Clarence Darrow

Clarence Darrow

Clarence Darrow (b. 1857) is best known for defending Jewish serial killers Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darwinian evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

"The Leopold and Loeb case raised, in a well-publicized trial, Darrow's lifelong contention that psychological, physical, and environmental influences—not a conscious choice between right and wrong—control human behavior. Darrow's psychiatric expert witnesses testified that both boys "were decidedly deficient in emotion". Darrow later argued that emotion is necessary for the decisions that people make: When someone tries to go against a certain law or custom that is forbidden, he wrote, he should feel a sense of revulsion. As neither Leopold nor Loeb had a working emotional system, they did not feel revolted."

He repeatedly stressed the ages of the "boys" (before the Vietnam War, the age of majority was 21) and noted that "never had there been a case in Chicago where on a plea of guilty a boy under 21 had been sentenced to death."

In January 1931 Darrow had a debate with English writer G. K. Chesterton during the latter's second trip to America. This was held at New York City's Mecca Temple. The topic was "Will the World Return to Religion?". At the end of the debate those in the hall were asked to vote for the man they thought had won the debate. Darrow received 1,022 votes while Chesterton received 2,359 votes.

Clarence Darrow's father was an ardent abolitionist and a proud iconoclast and religious freethinker. He was known throughout the town as the "village infidel". Emily Darrow, Clarence's mother, was an early supporter of female suffrage and a women's rights advocate.

I argue that Darrow, like Reverend William King, was the product of the so-called "Second Great Awakening." The Second Great Awakening reflected Romanticism characterized by enthusiasm, emotion, and an appeal to the super-natural. It rejected the skeptical rationalism and deism of the Enlightenment.

Postmillennialism theology dominated American Protestantism in the first half of the 19th century. Postmillennialists believed that Christ will return to earth after the "millennium", which could entail either a literal 1000 years or a figurative "long period" of peace and happiness. Christians thus had a duty to purify society in preparation for that return. This duty extended beyond American borders to include Christian Restorationism. George Fredrickson argues that Postmillennial theology "was an impetus to the promotion of Progressive reforms, as historians have frequently pointed out."

Women made up the majority of converts during the Awakening. Husbands, especially in the South, sometimes disapproved of their wives' conversion, forcing women to choose between submission to God or their spouses. Church membership and religious activity gave women peer support and place for meaningful activity outside the home, providing many women with communal identity and shared experiences.

The greatest change in women's roles stemmed from participation in newly formalized missionary and reform societies. Women's prayer groups were an early and socially acceptable form of women's organization. Through their positions in these organizations, women gained influence outside of the private sphere.

Changing demographics of gender also affected religious doctrine. In an effort to give sermons that would resonate with the congregation, ministers stressed Christ's humility and forgiveness, in what the historian Barbara Welter calls a "feminization" of Christianity.

Revivals and perfectionist hopes of improving individuals and society continued to increase from 1840 to 1865, especially in urban areas. Evangelists attacked slavery, greed, and poverty. The influence of the Awakening continued in the form of more secular movements. In the midst of shifts in theology and church polity, American Christians began progressive movements to reform society through anti-drug crusades, women's rights, and abolitionism.

The First Great Awakening (1730–1755) pulled religion down to the level of the average person and did away with ritual, ceremony, sacramentalism and hierarchy. The revivalist movement increased the number of African slaves and free blacks who were converted to Christianity. Evangelical preachers "sought to include every person in conversion, regardless of gender, race, and status."

In the Third Great Awakening (1850-1900) "drys" crusaded in the name of religion for the prohibition of alcohol. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union mobilized Protestant women for social crusades against liquor, pornography and prostitution, and sparked the demand for woman suffrage.[10] The Gilded Age plutocracy came under sharp attack from the Social Gospel preachers and with reformers in the Progressive Era. Historian Robert Fogel identifies numerous reforms, especially the battles involving child labor, compulsory elementary education and the protection of women from exploitation in factories.

Oscar De Priest

Looks pretty admixed to me.

In 1929, US First Lady Lou Hoover invited Jessie DePriest, the wife of black Republican Chicago congressman Oscar DePriest, to tea at the White House. Southern politicians and journalists responded with vitriolic attacks.

The Chicago district represented by Oscar DePriest had a reputation for corruption, and until then the couple had been shunned by Washington's high society.

The Texas, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi legislatures issued condemnations. Texas's only female state legislator, Margie Neal, raged, "Mrs Hoover has violated the most sacred social custom of the White House, and this should be condemned," and South Carolina Democratic Senator Coleman Blease inserted a poem entitled "Niggers in the White House" into a resolution which was read aloud on the floor of the United States Senate — though the resolution, including the poem, was by unanimous agreement excised from the Congressional Record due to protests from Republican senators.

Between 1889 and 1917, De Priest built a fortune in the stock market and in real estate by helping black families move into formerly all-white neighborhoods.

He stepped down as alderman in 1917 after being indicted for alleged graft, but was acquitted after hiring Clarence Darrow to defend him.

See my article on Clarence Darrow.

History of European Abolitionism

Francis Daniel Pastorius

Francis Daniel Pastorius (born September 26, 1651, died at age 70 in 1720) was a poet and the founder of Germantown, Pennsylvania (now part of Philadelphia). Germantown was the first permanent German settlement in America.

In 1688 he drafted the first protest against slavery in America. Pastorius was a cosigner of the 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery (cosigned by Mennonites like Pastorius), the first petition against slavery made in the English colonies.

Abolitionism is usually understood in neo-reactionary circles as an outgrown of WASP 'Calvinism' or 'low church Protestant theology.' While the Mennonites could be understood as low church Protestants, they are distinctively outside of the WASP category.

Abolitionism is a signal. The fact that it developed out of both Anglo-Saxon and German communities suggests that it was not a product of a unique cultural history of England, but was the product of a certain genetic and environmental background. Both Anglo-Saxons and Germans are broadly Teutonic, while their countries were some of the wealthiest in Europe. As religious outcasts, Quakers and Mennonites emphasized the slave morality interpretation of the Bible. They sympathized with other oppressed groups.

Ultimately, slavery was a terrible deal for America. Had the practice been abolished in 1688:

1. No more slaves would have been brought over in the slave trade. Thomas Jefferson began the halt of the slave trade in 1778 when he made it a crime for traders to bring in slaves from out of state or from overseas for sale. However, congress did not abolish the importation of Africans from overseas until 1808.

2. Whites would not have supported black families. Because of the institution of slavery, white slave owners had an incentive to breed more slaves. Therefore, they supported black families with food and housing. Without the institution of slavery, blacks would have been left out in the cold. The black birth rate would have suffered.

3. There would have been more White immigration to America. Without slavery as a source of labor, White labor would have been in greater demand, driving wages up. With more opportunities for employment, more Europeans would have been incentivized to leave their homelands for America.

The result of these three effects would have been a smaller proportion of Blacks in America. It would also not allow for the myth that Black people built America.

Because White people have a lower tendency toward sociopathy and narcissism than other races, we will always have a contingent among our people, like Quakers and Mennonites, who advocate for the poorest and sorriest among us. And, like the abolitionists, they will almost always be successful in the long run. Therefore, we should make sure that the people they advocate for are racially compatible with our own kind. Otherwise, this pathological altruism becomes a carcinogen of racial cancer.

Because we cannot exterminate the upper bell curve of altruism from our people, we must have total racial separatism.

Hilarious Hoax Merchant Sells Lies to Redditgoyim

Quick, get in here Moonmen, before the whole thread is shoah'd:
reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4d67or/iama_holocaust_survivor_who_just_turned_92_i_have/

Here are some caps from 8ch/pol/ (click on images to see in full size):

These merchants were really sneaky. First, the Nazis brought them inside the death camp to gas and cremate them. Then, sneaky merchants snuck outside the death camps to steal some potato. Then, sneaky merchants snuck back inside the death camps to be killed. Makes perfect sense to return to "hell on earth" "worst place ever".

Just cooking a German Shepherd, don't mind us.

Something doesn't check out here...

Anonymous confirmed for Jewish psy-op:

Claims made by Hoax Merchant include:
"No one drank water for 6 days."
Possibility #1: eye witness accounts are unreliable.
Possibility #2: a jew is lying.

A person can survive only three to five days without water, in some cases people have survived for an average of one week.

Wait, seriously?

Hoax Merchant says he would never his children to get a tattoo with numbers on it. Which brings up an interdasting point about the 6 million...

The numbers don't add up, fam.

Also, apparently the Hoax Merchant in question is a ghost:

This one is a classic:

This kike offers a counter argument:

HWRA: Hitler was right again.

I learned something new in this thread:

Reminder that Democrats are more Sheep-like

On the surface, this looks bad. However, it would be pretty interesting to break down by race. I bet White democrats distrust the media more than Black or Mestizo Democrats.

The elite want to import more Democrat voters from Mexico and the Third World because these people are more trusting of the media. They are more easily manipulated. They make better wage slaves. The government is electing a new people. What are you going to do about it?

Like an Icecream Truck Blasting Hitler through Quiet Suburb on a Lazy Saturday Morning

This blog is too quiet. Time for some non-OC shit posting.

Cuckland vs. Trumpenreich

This is my prediction for the Republican primary. Red is Trump, yellow is yellow-bellied cuck-suckers.

Basically, people in the Mid-South (Cruzland) and in the Mid-West (East-Mormon colonial protectorates) hate city slickers. They hate rich guys from New York, they hate the New York accent, they hate reality TV shows set in New York, etc. Trump has no appeal to them. They believe Cruz is capable of wall building (pro-tip guy: Canadians can't into walls.)

In New Sweden (Minnesota, Iowa), it's pretty White. People don't have a reason to hate Muslims or Mexicans because they've never had the pleasure of dealing with them.

In Ohio, it's sort of the same story. But with more cucking.

In Maine, they're sort of Libertarian / never seen non-Whites.

Honestly not sure about Alaska. Maybe there's some anti-city slicker / never seen non-Whites going on, but there is a high non-White population.

Everywhere else is just default, normal America.

The Dolchschoss of Admiral Canaris

Why did Germany lose in WWII? Is it because Hitler was stupid or crazy? Was the Jewish side simply numerically superior? Or was treason to blame? In our investigation, we focus on the career of MI6 agent Admiral Canaris.

Wilhelm Franz Canaris (1 January 1887 – 9 April 1945) was born in Dortmund in Westphalia, the son of Carl Canaris, a rich industrialist, and his wife Auguste Popp. Canaris believed that he was related to the 19th-century Greek admiral Constantine Kanaris. While on a visit to Corfu, he was given a portrait of the Greek hero that he always kept in his office when he became an admiral of the navy. His family was actually of Northern Italian descent, originally called Canarisi, and had lived in Germany since the 17th century. He spoke fluent Spanish and English, which made him useful as an MI6 agent. He was chief of the Abwehr, the German military intelligence service, from 1935 to 1944.

Before the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938, Canaris planned with Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin to capture and exterminate all members of Nazi party. Kleist visited Britain secretly and discussed the situation with British MI6 and high-ranking politicians. The plan was to use a British declaration of war as an excuse to execute the coup. Unfortunately for Canaris, Chamberlin decided not to act as a pawn of the British military-industrial complex, and the plot was scrapped.

Canaris did not give up on his plans to destroy Germany. In January 1939, Canaris manufactured the "Dutch War Scare" in cooperation with the British. By 23 January 1939, the British government received information to the effect that Germany intended to invade the Netherlands in February 1939. This information was completely false, and it was intended to achieve a change in British foreign policy. Canaris was successful, and the "Dutch War Scare" played a major role in causing Chamberlain to send a large British ground force to the defense of France in February 1939.

Despite literally planning the extermination of Germany's largest political party, and orchestrating the war between Britain and Germany, Hitler had no clue what Canaris was up to. Canaris, accordingly, was promoted to the rank of full Admiral in January 1940.

At a conference of senior officers in Berlin, in December 1941, Canaris is quoted as saying "the Abwehr has nothing to do with the persecution of Jews....no concern of ours, we hold ourselves aloof from it". Canaris was in contact with British intelligence during this time. During the invasion of the Soviet Union, he received a detailed report of all the enemy positions that was known only to the British. The head of MI6, Stewart Menzies, praised Canaris' courage and bravery at the end of the war.

Canaris led a deliberately botched sabotage mission in America. In June 1942, Canaris sent eight Abwehr agents to the United States as part of Operation Pastorius. Two weeks later, all were arrested by the FBI thanks to two Abwehr agents who betrayed the mission. All were found guilty and sentenced to death. Two others who cooperated with the FBI received sentences of life imprisonment instead. Due to the embarrassing failure of Operation Pastorius, no sabotage attempt was ever made in the United States. This increased American morale and deceitfully made German espionage seem pointless.

In reality, Operation Pastorius was created by MI6, and designed to fail. In a sense, it was a false flag. Ernest Peter Burger, a supposed "Abwehr agent" for Operation Pastorius, was in reality a former concentration camp inmate who Canaris selected specifically because he could not be trusted to remain loyal to Germany.

After 1942, Canaris visited Spain frequently and was in contact with British agents from Gibraltar. In 1943, while in occupied France, Canaris made contact with British agents. He met the local head of the British Intelligence Services, Colonel Claude Olivier. Canaris wanted to know the terms for peace if Germany got rid of Hitler. Churchill's reply, sent to him two weeks later, was simple: "Unconditional surrender". Canaris was satisfied with this response, and continued cooperating with the Churchill regime.

Canaris had established another two links with MI6 — one via Zürich, and the other via Spain and Gibraltar. It is also possible that Vatican contacts provided a third route to his British counterparts.

Canaris protected traitors, including Jews, by sending them to Spain. Many such people were given token training as Abwehr "agents" and then issued papers allowing them to leave Germany. One notable traitor he assisted was Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn. This has led Chabad Lubavitch to campaign for his recognition as a Good Shabbos Goy (Righteous Gentile).

Canaris foiled of Hitler's plot to kidnap or kill the traitorous king of the Italians, King Victor Emmanuel III. At a meeting in Venice on 29 July 1943, Canaris informed the Italian General Cesare Amè of the plot. General Amè relayed the news that allowed the plot to be foiled.

Canaris was the one who allowed the German code to remain cracked open to the British. It is claimed that expatriate Poles cracked the German code, but it is possible that Canaris simply gave them the algorithms or the cipher key. In any case, members of the German cryptography service changed the cipher once it was discovered that it had been cracked by the British. Canaris changed the cipher key back, claiming that it had not been cracked.

The worst act of betrayal by Canaris was to single handedly convince Francisco Franco to stay out of the war. He told Franco that there was a massive conspiracy within the German government to bring Germany to ruins, and that if Franco joined with Hitler, he too would be destroyed. Franco thought he was doing what was best for his people by staying out of the war. But if Franco had ignored Canaris and alerted Hitler to this treachery, the war would have progressed in a very different way.

With his subordinate Erwin Lahousen, Canaris formed a circle of like-minded officers, many of whom were executed or forced to commit suicide after the failure of the 20 July Plot in 1944. He was finally revealed as a traitor by Himmler.

To summarize:
1. Canaris was a confirmed member of MI6.
2. Canaris planned to kill Hitler and all Nazis in 1938, but was foiled by Chamberlin's policy of peace in the west.
3. Canaris fomented the war between Britain and Germany through the "Dutch War Scare", which gave credibility to Churchill's hawkish faction within the British government.
4. Canaris set up Operation Pastorius to fail to give America a new "Zimmerman Telegram" propaganda victory, and to paint all German attempts at sabotage as futile to prevent any real action.
5. Canaris protected the traitorous King Victor Emmanuel III.
6. Canaris single handedly made Germany's cryptography pointless by changing the codes back to the old ones which had already been cracked.
7. Canaris convinced Franco to stay out of the war.
8. Canaris assisted the plot to assassinated Hitler, which was an attack on German morale and Hitler's health.

From the start to the finish, Canaris created the conditions for war between Germany and Britain, and he created the conditions for defeat. Without Canaris:

1. Britain may not have been as prepared for war in 1939. Either Britain would have remained neutral (and therefore, France as well) or the invasion of France would have been shorter, more decisive, and resulted in less casualties.
2. Germany would have launched more successful sabotage efforts in America and perhaps elsewhere in pro-Jewish states. America would have been denied a propaganda victory in Operation Pastorius.
3. King Victor Emmanuel III would have been assassinated, which would have hurt the Italian pro-Jewish collaborators.
4. The German enigma codes would have been permanently switched, and this would have given the German navy a significant advantage.
5. The plot to assassinate Hitler may have fallen through without the aid of Canaris.
6. Franco would have allowed Hitler to attack Gibraltar. Control of the Mediterranean would have eliminated the Yugoslav front, the Greek front, and the Italian front. Germany could have diverted its navy to North Africa and the Atlantic, which may have proved decisive in both theatres. The extra divisions tied down southern Europe would have been freed for the eastern front. Given the closeness of a battle like Stalingrad, this may have tipped the war in Germany's favor.

Germany was thus defeated by treachery. Canaris was only one man -- there were many more traitors within the government. It was a true Dolchschoss.

Marshall Roosevelt's Jewish Kabbal

Shortly after President Franklin D. Roosevelt's inauguration in 1933, the federal government allocated significant funds to officials Robert (((Moses))) and Fiorello (((La Guardia))). This was organized with back-room deals, prior to Roosevelt's election.

La_Guardia's mother, Irene Coen, was jewish. His grandmother Fiorina Luzzatto Coen was a Luzzatto, a member of the prestigious Jewish family of scholars, kabbalists, and poets and had among her ancestors the famous rabbi Samuel David Luzzatto.

During a contentious congressional campaign in 1922, when Henry (((Frank))), a Jewish opponent, accused him of anti-Semitism, La Guardia dictated an open letter in Yiddish that was also printed in Yiddish. In it, he challenged Frank to publicly and openly debate the issues of the campaign "ENTIRELY IN THE YIDDISH LANGUAGE.” Frank, although he was Jewish, could not speak the language and was forced to decline—and lost the election. Thus was the power of the Jews at that time.

As a leading liberal reformer, La Guardia railed against immigration quotas. He supported using American influence to support the Judeo-Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. La Guardia consistently backed internationalism. In domestic policies he tended toward socialism and wanted to nationalize and regulate.

FDR gave him 20% of the entire national CWA (civil works administration) budget for work relief. La Guardia then collaborated closely with Robert (((Moses))), with support from the governor, Democrat Herbert (((Lehman))).

Because of his overwhelming loyalty to international-jewish interests, he was an early warmonger against Adolf Hitler. In a public address in 1934, La Guardia warned that "part of Hitler's program is the complete annihilation of the Jews in Germany". In 1937, speaking before the Women's Division of the American Jewish Congress, he called for the creation of a special pavilion at the upcoming New York World's Fair: "a chamber of horrors" for "that brown-shirted fanatic".

La Guardia was ranked first among the nation's mayors in a 1993 poll of historians and social scientists. According to Thomas Kessner, today, "people would be afraid of allowing anybody to take that kind of power".

In 1941, prior to official American involvement in World War II, President Roosevelt appointed La Guardia first director of the new Office of Civilian Defense (OCD). Roosevelt was an admirer of La Guardia; after meeting Winston Churchill for the first time he described him as "an English Mayor La Guardia". The OCD was the national agency responsible for preparing for blackouts, air raid wardens, sirens, and shelters in case of German air raids. The government knew that such air raids were impossible but the goal was to psychologically mobilize many thousands of middle class volunteers to make them feel part of the war effort. He arranged police protection with his personal assurances for local artists Joe ((Simon)) and Jack ((Kirby)) (real name: Jacob ((Katzburg)), when they were threatened by Nazi supporters for their new patriotic comic book superhero, Captain Jewmerica.

A strong supporter of Zionism, LaGuardia Street and LaGuardia interchange both in Tel Aviv, Israel, was named in his honor.

Fun with LARPing: Autistic Voting Limits

According to the February 2016 Lord Ashkroft Poll on attitudes toward the EU, persons between the age of 45-55 are the least likely age group to support the EU. The highest support for the EU came from 18-24 year olds, and people over 65.

I hypothesize that opposition to the EU is one proxy for opposition to non-White invasion. UKIP is a good example of a party whose only memorable position besides Brexit is opposition to immigration.

On the other hand, Poland, a country where one MEPs called lazy immigrants human trash, is also the second most pro-EU. Of course, it's an outlier in this respect, because it views EU membership as offering security from Russia. Therefore, immigration is blamed specifically on Merkel and the Germans, who are nonsensically divorced from the blameless EU.

On the other side of the pond, the age group which Trump does the best with is 45-64.

My second hypothesis is that below age 40, people are not wise, they don't have experience, they are idealistic and choose social signalling over reality. Above age 65, people start to become delusional and think Marco Rubio is a nice young man. They've lost skin in the game and only care about social security. They have exited the working class, are retired, care less about competing with non-Whites for employment and more about finding cheap Mexican maids and landscapers. They are not willing to fight against the forces of darkness.

Evidence has come out that year of birth influences party affiliation not according to my theory of peak wisdom / minimal senility, but because of contemporary political events which occur between ages 14 and 24. 45, 69 years olds are 55% Republican, while 61 year olds are 51% Democrat. 48 year olds are 56% Republican, and that dips down to 49% Republican at age 61, but then goes up again to 55% at age 69. Therefore political affiliation is influenced by the events of a generation, and not best explained with a linear correlated by age.

Yet I would still maintain that political decisions are still more influenced by the way an individual makes risk-taking decisions, which is both biological and hereditary in nature. The brain changes over time:

“If we believe that we’re hardwired for our political views, then it’s really easy for me to discount in you in a conversation. ‘Oh, you’re just a conservative because you have a red brain,’ or ‘Oh, you’re a liberal because you have a blue brain,’” Schreiber explains. “But that’s just not the case. The brain changes. The brain is dynamic.”

From the data on Trump and UKIP, it seems that peak redpill comes between ages 45 and 55.

One counter example might be seen in Greece's Golden Dawn, which is gaining a heavy percentage of voters 18-24. But that's a revolutionary situation. At the end of the day, if a revolution is necessary, voting will be superfluous. Ostensibly, the democratic process is only suited to non-revolutionary periods, which are best navigated by the 45-55 crowd.

Additionally, Trump leads with veterans. Maybe Heinlein was right.

I propose a thought experiment: if we wanted to increase the voting share of White males between the ages of 45 and 55 without explicitly banning women, or young people (age is just a number, goy), or old people, or non-Whites (social construct, Goy), what proxies could we use to achieve this?

I propose five additional restrictions on suffrage which would have a similar effect to banning women, young people, old people, and non-White from voting:

In order to be eligible to vote, you must:

(1) complete 4 years of military service as an officer;
(2) you must be married with three or more healthy children;
(3) you must never access social security or welfare funds;
(4) you must not divorce;
(5) you must never commit a misdemeanor or felony;
(6) you must not be descended from any man who has not yet satisfied rules (1) or (2), or who has broken rule (3), (4), or (5).
(7) you must not be descended from any woman who has not yet satisfied rule (2), or who has broken rules (3), (4), or (5).

(1) Requires that you be over the age of 21.

Additionally, (1) favors non-Hispanic Whites (labeled NH white), who are 75% of the officer class. Additionally, since only 22% of officers are female, this would drastically decrease the female vote.

(2) also has a (((disparate impact))).

Only 64% of Blacks have ever been married, as opposed to 84% of Whites.

Divorce is most common among 20-24 year olds, and living together prior to getting married can increase the chance of getting divorced by as much as 40%. Divorce decreases with education.

For (2), I had trouble finding the average age of third child, but the average age of first child spans between 18 in Africa, to 31 in Greece. The average age of first marriage for males is the highest in Sweden (34.3), and the lowest for females is 17.7 in Niger. The average American woman waits 2.5 years before having another child, so we can assume that the average age of voter eligibility would be at a minimum 20.7 (for R-selecting females) and at a maximum average of 39.3 (for K-selecting males).

Rules (6) and (7) would make voting hereditary: that is to say, if one of your parents became ineligible to vote because of a felony, because of dependence on social services, or because of divorce, you would lose your right to vote. Voters can only be descended from voters.

What if my voting restrictions had been implemented in 1776? None of them technically discriminate against women or non-Whites (>implying women are equal officers to men, >implying equal divorce and crime rates). But these restrictions would, in effect, create an elite caste of people who would be directly descended from the original enlisted men of the continental army and their wives.

The maximum number of men enlisted in the continental army was no more than 231,771. There were up to 70,000 casualties. Of the remaining 160,000, no more than 20%, or 32,000, would have been officers. These officers then would need to have three children and not commit any crimes to pass on the right to vote to their children. Assuming a 75 fold increase in population between 1784 and 2016 of 4 million to 300 million, the current voting population would be 2,400,000, or slightly less than 1% of the population. Yet a proportion of the population increase between 1784 and 2016 has not been due to births, but due to immigration.

We can get an idea of the "non-continental" growth rate by looking at non-continental stock, like Catholics. In 1790, the total U.S. Catholic population was probably less than 5%. Given that the total population was 3,900,000, Catholics would represent no more than 20,000. Today, Catholics are 20% of the population, or 60,000,000. Therefore, between 1790 and 2016, there has been a 30,000 fold increase in the number of Catholics.

Once you subtract Catholics and "Black church" Christians, you have 44% of Americans in 2016 who are Protestant Christians, and 23% who are non-religious. Let's assume that all of these, 67%, are descended from founding continental stock (fallacious, but let's try it.) That means that from a population of nearly 4 million in 1790, the founding stock has increased to 200 million, or an increase of 50 fold (significantly less than 75 fold). This gives us the total number of eligible voters today as up to 1.6 million.

But we can also assume that many men would not necessarily complete military service, or have three or more healthy children, and that many men would commit felonies or misdemeanors.

Let's assume there are 6896 "continental" births per year for the last 232 years. Of these births, only 50% are male. Of the remaining 3448, 25% eventually become divorced, or commit a crime, or do not complete military service. This means that, assuming uniform population growth every year (which again is a terrible model), we would end up with, at most, 599,952 eligible voters today. They would probably vote themselves aristocratic privileges and become a degenerate elite. But that might be better than (((jews))).

Overton Window Shifting

856,435 views. 80% positive ratings. The topic? "Europeans And Asians Evolved So Differently."

All the host talks about (besides skin color) is lactose and corn. Basically digestion. Nothing about strength, or IQ. But hey! You are what you eat! He notes that Swedes are 94% lactose tolerant, while Native Americans are nearly 100% lactose intolerant. That sounds like racial purity to me!

The overton window is shifting. The taboo science is coming out. More people are beginning to seek the truth.

We're going to the stars, Moonmen. You don't want to be left behind when we blast off.

Jewish Broadway Loves Shiksa Goddess

No, not that Shiksa Goddess!

There exists a self-feeding tension between arrogant, jewish ethnocentrism and self-hating, jewish xenophilia. Jewish ethnocentrism fuels fear and hatred of Whites, and that this has led them to promote xenophilia among Whites. But jews have their own genuine xenophilia (they are aroused by blonde hair, for instance). They feel uncomfortable with this xenophilia. To make themselves feel better, they try to encourage Goyim to be even more xenophilic. They feel more comfortable when Whites coalburn, because then they feel less self conscious about their obsession with the Shiksa goddess. They can remain feeling superior, because their xenophilia isn't as bad as those coalburning White people. It's weird, and gross.

Debunking the "Christian" Pogroms

#JewLivesMatter

It is not unusual to find a jewish Religious Studies professor who teaches classes on Christianity. In fact, many of the students in such a class will not be Christians, and some will be jews. Universalist[1] Religious Studies courses take a critical approach which most traditional Christians will find unfaithful. But many jews--even the Talmudic scholars who believe Jesus boils in eternal torment for his crimes--find such courses interesting.

Jewish interest in understanding goyish culture comes not from the desire to connect in a compassionate way, or from a place of respect and awe, but from a place of fear and suspicion. No matter how objective, cold, and distanced jews appear, they are ultimately, at their root, driven by a fear of the ever-dormant Nazi within Western civilization, waiting to unleash itself.

Jews, like Saul of Tarsus, have studied, dissected, and analyzed Christianity for thousands of years. They have used this understanding of Christianity to their tactical advantage. With the rise of Christian Zionism, one could say that they have even hi-jacked or hacked Christianity, to the point where jewish elites control all Catholics and mainline Protestants from the top down.

The judeoskeptic Christian objects that during the first Crusade, jews were subject to Christian pogroms, and that the Holy Land was conquered for the sake of Christians, not jews.[2]

Yet these pograms were carried out by individual princes, dukes, and barons such as Emich of Flonheim who were disloyal to jewish usury and the Catholic Church. Their actions were opposed by the Church on the doctrinal rationale that "the Jews must be preserved until the return of Yeshu, when they will supposedly serve as witnesses to their own crimes."[3] The true reason was that the Roman Church and all the descendants of Charlemagne were always dependent on Jewish usury for their finances.

Movements against jews (such as forced conversions by King Robert the Pious of France, Richard II, Duke of Normandy, and Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor around 1007–1012) were quashed by Roman Catholicism.

"The pogroms were decried by many Christians of the day. Some even pointed to these crimes as the reason God forsook their fellow crusaders[...]."[4]

The Catholic Bishop Cosmas attempted to prevent forced conversions, and the entire Catholic hierarchy in Bohemia preached against the based jew-bashing.

“It certainly seems amazing that [...] such massacres [against the jews] should have taken place, despite their widespread disapproval and their condemnation as contrary to religion. [...] they occurred in the face of excommunication imposed by numerous clergymen, and of the threat of punishment on the part of many princes.”[5]

There you have it: the Christian church was always against pogroms. That some jew-bashers were also Christians was incidental to them being normal human beings not totally controlled by greed and usury.

[1] Universalism: the ideology of the University or college system.

[2] Eisen, Yosef. The Bloody Crusades. "Once [the Christians arrived in Jerusalem], they gathered all the Jews of Jerusalem into the central synagogue and set it afire. Other Jews, who had climbed to the roof of Al-Aksa mosque on the Temple Mount, were caught and beheaded."

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid. "St. Bernard, the Crusade’s official preacher, (assigned that role by the Pope), tried to stop the killings by citing the Church's traditional view that the Jews must be preserved until the return of Yeshu, when they will supposedly serve as witnesses to their own crimes."

[5] Snell, Melissa. The People's Crusade.

[6] Baron, Salo Wittmayer. Social and Religious History of the Jews, Volume 4. Columbia University Press, 1957.

#JewFeelsMatter

 Hello Merchant my old friend...

In March 1949, Life magazine[1] featured this article:

"Fagin in Berlin Provokes a Riot
Jews clash with German police over the showing of "Oliver Twist"

The pictures from Berlin last week were like photographs of an old nightmare. Here again, as there had been a decade ago, were club-swinging police and mauled and battered Jews. On two successive nights the Jews and police fought with clubs, rocks and firehoses around the Kurbel Theater in Berlin's British sector.

This outbreak, however, was prompted by an attempt to show the J. Arthur Rank motion picture, Oliver Twist. A faithful picturization of the Dickens classic, Oliver Twist has "the Jew Fagin" as its principal villain. Berlin Jews--mostly non-German DPs [stormfag edit: displaced persons means recent immigrants from Poland]--felt this characterization was viciously anti-Semitic and demonstrated against the film both inside and outside the theater. German police were called; the riot followed. The next night demonstrators again engaged police; this time they were reinforced by a petition--signed by Berlin's Lord Mayor--urging withdrawal of the film. British military authorities refused to interfere, but the exhibitors finally gave in. By then the damage had been done. One leading German editor, noting an ominous tendency to blame Jews for Berlin's black markets, wrote that the local reaction to the demonstration had shown "frightening examples of the existence of anti-Semitic circles."

We wud nevah be involved in something like that, goy...

Was Oliver Twist actually as anti-Semitic as the Berlin riots would indicate? Americans could not judge on the evidence of the film itself. Protests by U.S. Jewish groups last fall prevented its release here. In England critics praised the picture, and Director David Lean pleaded guilty only to fidelity to Dickens; pointing out that he had modeled his character on the Cruikshank illustrations. Not once in the picture, the Rank organization added, was Fagin called a Jew. Moreover the Englishman Bill Sikes was just as villainous.

While all of these things were true, it was also true that Dickens himself and his great illustrator Cruikshank had conceived Fagin as a savage racial caricature. In the novel Fagin is described as "a very old shriveled Jew, whose villainous-looking and repulsive face was obscured by a quantity of matted red hair." He also is called (by Bill Sikes) an "infernal, rich, plundering, thundering old Jew" and (by Dickens) a "wily old Jew."

In Dickens' and Cruikshank's time this perhaps had seemed an unimportant literary matter. But between Dickens and Director Lean history had interposed the ghosts of six million murdered Jews and the specter of genocide. It was hard to see why the producers of Oliver Twist had insisted on such complete fidelity and it was harder still to guess why the authorities had not only permitted exhibition of the picture in Germany but refused to withdraw it immediately after the inevitable reaction came."

Under pictures, there are the captions:

"Police use clubs in attempt to halt angry Jews storming Kurbel Theater. Before riots ended 35 Jews had been injured and three arrested. Seven policemen were hurt."

And:

"Door of theater where Oliver Twist was being shown is smashed by Jewish demonstrators who five times broke through police cordon established around playhouse."

The #BlackLivesMatter movement is an eerie ((echo)) of Polish-Jewish protests in Berlin which #BurnedThatBitchDown in 1949, over 66 years ago. Same shit, different decade.

Rioting Jew in a moment of confusion, looking for his kippah which fell during the chaos.

That German mayor of the British sector of Berlin, who signed the Jewish petition and encouraged the violence, was Ernst Reuter (surprisingly, no evidence of echo). He acted as the Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of "capitalist" Berlin. Rawlings-Blake, after all, is the mayor who gave Dindus "space to destroy" during riots in Baltimore.

A little background on Ernst Reuter might reveal how this protest was allowed to succeed. In 1914, he openly opposed the German monarchy. After being drafted, Reuter was "wounded and captured" by Russians during the Bolshevik Revolution (a likely story). In captivity, Reuter joined the Bolsheviks and "organized" his fellow prisoners. In 1917, Lenin sent him to Saratov to lead the Volga German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.

Ernst Reuter's spiritual father.

Upon his return to Germany, Reuter joined the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) and was named the First Secretary of its Berlin section. He embraced a position on the left wing of the party, endorsing an open rebellion in March 1921.

In 1933, with the Nazis now in power, he was forced to abdicate his positions and was brought to the concentration camp Lichtenburg. After his release, he went into exile in Turkey in 1935 where he stayed until the end to the Nazi era.

This man was literally a Bolshevik commissar, in charge of the ((British)) ((capitalist)) sector of Berlin. So much for "muh capitalist allies." He was a prisoner of the Nazis, a traitor who advocated open revolt, who was allowed by Hitler to go free without death penalty. So much for "muh holocaust."

The whole thing makes me sick.

[1] Life magazine, 7 March 1949.