Does Richard Spencer Support ‘Free Speech’ in Russia?


By Brandon Martinez

Richard Spencer recently held a “free speech” rally to protest the violence of American leftists against right-wingers. He was himself sucker punched in the face by an Antifa terrorist. Spencer and others in the Alt-Right proclaim that they believe in an unfettered “freedom of speech.” But are they consistent?

When it comes to the sacred cow of Putin’s Russia, cucked rightists like Spencer say nothing about the dismal state of free speech in that country, which boasts laws that punish virtually anyone who disagrees with the Russian government on anything. Russia has “hate speech” laws in the form of “extremism” legislation that punishes expressions of ethnic separatism, nationalism, xenophobia, etc., but only for non-Russian ethnics that seek to secede from the Russian Federation. The law has been used against critics of the regime, including relatives of victims of the Beslan massacre for implying Putin was complicit in their relatives’ deaths. In 2014 Putin passed a Holocaust denial law banning opinions on the Second World War that contradict the official Russian/Allied version. Russian punk rock artists were jailed for doing an impromptu protest show in a church. Bloggers have been arrested. Russians have been flung in prison for years simply for reposting memes critical of the Russian state on social media. A Ukrainian library was shut down and its owner arrested for publishing Ukrainian literature deemed “Russophobic.” The Kremlin is even trying to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses as an extremist group. Dozens of opponents and critics of Putin have been murdered in contract killings that have all the hallmarks of KGB targeted assassinations. Media outlets have been shut down, sued and stifled for printing criticism of the Putin regime. Putin has put in place draconian internet censorship laws resembling the great blockade on information implemented by the Chinese communist dictatorship. Protests in Russia are routinely barred and oppositionists thrown in jail on trumped up charges. Even a mock protest with dolls holding signs was shut down by the Russian authorities! Not even 10-year-olds are immune from being arrested for public demonstrations.

And yet you hear nothing about this from the “free speech” warriors of the Alt-Right, many of whom praise Russia and Putin simply because he’s less “liberal” on social issues than some Western states. Spencer in particular is a rabid cuck for Russia. He’s married to a Russian woman who is a strident propagandist for the Kremlin and translates into English the works of Alexander Dugin, the Eurasianist hack who wants Russia to conquer Eastern Europe. Spencer even voiced opposition to commemorating or depicting in film the great Ukrainian famine, the Holodomor, because it makes Russia look bad.

This absurd love-in with Russia and its totalitarian state among some on the Alt-Right must be criticized. They can’t, on the one hand, pay lip service to “free speech” in America where it affects them, but then support a tyrant in Russia who does everything in his power to crush it.


Former Anti-Islam Activist Wants Me to Stop Criticizing Muslims

Is Jaci Stanton a hooker for the Palestinian resistance?

By Brandon Martinez

The other day I responded to the non-arguments of a woman named Jaci Stanton. She’s a former liberal atheist anti-Islam activist who bizarrely wants me to stop criticizing Muslims and being a “racist” nationalist calling for an end to the white genocide occurring in Europe. She’s still blabbing away like there’s no tomorrow.

I recall a few years back Stanton had a YouTube channel of a liberal atheist bent. It’s gone now, but from what I remember more than 50 percent of her content was anti–Islam material. She would post videos of Muslims stoning people to death and savagely chopping off the hands of accused thieves. She asserted that Islam was a backwards, violent religion hell-bent on world domination. I remember she even said Muslim immigration was an Islamic weapon of conquest through a process called “hijrah“. Yet now she’s criticizing me for opposing this invasion.

Apparently she’s completely changed her mind on Muslims, and now speaks of them with excessive (and downright creepy) fealty, describing them as “kind and loving” who have a “gentleness and sweetness” about them. In this recent article she expressed a sexual desire for these brutish bearded Arabs and Muslims, calling them “sweet hot guys” and that she thinks “a lot of Arab guys are hot.” She literally has a sexual fetish for Arab and Muslim men! She says she has befriended a lot of Arabs and Muslims online which explains why she’s trying to seduce them on Facebook by posing like a prostitute for a hooker catalog with Palestinian imagery in the backdrop. Maybe she wants to be a sex slave for Hamas, who knows. Perhaps she’s already a sex slave for the Islamic State, chained down in one of their dungeons being forced to say nice things about Islam and Muslims online. Kidding aside, she’s a total weirdo.

She’s criticizing my more strident tone on Islam/Muslims these days as they ransack Europe on the orders of George Soros, complaining that this contrasts with my previous rhetoric from years ago which was more along the lines of setting up an alliance with this group. But this is the same woman who previously declared Islam the most dangerous faith on earth and focused most of her time attacking it. If she wants to see what a volte-face looks like, then she should have a look in the mirror.

She has no argument against what I’m saying now other than to deny the growing insanity of the “truther” cult who, for the most part, claim virtually all Muslim terrorism is manufactured. Other than that she’s a liberal who constantly throws around the “racist” charge at nationalist critics of mass immigration and the Zionist Kalergi plan to destroy the West.

I critique Muslims and Islam from a European nationalist perspective, not a liberal atheist one. You don’t see me whining about gay and women’s rights in Muslim countries. I highlight what Muslims and other parasitic migrants are doing in our countries in the West. My argument is that Muslims are cultural imperialists who seek to supplant “infidel” cultures that don’t conform to their 7th century primitive religious doctrines. If they could, they would tear down and ransack every church in Europe. And when they become populous and politically strong enough, they probably will. I don’t really care what barbarism these people wish to engage in within their own countries. But I don’t want that in Europe. But I don’t limit that to Muslim immigrants. Obviously all non-white immigration is problematic and part of the plan to degrade Europe.

The problem is this woman is a single mom with too much time on her hands. She should be focused on things females typically do and are good at like cooking, housekeeping and raising children. Entering complex political discussions is the last thing a woman should do. This woman proves it.

Black Supremacist Thug Ice Cube on ‘White Privilege’

By Brandon Martinez

This is pathetic. Ice Cube, a gangster rapper who used to rap about killing cops and “white devils,” is lecturing Bill Maher about “white privilege” and racism for using the n-word in a joke. Cube says that only black people can use the n-word, which they employ as often as prepositions, especially in the gangsta rap genre. This speech policing is insane. Privileged blacks like Ice Cube can be as anti-white as they please (calling whites ‘crackers’ and ‘devils’) and yet they catch absolutely no flack for it. In fact, the more anti-white they are the more opportunities they seem to get. And yet he claims America is today run by evil white racists who oppress blacks? If that were true he wouldn’t be a multimillionaire for rapping about killing white people and cops. The only reason Cube has been successful is because he’s black. He has black privilege. He’s a terrible actor and his rap is sub-par. But the leftist establishment elevates people like him to positions of influence deliberately as an attack on white people.

IslamoCuck Truther Girl Can’t Muster an Argument

By Brandon Martinez

The “truthers” have no serious arguments against what I’ve said in various articles critiquing them on this blog. Case in point is this piece about me by some Islamocuck truther girl named Jaci Stanton.

The entire article is bereft of any actual attempt at refuting what I say in my articles on truthers and their contradictions. Instead, she wrote a long autobiographical screed about how she became so favourable to Muslims after learning “the truth” about 9/11 and neocon-inspired wars. Throughout the piece she mentions that after discovering war crimes committed by the US in Iraq, she developed a “huge passion for” the Middle East and Muslims. Yeah, I would say that’s the standard backstory and psychology of most Islamophilic truthers. Nothing special here.

She writes that, “I did not ever draw conclusions about Daesh or become a voice against Zionists and Israel because I wanted to think of Muslims a certain way.” But that’s not true. She attested to developing a philo-Islamic view after being exposed to information about crimes committed against Muslims in various Middle Eastern wars. So all of her views about Muslims after that point have obviously been tainted with the proclivity to see them as eternal victims who can do no wrong on their own accord. That’s the problem. That bias has caused her analysis of Muslim issues generally to be skewed by feelings of guilt and sympathy that arose from reading about the suffering of some Middle Easterners during the wars after 9/11. I don’t deny that some Muslims have been victims of injustice. My bias against Islam and Muslim immigration into the West doesn’t stop me from acknowledging that in certain cases they have been wronged by non-Muslims (Iraq war, Palestine, etc.). But that doesn’t mean all or even the majority of Muslims are therefore victims, nor does it mean that Islam is a benevolent religion. Nor does that disprove the fact that some Muslims have been perpetrators and aggressors, rather than victims, both today and historically.

She and others like her refuse to address my valid points, such as that the Islamic terror threat today is clearly real, thus rendering 9/11 truth a pointless exercise in that it’s main contention, that the “terror threat” is fabricated, is now an untenable position to maintain. How about that 9/11 can’t be used as a pretext for future wars, thus rendering 9/11 irrelevant from an anti-war perspective? Or the fact that the “truthers” can’t get their story straight in that they say Islamic terror is fake “over here” but that it’s real “over there” in the Middle East. None of these issues are addressed.

What it comes down to, and what she essentially confesses to, is that she was upset over the Iraq war so she became a bleeding heart shill for Muslims in all their struggles. When Muslims do wrong, it’s not them doing it, but shadowed CIA agents forcing their hand. But that’s not actually proving what they think it is. If Muslim radicals are working with the CIA, then all it proves is that radical Muslims are willing to sacrifice principles to collaborate with other evildoers for short term gain when they have a common interest with these other players. That would make them doubly evil, not innocent. So the claim here is basically that radical Muslims are the murderous foot soldiers for the big powers. I guess that means we should hate them even more?

This woman is engaged in typical reactionary politics and leftists are famous for it. They find out who has been “victimized” in some form or fashion and then leap to their defence in every situation. It’s the same dynamic when leftists write apologia for third world dictatorships like North Korea. Kim Jung-Un is being “targeted” by the big bad American empire so he “must be doing something good.”

She writes that she “loves Muslims” and describes them as “kind and loving” who have “a gentleness and sweetness about them.” Yeah, tell that to the people who have had their heads sawed off by Isis, were just knifed to death on the London Bridge or were run over by a Muslim kamikaze in a truck. Tell that to the 2,000 Nigerians massacred in a matter of days by the “kind and loving” Islamists of Boko Haram who are just doing Allah’s work. This kind of pro-Islamic cuckoldry is a sign of our times as the left tries to drive the dagger deeper into the heart of the West.

While she lacks any serious argument refuting my points, she does manage to mete out some insults about my eyes scaring her, how I’m a “douche bag,” and the typical leftist charge that I’m a “racist.” Then there’s this gem in the comments:

But, yeah, this Brandon Martinez guy has revealed himself as some sort of arrogant psycho with disturbed eyes. To me as a woman he looks like the kind of guy who would slip rufies in my drink and laugh at me if I fell. He’s messed up.

Oh, how typical of an emotional woman to make up outrageous nonsense in order to impute malevolent intentions on someone she disagrees with. This rhetoric reminds me of what unstable women typically do when they go through a break-up with a guy: portray their exes as evil SOBs who are intent on hurting and raping women. Not only am I an evil racist, but “clearly” I’m the kind of guy who would try to abuse women! Racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic – these are all the evils that the left attribute to straight, white men. This is all so ironic considering she’s an Islamophile who has a love-in with a genuine rape culture. In Islam, when a woman is raped, she is the one charged with adultery! But she just loves herself some Muslims whereas an evil white male like myself is the real danger.

These paranoid truthers label all dissent from their cult narrative as “cognitive infiltration” by the shadow government to throw them off their fruitless quest for truth and justice. They function like a standard cult on par with scientology. Dissenters and critics are scorned and abused. The party line must be enforced at all times. Anyone who sways is a “heretic” to be outcast forever.

Also of note is that on her Facebook page, she’s posing like a prostitute in front of leftie pro-Palestine memes. What would her pious Muslim friends think of that?

She claims she’s not virtue-signalling for Muslims yet in the article she posted this weird picture of a smiling Muslim guy. Clearly an attempt to portray Muslims as harmless fuzzy teddy bears that just want a big hug. That is the very definition of virtue signalling!

Leftist Hack Oliver Stone Loves Putin

By Brandon Martinez

Oliver Stone is a vanilla leftie who loves any foreign dictator that “stands up” in some form or fashion to the US. So it’s no surprise that he just did a series of fawning interviews with Putin, which will be released as a documentary. In an interview with Stephen Colbert, Stone doubled down on his admiration for the Russian tyrant.

Stone previously made documentaries glorifying Marxist Latin American leaders like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia. Stone does the leftist standard circuit of licking the backsides of any government leader, no matter how oppressive, that isn’t cooperating with the US on some front.

Colbert pressed Stone on Putin’s oppressive authoritarian system which has trampled on free speech, jailed and harassed political opponents, and assassinated the most strident critics of the regime. Stone’s lame response was that he “supports free speech” but refused to condemn Putin for constructing an Orwellian police state in Russia where even social media posts critical of the Kremlin can land you in jail for years. Stone then grumbled about how Putin was a poor victim of unfair “abuse” by the media.

Stone’s son Sean is a conspiratard who believes in every imaginable conspiracy theory and has a show on Russia Today called “The Hawks.” They’re both afflicted with a leftist myopia that sees no other evil in the world besides that of the US government/establishment. All other oligarchies/establishments, like those in Russia, China, Iran, etc., are lionized as “victims” of “the empire.” Only the US and its allies are deemed  “bad,” whereas the rest of the world are innocent doves who just want to sing kumbaya with their neighbours. This one-track thinking is the basis of all leftist “anti-imperialist” presumptions and the reason leftists are such slimy apologists for any backwards tyranny outside the Western hemisphere.

Some rightists also have a love-in with Putin on the sole basis that Russia is “less liberal” on social issues than Western states at the present time. If that’s the only criteria, then why don’t these pro-Putin rightists pack up and move to Russia and embrace the “White man’s paradise”? They won’t do that because they know their standard of living would significantly decrease once they enter the Putinist Utopia.

George Galloway’s Absurd Double Standards

By Brandon Martinez

This video does a good job exposing the absurdist double standards of leftist British politician George Galloway.

Galloway is shown headlining an “anti-war” protest in 2015 when Britain was having a vote on whether to join the anti-ISIS coalition air war in Syria and Iraq. At that time Galloway and other leftists were protesting against Britain’s attempt to join that coalition to defeat ISIS. Yet strikingly, Galloway, a paid contributor to both Iran’s PressTV and Russia’s RT, came out full-stop in support of Russian and Iranian military intervention in Syria to do the exact same thing. He is quoted on his PressTV show saying he’s “not against airstrikes in Syria, only Western airstrikes.” Galloway joyously welcomed airstrikes by Russia when that country entered the conflict in 2015 on the side of Assad.

As Christopher Hitchens pointed out, Galloway is not anti-war, he’s just “on the other side of it.” Galloway backs military interventions by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and presumably other regimes and groups so long as they’re on the side of his favourite dictators in the Middle East. Another video shows Galloway’s hypocrisy on the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011, where he supported the demonstrations against pro-Western monarchies in the Persian Gulf as well as against the pro-US Egyptian dictator Mubarak. But once the Arab Spring came to Syria, he denounced it as an evil Western plot to depose the “innocent” Assad regime. Galloway also derides oppositionists in Iran, Cuba, Russia and China as “Western agents,” backing those tyrannies with vigor.

Fastening his Maoist Commie cap to his head, Galloway sings praises of all dictatorships that are presumably of an anti-Western bent. The fact is that Galloway is a radical leftist literally in the pay of Iran and Russia as a contributor to their state propaganda channels. His stance on Syria is therefore in line with those governments who pay him to propel propaganda for their war effort. He supports Russian and Chinese expansion in the Middle East and Africa because he wishes the world to be ruled by a Russo-Sino communist empire. Anyone who disagrees with Galloway’s radical left platform will be jailed or executed in his utopian state. When will this Bolshevik be charged as a foreign spy for Russia and Iran?

“Putin’s Popular” – Therefore He’s “Good”?


By Brandon Martinez

You’ll often hear Putin groupies exalt the Russian dictator by pointing to polls in Russia that show a majority of the population approve of their leader. This is, in fact, one of their primary arguments to make their case that Putin’s a “good” and “moral” leader. But this argument relies on the popularity fallacy, also known as argumentum ad populum, which fallaciously puts undue value on the opinions of lemmings. As we know, the “majority” of people believing in something doesn’t make that belief right or good. If that were the case, then kooky religious claims must all be true, since a majority of the world’s populace believes in one religion or another. If the majority of Russians backing Putin proves he’s morally good, then Hillary Clinton must be morally good too because half of Americans who voted in the last election cast their ballot for her. She’s very “popular,” so I guess she should be praised? The majority of Americans supported the Iraq war, at least initially. Was that a good war? The majority of Americans say they support Israel when polled. I guess that means it’s a good policy for America to continue supporting Israel? Benjamin Netanyahu is very popular in Israel and the majority of Israelis support and vote for him, and approve of his policies towards the Palestinians. So I guess Netanyahu is a good and moral leader as well? This is how absurd the argument is. But you’ll never hear the Putinists use this popularity fallacy when dealing with Western politicians, only their foreign heroes like Putin and Assad who, they believe, are “standing up” to the New World Order and should thus be worshipped.

Rendering this argument even more deficient, it must be noted that Putin’s Russia is a dictatorship with a tightly controlled media, so Russians are only receiving filtered pro-government propaganda for the most part. Public opinion means little in a dictatorship where various means of coercion and control are exercised to manufacture consent. If Russia had a free media that was at liberty to criticize and expose Putin and his Kremlin cronies, then I guarantee there would be far less support among the population and he probably wouldn’t still be the president. Stalin also constructed an Orwellian illusion of popular support where Soviet citizens wouldn’t dare criticize the tyrant in public or in foreign media, fearing assassination or imprisonment in the Gulag. Putin’s Russia isn’t as openly brutal and genocidal as Stalin’s was, but repression is still very real, and for the most outspoken skeptics of the Putin system, often deadly.

False Flag Cult Comes Undone With Iran Attack


By Brandon Martinez

With Iran now blaming ISIS for an attack on its parliament and a popular religious shrine, the false flag cult has come undone, exposing itself as a fraud that, like the boy who cried wolf, only yells “false flag” when the target of the attack is in the West. If this kind of attack happened in a Western country, the false flaggers would be all over it with their redundant amateur “analysis” trying to pick holes in the story. But with the attack in Iran, none of that seems to be happening. They either ignore it completely, or simply say that it’s a real attack by ISIS, but dishonestly add that ISIS are “fake Muslims” in the pay of shadowy Westerners. They won’t ask the typical “cui bono” type questions here because in this case Iran is the beneficiary, gaining world sympathy as a fellow victim of ISIS terrorism.

These cultists consider Iran to be an innocent “victim” nation under assault by the big powers, so scrutiny is never applied to its government, which was founded by a religious fundamentalist maniac who had 30,000 “dissidents” executed in one year. Interesting that they condemn other countries in the Middle East that have “collaborated” with Western powers, but sweep aside how Iran directly helped the United States overthrow the rival Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001, took advantage of the US invasion of Iraq to empower their Shiite proxies who had long sought to supplant Saddam Hussein (a historic foe of Iran who invaded the country in 1980), and supported the uprising against and overthrow of Libya’s Gaddafi, which they marketed as part of an “Islamic Awakening” at the time. These low-brow simpletons never call out Iran on its hypocrisy and double-dealing because that would get in the way of their current task of shilling for that regime to “avoid war,” or whatever they tell themselves to justify it.

This cognitive bias is also evident in their skewed and contradictory “analysis” of Syria. Whilst they are clearly extreme apologists for Muslims when Muslims are accused of terror against the West, they reverse themselves in the rather complex powder keg of Syria, where mainly Muslim factions are battling against the truth movement “hero” Assad. In that theater, the “truthers” claim that not only are the Muslim extremists doing all the terrorism and atrocities of the war, but they’re also behind various “false flag” attacks designed to frame the “innocent” Assad regime, which is held up as a bastion of virtue and “resistance.” So in the West these “analysts” contend radical Muslims are innocent patsies being set-up by our governments, but in Syria the narrative is exactly the opposite, where the radical Muslim rebels are portrayed as evil villains who are so dastardly and conniving that they’ve been organizing false flag massacres to frame Assad. These same people who viscerally hate the West and blame all the world’s problems on it, take the opposite line as they market Assad as a virtuous, Western-educated secularist who dresses like we do and speaks English and should thus be supported against his fundamentalist Muslim opponents. The disconnects here are stunning.

Predictably, truther scrutiny is also never applied to terror that takes place within the borders of Russia, even though most of it is usually blamed on separatist Muslims from the Caucasus. This is a case where their pro-Russian, pro-Putin bias takes precedence over their pro-Muslim bias, dusting off examples where Russia has manipulated and made scapegoats of Muslims for terror.

This is all very prototypical of politically-interested ideologues who, while falsely fronting as “truth seekers,” function as little more than emissaries propelling the propaganda of the beloved “white hat” regimes of the East. But their tricks and biases are becoming more and more apparent as time goes by.