Lana Lokteff argues that every white country is being forced to “diversify” by importing millions of non-Europeans into their nation. Lana tells why she doesn’t want to become a White minority.
Antonia Okafor (Campus Carry Activist) joins Dave Rubin to discuss being black and conservative, racism on the right vs on the left, her political awakening, gun control, the abortion debate and much more.
Boston Free Speech Rally
Boston Commons, Boston, Massachusetts
May 13th, 2017
Gabriel Brown explains a brief history on the origins of the Anti-Fascist Action (Antifa) as well as their sponsors in the Ford Foundation and the Southern Poverty Law Center with Steven J. Baldassari. Steven was not certain what to make of the Anarchist position during the discussion but he came to the agreement that we shared much more in common than we had disagreements so this discussion and interview resulted in a positive conclusion.
Julian Assange has declared that “the proper war is just commencing” after Swedish prosecutors unexpectedly dropped their investigation into an allegation of rape against him, ending a torturous seven-year extradition battle that nevertheless leaves significant question marks over his future.
The 45-year-old WikiLeaks founder appeared on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he had sought asylum in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, and said Friday’s decision was “an important victory”.
After raising a clenched fist in salute, however, he vowed that “threats” made by US officials that he could be arrested on espionage charges “will not be tolerated” and said his organisation was escalating its leaks of documents about the CIA.
I’m actually agnostic on the question of climate change/global warming. However, I generally favor the use of sources of energy other than fossil fuels, natural gas, and nuclear power to the greatest degree possible (with “possible” being the operative word) on the grounds of health and environmental aesthetics.
By Bill Butler
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” (DVD/video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England’s “Channel 4” (The “Supermarket Tabloid” of the airwaves). In the past, “Channel 4” has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin’s “sleazebag” pseudo-documentaries.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts – I’ve already made up my mind” audience. There may be future media presentations by those who wish to promote ignorant political viewpoints instead of presenting factual knowledge. (Or possibly, the individuals involved have never passed a high school science course and don’t understand that there is a difference.
By Thomas Sowell
Britain’s Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.
Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.
These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some of these are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications that are being promoted in the media — but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.
One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.
While the public has been led to believe that “all” the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats — and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were “consulted,” but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.
Press TV. Listen here.
Forces within the US government are using anti-Semitism as an excuse to cover up growing opposition among university students to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands, says Virginia-based analyst Keith Preston.
Israeli researchers at Tel Aviv University said Sunday that anti-Semitic incidents on US college campuses, mostly in the form of insults and harassment of Jewish students, increased 45 percent in 2016.
Overall, the number of violent anti-Semitic incidents in the United States rose slightly last year, compared to 2015, increasing from 88 to 91, the report found.
The report comes following a recent wave of bomb threats against Jewish community centers across the United States and in Canada.
Political scientists and academics have argued that supporters of Israel equate criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism in a deliberate attempt to discredit critics and prevent legitimate criticism of Israel.
Preston, director of attackthesystem.com, told Press TV that there was “very limited evidence” of growing anti-Semitic sentiments on college campuses across the US and people who made such claims were providing a “dubious” explanation of what they consider anti-Semitism.
“What they seem to be objecting to is what they perceive as anti-Israel sentiments on campuses and I think they are probably right in the sense that there is a growing support among university students in the United States for the pro-Palestinian movement and for the movement to divest Israel and things of that nature,” the analyst said Sunday.
“This is markedly different from anti-Semitism,” he argued. “Anti-Semitism implies a carte blanche hostility or prejudice against Jewish people and that is not what the pro-Palestinian movement is about at all.”
Preston said there were even Jewish students promoting movements like the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.
“So, I think this is something of a smoke-screen argument that is being raised and claims that anti-Semitism is somehow growing on American campuses,” he said, concluding that such reports in fact show that opposition to Israel’s occupation of Palestine is on the rise.
By Wes Enzinna
At lunchtime on May 19, 2012, 18 masked men and women shouldered through the front door of the Ashford House restaurant in Tinley Park, Illinois, a working-class suburb of Chicago. Some diners mistook the mob for armed robbers. Others thought they might be playing a practical joke. But Steven Speers, a stalactite-bearded 33-year-old who had just sat down for appetizers at a white nationalist meet and greet, had a hunch who they were. The gang filing in with baseball bats, police batons, hammers, and nunchucks were members of Anti-Racist Action (ARA) and the Hoosier Anti-Racist Movement (HARM), two groups dedicated to violently confronting white supremacists.
“Hey, bitches!” one of the anti-racists shouted before charging Speers’ table. “ARA is going to fuck this place up!”
Speers stood up and warned his seven companions to prepare to fight. His girlfriend, Beckie Williams, who had organized the lunchtime gathering on the white supremacist website Stormfront, grabbed a butter knife. Francis Gilroy, a homeless man who had driven up from Florida to find “work for whites,” as an online ad for the meeting promised, tried to pull the attackers off his companions. Williams was clubbed on the arm. Speers was hit on the head so hard he vomited.
Alt-right figure Richard Spencer delivered a speech at Auburn University in Alabama, Tuesday, despite its earlier cancellation due to security fears.
The welfare state is a gravy train for ISIS.
If the welfare state doesn’t end in Europe, the welfare state will end Europe. And future historians will look back on the way the West ended and think we were all out of our goddamn minds.
As the dust is still clearing in Brussels and Pakistan (killing kids on Easter… stay classy, ISIS) and wherever else the nut jobs hit before this goes to press—as the Left signals their concern that all these dead bodies and raped orificia might feed an irrational fear of suicide bombers and rapists—the press is busy lecturing European security agencies about their incompetence. They could have stopped all these attacks somehow, if only they knew how to do their jobs!
You know what? I feel sorry for the security agencies, bumbling though they may allegedly be. From where I’m sitting, their job looks freakin’ impossible. According to Pew, over a third of French Muslims think suicide bombing is at least on occasion acceptable (and among the 18-30 crowd, it’s an eye-watering 42 percent).
How would you like it to be your job to root out terrorists when a third of the base population—of whose diversity and feelings you must always be respectful—would be happy to house and hide the assholes you’re looking for?
Meanwhile the media have kept stumping for not just bringing more of the terrorist-supporting population in, but feeding and housing them at the expense of the very government budget that must also fund security operations.
I know, only a bad person would ever suggest that you end welfare, and no educated European wants to be a bad person. But what you are accomplishing by being too nice is very bad indeed, Europe. Because if you do not end the welfare state, you’re going to have a violent genocide, one way or another.
By Andrew Doyle
any of us on the left are tired of playing a losing game. Too often we are unhorsed by the worst excesses of our own side, in particular the mindless peddling of identity politics as a substitute for rigorous debate. Each week brings with it a fresh litany of petitions, articles and social-media posts, all contributing to the impression that the left has turned into a coterie of preening killjoys, unschooled in the art of self-awareness.
Recent low points include calls for Doctor Who to regenerate as a black woman in an effort better to reflect the diversity of the Time Lord community; Caitlin Moran’s advice to young girls that they should avoid reading books by male authors; and Lincoln University Students’ Union’s banning its conservative society from using its social media account for the crime of highlighting restrictions on free speech. Irony, it seems, is not a strong point among these guardians of social rectitude.
More recently, a British artist has called for the destruction of a painting currently being displayed at the Whitney Biennial exhibition in New York because its theme – the murder of an African-American child in Mississippi in 1955 – is not appropriate material to be tackled by a white artist. Apparently, ‘white free speech and white creative freedom have been founded on the constraint of others, and are not natural rights’. Many of us find the destruction of artwork and the curtailing of free expression to be troubling phenomena. The historically illiterate have no such misgivings.
It’s unhelpful to describe this trend as ‘political correctness gone mad’. The phrase has become predictable right-wing boilerplate; one associates it with the screeds of Richard Littlejohn, or the reactionary paranoia of Jon Gaunt, who believes that it ‘will soon be a crime to be a heterosexual married parent’. In any case, ‘political correctness gone mad’ has become a cliché, and all writers worth their salt avoid clichés like the plague.
The sledgehammer tactics of contemporary identity politics have little to do with political correctness as traditionally understood. Tacit social contracts concerning polite forms of discourse in the workplace, schools or public spaces are hardly a controversial notion. We all adhere to such principles in one form or another, albeit with some inevitable sticking points and disagreements along the way. We are facing something far more sinister: a mutated form of political correctness that seeks to police language and thought alike. It’s an authoritarian movement spearheaded by well-intentioned activists who are seemingly blind to their own bigotry.
Press TV. Listen here.
There is no reason to step up “alarmist rhetoric” in the wake of the undemocratic trend across the US under President Donald Trump, says a senior political commentator.
Keith Preston, the chief editor and director at AttacktheSystem.com, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV while commenting on a recent statement by two independent experts at the United Nations.
Since Trump won the White House, at least 19 states have introduced undemocratic bills in state legislatures “with the purpose or effect of criminalizing peaceful protests,” read the statement by David Kaye and Maina Kiai.
According to Preston, “What is happening now is nothing that’s particularly new; Free speech and right to peaceful protests have been under attack in the United States for a number of years.”
The analyst referenced measures to crack down on free speech and the right to assembly in recent US history, noting that “this kind of thing has happened in numerous other circumstances.”
Trump’s victory in the last year’s presidential election, however, has caused a “wave of protests over certain issues that have come to the forefront.”
The reason for that, Preston argued is that the businessman-turned-president is an “extremely controversial figure” and is “widely opposed by a substantial segment of the US population.”
“What is happening now is that different levels of the government in the United States, primarily in some of the individual states, [where] legislators introduced potential legislation to try to curb protests essentially by chipping away at protest rights.”
They are also trying to give law enforcement “more tools” to use against protesters “or things of that nature.”
Preston further stated that such legislation, proposed at the state rather than the federal level, will not necessarily turn into law and may be blocked by US courts.
“Also this legislation is simply proposed legislation. To my knowledge no of this legislation has actually passed,” he said, concluding that “there’s no point to sounding a lot of alarmist rhetoric about free speech; rights being taken away in a unique or special way.”
He concluded that the statement by the United Nations’ experts is “certainly worth paying attention to… but it’s not out of the norm.”
Bay Area Guy’s article Healthcare and The Donald about the demise of the Republican healthcare bill, and its implications for Trumpian nationalism
How America’s healthcare system is a vile abomination, and the passage of Ryancare/Trumpcare would have compounded the problem
Richard Spencer’s article Why Trump Must Champion National Healthcare
How Obamacare itself wasn’t really “socialism” but rather an insurance scheme
How like debt deflation, our current healthcare albatross renders Americans meek and servile
Donald Trump Praised Socialized Healthcare in the past
Why Trump owning universal healthcare would force both neoliberals and “cucks” into a corner
Why whoever passes single-payer will alter the political landscape for generations
Gaining ground by championing certain progressive causes(universal healthcare, a stronger safety net, and a higher minimum wage), ignored by the corporatized left
Corporate suppression of free speech, and how the threat of loss of healthcare shuts down political dissidents
Tony Soprano Versus the Health Insurance Mafia
Why insurance companies should be public utilities, and the need for price controls on prescriptions drugs
Bay Area Guy’s experience working at an insurance brokerage firm
Globalization and Designated Shitting Streets
UCSF’s decision to outsource 49 of its IT jobs to India
Steve Sailer’s article Malibu, America’s Least Welcoming Town, Declares Itself a Sanctuary City
Wahhabism and Globalism
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces the Stop Arming Terrorists Act
Refugees and White South Africans
Though to many they may seem to be revolutionaries, primed to take the fight against whatever variety of perceived fascism, the self-proclaimed anti-fascists of “Antifa” are a millstone around the neck of the political left and possibly a greater danger to progressive and liberal values than even Donald Trump himself.
Todd Lewis is joined by Keith Preston (anarchist), Sean Gabb (classical liberal) and Alex Fontana (altright) to discuss Race Realism.
Right now is an ideal time for the promotion and cultivation of ATS ideas. Thanks to the bizarre nature of the US electoral system, a perceived “fascist” party is the ruling party, with control over the entire federal government and most of the states, and in opposition to the centrist to center-left cultural and political majority. Meanwhile, the “liberal” opposition party is increasingly being recognized as a band of incompetent crooks even as the wider culture continues to move leftward. The left continues to become more radical, and alienated from the liberal establishment, while the right is moving further rightward after having kicked the neocons and GOP country clubbers to the curb. Probably the ideal future would be for the GOP to maintain control of the state while the culture continues to move leftward and the left becomes more extreme, thereby creating a polarization between the political majority and the state. Hopefully, Trump will be a disappointed to the radical right as well, having the effect of pushing the right in an even more radical direction as well.
By Shaun King
New York Daily News
A troubling new poll was just released showing that the Democratic Party is significantly less popular than both Donald Trump and Mike Pence. My gut tells me that Democrats will ignore this poll, or blame it on bad polling, and continue down the same course they are currently on: being funded by lobbyists and the 1%, straddling the fence or outright ignoring many of most inspirational issues of the time, and blaming Bernie Sanders for why they aren’t in power right now.
As a general rule the Democratic Party doesn’t listen well and struggles to hear the truth about itself.
In case you’ve been living under a rock, Republicans now control the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the overwhelming majority of state legislatures and governorships. This new poll from Suffolk University illustrates just how that’s possible. Here are the base results of the poll with favorable/unfavorable ratings.
By Paul Street
Last October, three weeks before the presidential election, I wrote an essay for left progressives titled “The Ruling Class’s Hatred of Trump is Different Than Yours.” People on the left, I noted, loathed the white-nationalist, quasi-fascist Donald Trump because of his sexism, racism, nativism, authoritarianism, militarism, “law and order” police-state-ism, anti-intellectualism, his regressive arch-plutocracy, fake populism, climate denialism and promise to “deregulate energy” and thereby escalate the petro-capitalist, greenhouse gassing-to-death of life on earth.
The establishment’s contempt for the orange-haired beast, I noted, was different. The nation’s unelected and interrelated dictatorships of money and empire were perfectly willing to live with most, if not all, of what the left hated about Trump. After all, I reasoned, they’d been backing or tolerating most or all of those terrible things under presidents from both major United States parties for decades.
In this landmark 20th episode of the Liberty Machine Unleashed podcast it’s a meeting of the minds as Richard Heathen interviews Alt-Right icon, Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer clashed with libertarian mainstay Jeffery Tucker when Spencer was invited to a break down session of the International Students for Liberty Conference by the Hans Hermann Hoppe Caucus. Left libertarians were outraged by his presence. The situation climaxed when social justice warrior friendly Jeffery Tucker threw a temper tantrum at Spencer calling him a fascist. Jeffery Tucker allegedly called the cops to have Spencer removed, but Spencer left before they arrived. Richard Heathen interviews Richard Spencer to get his side of the story. The two also discuss a myriad of different issues including aristocracy and the state.
Anarcho-communist Brent Lengel and Christian conservative Todd Lewis demonstrate what civilized discourse between left and right actually looks like.
Bill Lind has a proposal that is very similar to certain ATS positions.
By William S. Lind
Low-level Fourth Generation war has been underway in the U.S. for some time, largely in the form of gang activities. That is likely to continue, as will occasional terrorist incidents. This low-level warfare is a problem, but it does not threaten the state.
However, the Left’s reaction to the election of Donald Trump as president points to a far more dangerous kind of 4GW on our own soil. Trump’s election signified, among other things, a direct rejection of the Left’s ideology of cultural Marxism, which condemns Whites, men, family-oriented women, conservative blacks, straights, etc. as inherently evil. Not surprisingly, those people finally rebelled against political correctness and elected someone who represents them.
From Andy Nowicki:
Gender traditionalists are wildly cheering a woman standing up to male chauvinists. Feminists are harrumphing over this gesture and defending social customs that require women to be submissive to men…
In other news, conservatives are angry with the CIA and view the American deep state as villainously treacherous, while liberals are rooting on these very same treacherous deep state machinations, all the while hoping for a military coup to oust a democratically-elected leader….
In still other news, right-wingers are foreign policy peaceniks feeling mellow towards Russia, while left-wingers feel that those dirty Russians are everywhere, and are aiming to undermine our American values, and that those sneaky devils can never be trusted and probably should be bombed off the map..
In still other news, hyper-PC types are rioting over a gay Jew who loves to miscegenate with well-hung black men, while the same gay miscegenating Jew is loved by people who hate PC.
I’m not sure if anyone realizes just how weird things have gotten.
By Richard Kreitner
A decade ago, when David Armitage began working on his new book, Civil Wars: A History in Ideas, published this week by Knopf, he had no idea how relevant the subject would become. These days, it’s hard to avoid concluding that American society is tearing itself apart. Several observations and arguments in the book can be harrowing to read—that the nations mostly likely to devolve into civil wars are those that have suffered such conflicts before; that civil wars are most likely when the government is divided against itself; that politics is civil war by other means. Civil Wars ranges over more than two millennia of history, law, and philosophy, but it feels as urgent as the latest shock, as fresh as tomorrow’s news.
I recently spoke with Armitage about his book. The conversation has been lightly edited.
You write in the book that you began working on it after you “found the past rhyming with the present.” What were some of those rhymes that you saw, and what questions were you trying to answer?
I was on academic leave in that period when the Second Gulf War was at the height of its violence, around December 2006 and early 2007. I was in residence during that period at Huntington Library in Southern California, which holds the papers of Francis Lieber, whose name was popping up in the media discussion about Iraq around the same time. Even though he was a 19th-century Prussian, he became newly relevant because he produced the first codification of laws of war and debates about treatment of enemy combatants, subjects very much at issue at the time I was encountering his work.
Among his papers at the Huntington Library was correspondence with his boss, Henry Hallek, a Union general, about the code and, in particular, about the absence of discussion of civil war in it—a strange omission for a code of the laws of war in the midst of the what became known as the US Civil War. There was no legal definition available to him, so he had to describe and define civil war in legal terms that exactly coincided with highly ideological debates in the media and in Congress about whether or not the violence in Iraq should be considered a civil war, or instead a rebellion or an insurgency or an insurrection. As I was reading this mid-19th-century correspondence I was hearing in the news and in the papers about how hard it still was to define a civil war. That’s one of those moments when, as Mark Twain said, history rhymes. I realized that these were two data points—one from the 1860s, and one from the 2000s—which were part of a longer history of civil war that needed reconstructing.
This book is a story of paradox, from the first page to the last. Can you explain why the very idea of “civil war,” beginning with the Romans, is a bundle of contradiction?