Queries for 9/11 Truthers

Commentary By Brandon Martinez

Committed 9/11 truthers take umbrage at my saying that 9/11 is increasingly irrelevant to modern events, and that “exposing” the truth about 9/11 changes essentially nothing about the current reality. Here are my queries for them:

1) With the rapid growth of ISIS and other Islamic terror groups, the emphasis of 9/11 truth that the “threat” of Islamic terror is manufactured/staged/faked is now inaccurate. Whatever truth there was in that claim 17 years ago when those groups were weak, it’s not true today. So then what is the ultimate purpose of 9/11 truth when its central premise, that the “terror threat” is entirely fabricated by governments, is belied by modern developments? These truthers have to maintain that all Islamic-related terrorism since 9/11 has also been faked, or else they risk losing relevance. But their narrative is a convoluted mess, and comes apart when they get into the Syria issue, where they, for the most part, propagandize for Assad against his Islamist opponents. So they’ve resorted to saying that the terror threat is real “over there” but is still somehow fake “over here” despite the fact that thousands of Western Muslims support ISIS and have joined their fight.

2) If ISIS, al-Qaeda and Islamism in general is a threat to some nations in the mid-east, then how is it not also a threat to Western nations internally with millions of Muslims living here? Why does the threat become “real” when you leave the terrain of the Western hemisphere, but magically ceases being a threat in our countries? The propaganda of those groups is only a google search away and it is reaching people in the West. If you believe groups like ISIS are a real threat in some countries, like Syria, Iraq, etc., then explain the necessity of 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth was designed to debunk the “threat” and say it’s either minuscule or non-existent. But the threat is now real. So proving 9/11 was an inside job changes essentially nothing about the current situation.

3) Embracing the latest cause du jour, some 9/11 truthers have morphed into war-time propagandists for the Assad regime. These people are now committed to writing propaganda to help legitimize Assad’s rule in Syria, thinking this is some kind of kick-in-the-balls to the New World Order. But from that perspective, 9/11 truth actually serves to undermine the case for Assad, because all it does is make al-Qaeda look less bad than they are. Assad was actually an early terror war ally of the Bush administration, happily torturing the CIA’s rendered “terror suspects” in Syrian jails. As Assad’s main armed opposition, the propagandists for the regime need al-Qaeda and Islamists generally to be discredited. So you’ll notice the more zealous Assad groupies have largely abandoned 9/11 and false-flag truth arguments when attacks are blamed on ISIS-style Islamists. However, they’re still “false-flaggers” when it comes to Syria, as they claim every war-time atrocity blamed on Assad was really the sinister handiwork of the Islamist rebels. So essentially their new position is that radical Muslims themselves are behind the big false-flags as opposed to victims of them!

3) 9/11 truth cannot even stop anything going on in the Middle East today, so those under the impression that “9/11 truth stops 9/11 wars” are deluding themselves. 9/11 was effectively only useful to kickstart one war, Afghanistan. The neocons tried but failed to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, so invented the WMD propaganda to justify that invasion. Every war since then required a whole new rationale, so debunking 9/11 does not prevent new wars at all. Nor will screaming “9/11 was an inside job” stop the elite from doing what they want to do anyway. What then is 9/11 truth accomplishing beyond proving that going into Afghanistan was a bad idea? But even that is fruitless because Afghanistan has now been overrun in certain parts by ISIS militants, so the rationale for being there has changed.

These truthers are schizophrenic anyway. Many of them actually support a war on terror-style policy in the Middle East, so long as it’s being led by Russia. If the plane dropping the bombs is a Russian one, it’s hailed as a liberation war, but if the jet is American it’s vilified as imperialism. What Russia is doing in Syria is no different than what NATO powers are doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and other countries by helping those regimes fight Islamist militants. These fools only oppose intervention from the US or NATO, while backing with vigor the interventionist military moves of Russia, Iran, etc.

The only utility I can see with 9/11 truth is making an anti-Zionist argument out of it. It can be used to show that Israel and Jewish neocons manipulated the event to drag the West into senseless wars for their interests. But that can be shown in myriad other ways as well. 9/11 is a very Muslim-centric issue, so those committed to it are clearly partial to Arab-Muslim interests as a whole. If you’re not a Muslim or Arab with a stake in the political future of the Middle East, it makes little sense to focus on 9/11 and related issues. But proving 9/11 was a false-flag in order to make Muslims look good does not even really work because since that time (especially over the past few years) Muslim militants have wreaked havoc all over the place racking up kill-counts that far exceed the casualties on 9/11.

How many Muslim or Arab immigrants in the West are even committed 9/11 truthers? Probably not very many. A whole lot more of them have signed up with the Cultural Marxist/Antifa crusade to dispossess whites. So why would I or any other Westerner go out of our way to shill for Muslims on terrorism, when many of them are now working with supremacist Jews against our interests today? So I must commit my life to “exposing” Zionist deceptions that have villainizied Muslims/Arabs, but they won’t lift a finger against the Zionist agenda to disfigure Europe?

Despite the fact that I think it’s a real threat nowadays, I don’t believe that there is a military solution to Islamic radicalism, as American and Russian neocons would have us believe. Therefore I don’t believe it necessary to “take on ISIS” wherever they are because they will just pop up somewhere else. The best policy for the West would be to simply remove all their forces from the Middle East and deport all known radical Muslims from Western countries. Then they should close their borders and keep out migrants from war-torn countries which are breeding grounds for these militants. The next step would be to cut off all ties with the Gulf States which originate, export and fund the ideology of radical Islam. Ties with Israel should also be severed, as Western support for that bandit state lies at the heart of Muslim resentment and animosity on a political level.

Mass immigration should be reversed and Europeans should focus our efforts on the fight against the nihilistic anti-white left and their Jewish enablers. A strong line should be taken that neocon-Zionist Jews are also a nuisance in Western nations on par with Jihadist kooks, insofar as they wish to embroil us in conflicts with quarrelsome Muslims in the Middle East. All these malcontents should be ejected from the body politic if the West is to survive into the next century.


Kevin Barrett’s Skewed “False Flag” Formula


Commentary by Brandon Martinez

America’s premier Islamic truther, Kevin Barrett, is always hot on the trail of every alleged “false-flag” terror event. His life is essentially committed to “debunking” every single act of terror or violence when the perpetrator is a Muslim. That’s all that he does. It’s likely he will go to his grave shouting, “the Muslims are innocent!”

His formula is always the same for each attack: speculate about timing, “cui bono” and other small details; point to some unverifiable use of Masonic Illuminati numerology supposedly present in the date, number of victims, etc.; accuse victims and witnesses of being “crisis actors” because they didn’t weep hard enough; and then declare the whole thing “just another” staged event.

He’s leaning heavily on the patently silly numerology angle with the latest Manchester bombing. Then he cites the logic of some random Twitter users and commenters who think it was a false-flag to back up his bias.


On the whole, his case for a false-flag in Manchester rests entirely on pure speculation about numerology, beneficiaries, and other small details. He provides no smoking guns for this one or any of the other recent attacks. Like all the others, he’s approaching this one from a preconceived conclusion that it was a false-flag, and then weaving his story accordingly to make it fit. So one day after the bombing Barrett’s marshalled together some speculative “evidence” and declared: “Bottom line: Abadi was very likely innocent.”

Who would take this unacademic wild theorizing seriously besides like-minded ideologues?

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog, Barrett and other false-flag obsessives have a clear Islamic or leftist agenda. In Barrett’s case, he’s a Koran-thumping Islamic missionary who wants to spread the faith and Islamize the world. He feels it’s his religious duty to defend the faith (and the faithful) from hostile infidel “accusers.” It’s therefore in his religious interest to “debunk” all instances of Islamic terrorism. During the migrant crisis of 2015, Barrett shockingly came out in support of the invasion on the basis that it will increase Islamic demographics on the continent and thereby make Europe more sympathetic with the Palestinians and other Muslim/Arab issues. So Europeans should just hand over their countries to weird foreigners so that “Palestine can be free from the river to the sea”? Yet he hypocritically condemns pro-Trump Americans for prioritizing the immigration issue over Palestine and other quagmires that Muslims care about.

Barrett is markedly engaged in little more than a counter-propaganda jihad for Islam. He calls his own activism a “truth jihad.” But in this case “truth” is whatever benefits Islam’s public image. This is his “response” to the war on terror: orating claims that the West and Zionists are behind all Islamic atrocities. He does what the Zionists do for their cause – scrupulously twisting everything to suit their tribal agenda and bias – but in reverse. He’s not particularly concerned with facts or evidence regarding these events. He even said that his approach is to assume every attack (involving Muslims) is a false-flag and demand the government prove that it’s not.

If you look at the Twitter feeds of some of these false-flaggers, like this nut job impersonating Paul Joseph Watson, it’s all the same repetitive stuff played over and over again. They are like automated bots blasting the same talking points about the Iraq war, 9/11, and Israel, 24/7. Nothing else matters to them as they endlessly pursue an impossible social justice crusade for the Middle East.

However, their narrative is convoluted and often self-contradictory. They’re quick to dismiss ISIS-related terror in the West as fake, but when evangelizing about the civil war in Syria, many of them actually claim ISIS and other Islamic rebel groups have conspired to stage “false-flag” chemical attacks to frame Assad. So how does this work? ISIS is being framed for “false-flags” in the West, but in Syria ISIS is doing the false-flags with the help of the West? So with Syria their false-flag formula is reversed, in that whenever Assad is blamed for an atrocity against civilians, the “truthers” come out with claims that it was really ISIS or other Islamist rebels that did it!

If Western governments are exclusively going after Assad, and are secretly helping ISIS as some claim, why would they constantly attack themselves and frame Assad’s enemies for it? Why wouldn’t they just frame Assad or Hezbollah? By doing so they’re actually generating sympathy for Assad, which is counter-intuitive to their supposed agenda of toppling him. And what would be the point of a continuous string of attacks in the West when the anti-ISIS coalition air war has been going on for three years now? Nothing much happens after these fresh attacks that hasn’t already been happening for years.

If these people are against ISIS in Syria/Iraq, why then would they want to shill for them in the West? The formula seems to be that when ISIS blows something up “over there,” it’s real, but if it’s done “over here,” it’s fake. Makes you wonder what the hell is the point of disproving one solitary act of terror blamed on ISIS when they’re simultaneously saying that the group is doing real terror elsewhere. They never question the terror “over there” because the target of that violence is their beloved Ba’athist strong-man, Assad.

Kevin Barrett is also contradictory on this. When he goes on Iranian PressTV he acts as a mouthpiece for Iran, Hezbollah and Assad in Syria (the Shiite bloc), blasting the “Takfiri” Muslims of ISIS and al-Qaeda as sell-outs. But elsewhere he essentially defends al-Qaeda and other Islamists as innocent patsies being framed for terrorism by Western intelligence agencies, largely denying Islamic extremism even exists. He has also philosophized in favour of establishing an Islamic caliphate, a goal shared with the more hardline Salafi Muslims rather than the Shiites who he propagandizes for on PressTV. It looks to me like he’s a chameleon, saying different (often contradictory) things depending on his audience.

So these people are zealously backing the Assad regime in its civil war with other Muslim factions and do not hesitate to label Assad’s opponents collectively as “terrorists.” So then what is the purpose of 9/11 truth? 9/11 was blamed on al-Qaeda, a group which forms a significant bloc battling the Assad regime and other dynastic dictatorships in the Middle East. Assad himself doesn’t dispute that narrative, saying numerous times that he’s “fighting the people that did 9/11.” This presents a problem for the “truthers,” who can’t decide what’s more important, proving 9/11 was an inside job (and thus letting al-Qaeda off the hook) or shilling for Assad (which requires al-Qaeda and Islamism in general to be discredited).

What it comes down to here is that these people are nihilistic anti-Western (and anti-white) leftists. So when Muslims are accused of terror against Westerners, they come to the defense of the Muslim regardless of that Muslim’s bent. But in the Middle East they shift the goal-posts a little bit, choosing sides with certain Muslim factions (usually the more secular ones, with the exception of Iran) over others. But even in the Middle East they posit that the “bad Muslims” are the ones working with the West and the “good Muslims” are those fighting the West. But what about when those “bad Muslims” are fighting the West, as ISIS and al-Qaeda have done at times, or when the “good Muslims” are working with the West (as Assad, Gaddafi and Hussein once did)? Will they suddenly start cheerleading for the “bad Muslims” and denouncing the “good Muslims”?

These biased dolts wail when the CIA sends a drone into Yemen or Pakistan to kill an al-Qaeda or Taliban chieftain, but then whip out their pom-poms and do a cheering routine when Russia does the same thing in Syria to take down the rebel leaders there. They moan about “civilian casualties” when it’s a Western coalition jet that caused the carnage, but dutifully sweep under the rug the thousands of civilians killed by Assad and the Russians. Selective outrage is typical of leftists who are only using “humanitarian” rhetoric in efforts to discredit their perceived enemies, while abandoning such arguments for regimes they support.

These hacks are clearly nothing more than war propagandists for anyone seemingly in opposition to “the West.” They’ll shill for any regime or group that says or does anything contrary to the agenda of Western powers. They’ve become prostitutes for tyrants and dictators on the sole basis that those despots are “anti-American” or “anti-Israel.”

For all their bluster about uncovering false-flags, they seem awfully uninterested in the likely one that brought Vladimir Putin to power in Russia. In fact, they don’t seem to scrutinize any terror events, even ones implicating Muslims, when the target is Russia. Again, that shows their highly selective “concern” and “outrage” about abuses of power by governments. If you’re a brutal regime situated outside the Western hemisphere, you can count on these despicable charlatans to whitewash your misdeeds.

And ultimately these self-destructive people give a bad name to decent researchers who have uncovered real false-flags (and there have been some real ones). But the whole field has become so inundated with skittish ideologues pursuing narrow political or religious agendas that it’s virtually useless at this point.

London’s Muslim Mayor Previously Said Terror Attacks Part of “Living in Big City”

Commentary by Brandon Martinez

Last year London’s Muslim-Pakistani mayor Sadiq Kahn said that terrorist attacks are “part and parcel” of living in a major city. People should just “expect” these violent events to happen routinely in the modern world, he implied. What some have surmised the mayor really meant was that terror should be expected when living in a major city that has lots of Muslims living in it, like London. The other day a suicide bomber allegedly blew himself up outside a concert in the English city of Manchester, killing dozens of innocent concert-goers, mostly young teenage girls. They’re saying he was a radicalized Muslim of Libyan descent. The Islamic sect of Salafism, which fuels ISIS-type ideology, underwrites the slaughter of all infidels and advocates global domination of Islam. Not all Islamic schools of thought support these radical beliefs, but there is enough in the Koran and Hadiths for these maniacs to latch onto in order to justify their barbarism.

As London’s first Muslim mayor, Khan has been busily promoting immigration and refugee settlement of his co-religionists to the city. He was a prominent voice against Brexit and launched the #Londonisopen campaign to supposedly reassure “the more than one million foreign nationals who live in London that they will always be welcome, and that any form of discrimination will not be tolerated.” Khan is an open-borders globalist who wants to drown Britain in a sea of strange foreigners, turning not only London but the whole country into a squatting zone for refugees and assorted vagabonds from the Third World. Khan is the perfect Muslim screen for the Jewish elites to implement their agenda. Right now the interests of Muslims and Jews somewhat overlap in Europe as the continent moves towards nationalism and populism, so expect more sinister collaboration between the two groups.

For some time now, Britain has been pursuing a berserk dual-policy of permitting millions of Muslim and Arab immigrants to enter the country, whilst concurrently involving itself in various wars, squabbles and conflicts in the Middle East where those immigrants have strong roots and attachments. In doing so Britain has opened itself up to terrorism. When you engage your military forces abroad and then import hordes of the foreign group you’re occupying, you can only expect some of them will retaliate on the home-front. And that’s what has happened. If Britain wants to end terrorism, it should pull out its forces from the Middle East and repatriate all the immigrants from that region it has brought in over the past decade.

But the globalists currently in charge of the British government won’t do that because their goal is precisely to lessen the population of native Brits and increase the population of brown foreigners. Whether that’s accomplished through a terrorist detonating outside of a concert packed with British teens in Manchester or through a steady non-white immigration flow to Britain’s major cities, the globalist mission to erase the identity of Europe moves forward. The less white people, the better, in the minds of globalists, cultural marxists and their Jewish-Zionist overlords.

Semitic Squabble in New York


Commentary by Brandon Martinez

A classic Semitic squabble is unfolding in New York. Pamela Gellar, high priestess of the counter-jihad, recently put on a demonstration to oppose Linda Sarsour, a Muslim-American “progressive” activist who was invited to speak at the City University of New York. This whole episode clearly illustrates the internal Abrahamic war between Muslims and Jews. A brief look at the speakers for Gellar’s event reveals a coterie of largely Jewish counter-jihad Likudniks, a few pro-Zionist ex-Muslims and a couple Christian Zionists, all united in opposition to the “Jew hating” Muslim social justice warrior, Sarsour.

So on one end of the ring we have right-wing Jews and their lackeys screeching about Islam and jihad, and on the other we have a Muslim SJW who is effectively an agent of the Jewish-Globalist Sorosian agenda for America and the West. This circus of controlled opposition should be mocked as a farce. Both the Jewish neocon brigade and pro-Sharia Muslims are malcontents and nuisances in the West. Neither group has the interests of the indigenous peoples of the West in mind. Both are manipulative, conniving and worship insane desert fables that tell them to kill or subjugate the inferior non-believers. Both groups want to supplant the founding white peoples of Europe and North America with their own type, replacing our cultures with their backwards, intolerant Abrahamic values and totalitarian forms of rule.

Disgraced pederasty-advocate Milo Yiannopoulos took the stage at Gellar’s event to denounce Sarsour as a “Jew hater.” This charge stems from the fact that Sarsour’s SJWism often drifts into pro-Palestine activity, being a Muslim from a Palestinian background. It is odd to see Milo protesting a speech from someone he dislikes, when a similar thing happened to him at the University of Berkeley, where lunatic Antifa leftists trashed the place forcing Milo’s appearance to be canceled. In his spiel Milo said he is not against Sarsour’s right to deliver the speech, but called for Sarsour to be “exposed.”

Gellar, Breitbart and the counter-jihad movement in general are pursuing exclusively Jewish interests by pitting white Westerners against Israel’s Muslim rivals. Nick Griffin, former chairman of the British National Party, made mention of an underhanded attempt by (most likely) Gellar and her crew to subvert the direction of his party and nationalism in Europe generally. In a 2013 speech, Griffin disclosed that neocon Jews from the US offered him money with the stipulation that he focus the party’s invective exclusively on Islam, dropping any scrutiny of the banking system and Zionism. Griffin turned down their offer, so they opted to siphon nationalist support away from the BNP, establishing the fake Zionist-led civic nationalist group the EDL/British Freedom Party as well as a bunch of junk websites and think tanks designed to co-opt British nationalism for Jewish-Zionist interests.

Griffin also made it clear, however, that just because these counter-jihad Jews have an agenda to pit the West vs. Islam, we should be careful not to recoil too far in the other direction and become philo-Islamic as there are real problems with Islam in Europe that cannot be squared with nationalism for the continent. So while we should call out the distinctly Jewish racial agenda of loudmouths like Gellar, Breitbart, Milo, etc., we should also oppose their bearded Abrahamic cousins who are no friends of European nationalism either.

Despite the serious divide between Muslims and Jews over Palestine, the more mainstream factions of the two groups have actually joined forces to thwart the nationalist/identitarian renaissance sweeping the West. A strong ethnic and cultural nationalism that doesn’t kowtow to any foreign group of usurpers is obviously the best way forward for Europe.

Richard Spencer – SuperCuck for Russia

Commentary by Brandon Martinez

Richard Spencer caused a bit of an uproar within nationalist ranks recently when he Tweeted out that the Holodomor was not a deliberate attempt at genocide by Stalin.

He said that the famine, which killed millions of Ukrainians in 1932 and which most historians say was a deliberate policy of starvation directed by the Kremlin, “affected other regions” of the Soviet Union too, therefore could not have been a purposeful attempt to wipe out the Ukrainians. But what does that prove other than that Stalin was busily murdering many different groups within the Soviet empire? The moustached psychopath basically did away with anyone who he felt was getting in the way of whatever scheme he was implementing at the time.

Ukrainians don’t claim they were the only victims of the Stalin regime. Millions of Russians, Eastern Europeans, Caucasians and Central Asians also perished in the various purges, manufactured famines and mass executions carried out by Stalin’s henchmen. The paranoid tyrant frantically purged anyone disloyal to his rule. He relentlessly chucked millions into the Gulag Archipelago where many thousands slaved away until they died. In total, some historians put the death count at 40 million. Others have put it at 20 million. Either way, millions of people perished at the hands of consecutive Soviet regimes. The worst years were undoubtedly under Stalin.

Spencer is obviously pussy-whipped by his Russian wife, Nina Kouprianova. He clearly gets most of his views about the Holodomor and Russia in general from her. She’s a fanatic Russian chauvinist/imperialist who sarcastically self-identifies as a “Kremlin bot” and has translated works by Alexander Dugin, the Eurasianist ideologue, into English. She’s written about her own nostalgia for the “Russian World,” an archetype of Russian supremacism which projects a vision for a permanent “sphere of influence” for Russia in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The Eurasianists want to establish a Russian caliphate ruling over virtually all the areas formerly controlled by the USSR.

Nationalist critics on Twitter have pointed out how Spencer has said little to nothing challenging the mainstream account of the Holocaust, yet goes way out of his way to shill for Stalin on the Holodomor and other crimes of the Soviet regime which involved many Jews. Like his wife, Spencer is a fawning bootlicker of the dictatorial Putin regime. One wonders why his wife is living with him in America if she’s so committed to all things Russian? Is she there as a subversive propagandist looking to secure support for the Kremlin amongst Western nationalists? Or is she just a hobbyist with a fetish for Russian politics? She wants to “Make Russia Great Again” by invading and subduing Eastern Europe under the Russian jackboot, so why doesn’t she evict herself from the US, get herself a rifle and go join her glorious comrades waging war in Eastern Ukraine?

Parroting his wife and Dugin, Spencer has even said Ukraine is an “artificial country.”

This claim is dumb because every modern country is essentially artificial. The nation-state model is very recent in history. Most of the smaller countries in Europe are also very new, having gained independence from the various European empires after World War I or later. Spencer’s effort to delegitimize Ukraine is extremely odd coming from a supposed “white nationalist.” Stranger still, Spencer advocates for some grand ingathering of all whites into a new “Roman empire.” How would that not be “artificial”? That’s far more “artificial” (and unnatural) a construction than the modern state of Ukraine. Moreover, Russia itself is a nation that has never really had fixed-borders, perennially expanding and contracting its territory after conquests and defeats. It is a colonial metropolis, not a normal nation-state. But that doesn’t seem to bother Spencer, cucked as he is by the Russian broad he sleeps with.

There are some weird left-nationalists with a Strasserite bent that are basically Stalin fan-boys. These fools praise Stalin on the basis that he “industrialized” Russia. Operating on an economic determinist mindset, these left-nationalists, like their communist counterparts on the far-left, will lend support to any murderous tyrant who simply mouths some of their Marxist economic talking points. It matters not how many people that government kills to construct the socialist “workers paradise,” so long as they build a couple factories and power plants (using slave labour), all is well and good in the eyes of these ideologues. These are the types of people who would gladly volunteer to man the gates of the Gulags and unload bullets into pesky “dissidents” not satisfied with the “superior” socialist system.

Pro-Russian sentiment is obviously substantial within co-opted nationalist circles, based mostly on the false idea that Putin is a “nationalist” and “Christian,” when in fact he’s an imperialist (not a nationalist) and opportunistic politician who uses religion to curry favour among religious Russians.

Antifa Gutter Punks Keep Getting Trashier

Commentary by Brandon Martinez

The “Antifa” (antifascist) crowd have always been composed of degenerate hippies, fat slobs, drug addicts, and, apparently, dreadlocked freaky girls who do raunchy hair-fetish porn. Meet “Moldylocks,” aka Louise Rosealma aka Emily Rose Nauert, the 20-year-old Antifa radical who got waylaid by an Alt-Righter at the recent Berkeley riot.

When she’s not “collecting Nazi scalps,” she apparently undresses herself in front of a camera to show off her vomit-inducing hairy underarms and vagina area. Contradicting her own self-professed feminist Antifa views, she claims in the porn video that she actually likes “being restrained” and “dominated” by her (presumably) male partners in bed. Meanwhile, through her delinquent Antifa activism she seeks to tear down the “patriarchy” (aka male domination) in the broader society. These contradictions are commonplace for Antifa gutter punks who literally believe in nothing besides smashing, trashing, stinking up and degrading everything around them to conform with their preferred vagabond lifestyles. Antifa are in actuality “anti-civilization,” aka nihilistic punks who want to tear down all forms of order and hierarchy so as to drag humanity down to a state of barbarism.

They advocate for nothing besides repeating stale old Marxist and Leninist platitudes about the evils of capitalism and “white supremacy.” They’re not truly against “racism” because they are themselves engaged in an organized racist campaign to attack, shame and disempower white people in their own homelands. If anything, Antifa are essentially anti-white racists hell bent on chasing the last white person out of their job and livelihood to atone for the presumed sins of their forefathers.

Years ago I recall seeing videos of Canadian Antifa stalking and harassing Ernst Zundel, a German-Canadian publisher who spearheaded revisionist research into the Holocaust mythology of the Second World War and who paid dearly for his honest work. Those videos made my blood boil and sparked my own interest and activism in alternative history and politics. It was sickening watching ideologically hollow street bums stalk and assault an honourable man who simply sought to get at the truth of what really happened in his country of birth during a war.

Antifa have always been little more than violent foot-soldiers for the anti-white segment of the globalist Jewish establishment. In fact, there was an old video showing a Jewish official from the B’nai B’rith (the main lobbying arm of international Zionism & Masonry) in Canada actively lobbying the provincial government of Ontario to fund Antifa. So we had there a case of self-interested Zionist Jews puppeteering low-brow savage communists and assorted leftist agitators to go after one of their chief adversaries in the realm of historical research. A literal case of “shut it down” subterfuge at work. And that’s still what’s happening today on the streets of Europe and North America, as we see a leftist militancy metastasize after the surprise election of the populist, civic nationalist Donald Trump.

An Alliance With the Alt-Lite?

Commentary by Brandon Martinez

Red Ice just put out a video called “How the Alt-Right Should Relate to the Alt-Lite,” basically arguing that an olive branch should be extended to folks within the Alt-Lite milieu in the hopes of “red pilling” some of them down the road. Of course, there is always the prospect of rescuing those trapped in the Alt-Lite bubble, and showing them the door to a more robust and accurate analysis of the problems and their true causes. The video advises against too much hostility towards those of the Alt-Lite persuasion, and proposes forming a pragmatic alliance with them to confront leftist violence in the streets. I think this should only be applied to the lower down followers of Alt-Lite as opposed to the High Priests of the movement who have time and again made it absolutely clear that they will continue pushing a watered-down civic nationalism that opposes both White identitarianism and open discussions of Jewish power.

In his new “comeback” party video, Alt-Lite idol Milo Yiannopoulos draped flags of Israel throughout the rented “mansion” wherein he paid a bunch of models to follow him around while he pranced about like a wannabe rockstar. At speeches he has wrapped himself in the Zionist flag and proclaimed his love for Israel.


Yiannopoulos claims that he disavows “identity politics of every kind,” expressing particular disdain for White ethno-nationalism as espoused by Alt-Right leaders like Richard Spencer. However, Yiannopoulos’ claim to oppose all forms of identity politics is plainly contradicted by his fawning reverence of and support for the state of Israel, which defines itself as a “Jewish” homeland based entirely on the identity politics of Zionism. So in Yiannopoulos’ perfect world, every group will abandon identity and rootedness and adopt his preferred lifestyle of degenerate mammonism, leaving only the Jews with their own fortified ethno-state and strong in-group solidarity intact. Clearly his seditious mission is to weaken the identities of the Gentile races while supporting Jewish nationalism.

Other prominent Alt-Lite figures like Ezra Levant, Steven Crowder, Paul Joseph Watson, Gavin McInnes, Alex Jones and Mike Cernovich play an identical tune on the two taboos that they desperately wish to avoid: White identitarianism and the Jewish question. By removing those two crucial issues from the platform, the Alt-Lite are carving out a kosher nationalism dominated at the top by Zionist Jews and Judeo-Christian cucks who will do very little to address the root causes of the malaise afflicting the West. They will continue to point fingers at blue-haired feminists and SJWs, whilst totally ignoring the elephant in the room. Since much of the Alt-Lite is merely engaged in clickbait opportunism and aimless populism, they must steer clear of the truly controversial topics that could get them axed from their social media soapboxes.

On issues like free speech, feminism, SJWism and mass immigration, the Alt-Lite provide some valuable content opposing those leftist abominations. But on two central, defining issues that are essentially a make or break for the survival of Western civilization, they fail miserably and take up a status quo consensus view that race is unimportant, and all that’s required to get in the “Western civ” club is adopting certain Judeo-Christian libtard “values.” On Jewish power and their leading role in the globalist juggernaut to bring the West to its knees, the Alt-Lite act as praetorian muscle guarding the gates of Jewish privilege. For this they can never be trusted and should always be kept at arms length.

Alt-Lite Professor Triggered By Alt-Right’s “Anti-Semitism”

Jordan Peterson vs. SJWs

Commentary by Brandon Martinez

Jordan Peterson, a Canadian professor of psychology, has become somewhat of an icon amongst conservatives and libertarians for his criticism of the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of the left. Peterson has publicly and eloquently critiqued the Social Justice Warrior phenomenon, receiving stiff opposition from establishment leftists and Antifa street thugs simply for suggesting that the “gender bending” crowd have pushed the envelope too far. In the video below Peterson is asked about the Alt-Right, to which he responds with criticism of its tendency to “degenerate into anti-Semitism.” Like most “Alt-Lite” gatekeepers, Peterson refuses to tackle the ultimate societal and historical taboo: Jewish influence and its destructive impact. He wants to play the “enlightened” professor rebuking the nihilistic left in basic political terms, but stops just short of identifying the ethnic roots of that current among the Jewish intelligentsia from the Frankfurt School. He certainly won’t delve into the predominant Jewish role in cultivating multiculturalism, mass immigration and feminism as part of a group evolutionary strategy to disempower and subjugate White Gentiles. As a professor at a heavily Jewish-dominated university in Canada, it’s no surprise that he avoids that topic like the plague, as it would probably cost him his career in academia.