mary the Good Girl.

And here’s a very important part you ladies need to hear: Johnny married Mary because it was a good deal for Johnny. Johnny got a loving, virginal wife who never compared his faults or shortcomings to past lovers; obeyed his word; respected him; cooked and cleaned for him; stayed feminine for him; gave him regular, faithful sex; and all-in-all remained a loyal wife.

These are what the “correct” answers mean to men: she is worthy of a man’s time and investment because she will reward the man with what he wants. And this is why your “wrong” answers today hurt you so much inside: you instinctively know that your actions have devalued you so that investing time, money, and effort on you isn’t worth it to a man today, unlike, say, your grandmother. Ladies, you are much less worthy of love—less “date-worthy”—than your own grandmother. Unlike your grandmother, you ladies aren’t a good deal for a man today.

Another way to put this for women is to stop thinking “what do I want out of a man” and start thinking “what does a man want in a woman.” Men—especially men in the PUA community—spend an inordinate amount of time wondering what he has to offer to a woman to get what he wants. Women would do well to wonder what they have to offer to a man to get what women want—dates, intimacy, long-term commitment, etc. And it ain’t just sex, ladies; no man every went to war, worked for 40 years at a worthless job, or built a mansion for a prostitute or the easy chick down the block.

 

What Happens When You’re Not Date-Worthy

You’re fucked.

Just kidding.

Kind of.

There are some things you can do to mitigate the damage your “wrong” answers indicate. However, that is left to another post and time. I will say this much: many times the Rubicon cannot be uncrossed; the bell unrung; the die uncast. But despite this, you can at least mitigate such damage—and not in the ways you’re probably thinking.

Addendum to My Last Post

September 5, 2014

Here’s an addendum to my last post:

This WASP + Jews v. Irish-Catholic would also go to explain the strange post-Civil War behavior of Northeast trader WASPs in their fight against Southern agricultural WASPs—otherwise known as the The Civil War.

When all WASPs landed here, they had no greater-than-normal moral problems with slavery. Northeast trader WASPs owned slaves and didn’t mind Southerners owning them either.

But slavery enabled the Southern WASPs to grow rich and powerful, while slavery didn’t help Northern WASPs do the same. Slavery was largely useless in the smaller farm lands of the North.

So the Northern WASPs sought to curtail Southern WASP power by cutting off slavery. Hence why Northern WASPs suddenly started getting “troubled” by black slavery, growing their movement into a full-scale religious movement—never mind that the Bible clearly has no agenda about slavery; it merely takes it as an existing human condition. The Bible’s only problem with slavery is when the Chosen People (Jews) are made slaves as a nation under the Egyptians.

The Northern WASPs stoked this moral crusade deliberately so that they could justify obliterating the Southern economy later—“yes, its sad your poor and starving now and without power, but what you did was sooooo eeevil.” They began heralding black achievements, propping up Frederick Douglas, fomenting slave rebellions (which inevitably failed, due to blacks being unable to sustain them), publishing The Liberator, etc. —all to give themselves the moral upper hand.

Then, post-Civil War, all this love of the black man just plain stopped. Once the Southern WASPs weren’t a threat, the blacks were no longer worth using, and the savages were forgotten to be dealt with by local Southern authorities. Reconstruction was ended because it was never really the goal.

This explains why the North could get so “morally outraged” over black slavery but not give a whit about the treatment of the red man going on at exactly the same time. One savage was useful in the fight for power; the other was just in the way of land grabs.

Today’s PC moral crusades are the same thing—and the feminazi and Negro and fag and trans crusades will be as quickly abandoned if the WASPs and Jews ever wrest power away and destroy the Irish-Catholic-power.

My belief is strengthened by these arguments.

 

 

A Racial Hypothesis as to the Elites’ Post-1960 Anti-Americanism

August 28, 2014

The elites turn against Western Civilization is largely a racial one. It is, at its base, the WASPS and Jews turning on the Irish.

WASPs in the Northeast were largely traders and wild west financiers, similar to the Jews. When the southern WASP plantation owners lost all their power via the end of slavery, the Northern WASPs reigned supreme. WASPs and Jews had a respectful rivalry of sorts in the U.S.; while WASPs and Jews had rival firms and fought it out for money and position, they viewed each other as equals.

But then the Irish Catholics came in and gained power. First they outnumbered the WASPS. Then they took organized crime and organized labor. Then the Irish gradually stole political power away. The late-19th C. and early-20th C. violent union movements–and the violent backlash against them by industrialists—played out as a WASP v. Irish.

Unlike the Jews and the WASPS, the Irish weren’t intelligent traders. Also unlike the Jews who came and treated their religion as the WASPs treated theirs (as a social club with God merely there to reinforce their racial visions), the Irish were seriously religious.  They were also uncouth roughnecks. Even worse, they REFUSED to be converted to the protestantism of the WASPs, and stubbornly kept their papish ways and traditions. They were more violent and stupider and the WASPs considered them almost black and beyond redemption.  The Jews saw them as barbarians who had a nation the Jews never deigned to encamp in.

Side Note: I’m not talking about the Scots-Irish (i.e. Southern rednecks) here because they were never a threat–the Civil War was Southern agrarian WASP v. Northern trader WASP; the Scots-Irish, being poor to middle class religious hillbillies who were not part of either side of the American WASP coin, were never the target of that War of Northern Aggression and never really had power outside of their counties.

When the WASPs lost control of Boston/New England was a real tipping point in WASP belief. New England was once the WASP stronghold and homeland; who in your family was on the Mayflower was the sign of WASP-ness; in Boston, as late as the 1920s, NINA signs (No Irish Need Apply) were still being used. [Ed. note: I have been informed on another blog that “NINA” signs are actually a cultural myth; sure enough, upon examination, there is no evidence that such signs existed.  There was still widespread anti-Irishism in Boston, but no documented NINA signs. Thank you for the correction.] But that was the last of it; Boston fell to the Irish political machines in the late 19th C. and never relinquished it, despite WASP holdouts.

The Jews hated the Irish so much that when they formed organized crime syndicates in the 1920s and 30s and allied with the Italians, they deliberately cut the Irish out. The Atlantic City Meeting is often pointed out as a prime example of Jewish gangsters wanting to freeze out the Hibernians. Jews have never been comfortable in societies with devoutly religious people who are not Jewish, and the Irish-Catholics were definitely devout pre-Vatican II—so many Irish priests it became a cliche, and so many Irish, including Irish gangsters, who were religious—-one famous Irish gangster refused to deal in prostitution because of his religious fervor.

When it was clear the Irish were going to be in control of America, and therefore, Western Civilization, the WASPs in fear and in loathing, turned against America and Western Civilization; they started degrading American culture, Western Culture, and encouraging/allowing Jews to do the same. The election of Kennedy might be seen as their Waterloo, and the Hays Code’s demise in Hollywood occurred right at that time.

The WASPs and Jews turned to the blacks to control the Irish. Smaller in number, well stupider, but violent, the blacks provided a unique buffer against the Irish–a low savage class to attack the now-only partially savage ruling class.

Viewed in this way, history makes a bit more sense: the weird anti-Americanism of the eilites is really Anti-Irishism from WASPs and Jews who encourage blacks to attack the Irish. Jewish attorneys “standing up for civil rights” are really just keeping Irish people from punishing the Negroes, the foot soliders of the WASPs and Jews; the Jews will take a few black beatings in their own neighborhoods if the Irish cops are harried to death and the Irish people are attacked more.

It’s tribal warfare all over again.

I submit that the British view of America in the past v. present supports this hypothesis. The WASPs were just expatriate Brits. In the past, the British viewed America as upstarts, aggressive, but largely equal, man for man. British and American elites intermarried and moved to each others countries.  In short, America was Britain’s younger, more hungry, but otherwise equal little brother.

The British view today is that America is stupider than Britain.Like a forlorn, religious, retarded heir to a vast fortune/estate that Britain is forced to be the butler for. Or like a brilliant man forced under the thumb of some idiot silly thug. In short, not like a little brother, but an uncivilized moron who just happens to have, by luck, power over you. This is exactly how the British would view the Irish if the Irish somehow gained a large country with nuclear capabilities—like America.

Caveat: While this may be the motivation behind the WASPs/Jews turn against Western Civilization/America, I think the cause was actually targeted Communist infiltration, which I will explain another day.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.