Multiculturalism is Literally Killing Britain

By Brandon Martinez

Dedicated to white genocide, the Kalergiite government of Britain has allowed Islamists to swamp the country, the fruits of which we have seen in recent months of bloody terror on the streets.

An EU official has warned that the largest contingent of Islamic extremists, some 25,000, live and act freely in Britain.

This from the Independent:

The UK is home to up to 25,000 Islamist extremists who could pose a threat, the EU’s top terror official has warned.

Officials have warned that the threat from home-grown jihadis who are prevented from joining Isis in Syria and Iraq is increasing, with the group inciting global terror attacks to maintain momentum.

Gilles de Kerchove, the EU’s counter-terror coordinator, said he expected more atrocities following the deadly car rammings in Barcelona and Cambrils.

“We are going to suffer more attacks,” he told Spain’s El Mundo newspaper.

“The majority, except Brussels and Paris, were not directed from Raqqa but inspired, and then Isis claimed responsibility.

“The group’s propaganda no longer calls so much for people to travel to the ‘caliphate’, but to launch attacks in their places of origin or of residence, even on a small scale with homemade weapons.”

Mr de Kerchove said the UK was home to the highest known number of Islamist radicals in Europe – between 20,000 and 25,000 people – with 3,000 considered a direct threat by MI5 and 500 under constant surveillance.

The perpetrators of three recent attacks have been known to the police as Isis-sympathizing potential terrorists for some time:

Westminster attacker Khalid Masood was described a “peripheral figure” by Theresa May, while the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi was known to MI5 but not under active investigation and the ringleader of the London Bridge attack, Khuram Butt, was not thought to be a risk despite being a known member of Anjem Choudary’s banned network.

But cowed by political correctness, the police fail to act against potential threats so as to avoid the bad optics of preemptively rounding up brown-skinned foreigners.

Britain’s insane pro-multicultural policies have allowed these savages to gain a foothold in the country and build their terrorist networks. Any sane politician would have immediately deported these extremists who so obviously want to commit more terror against Europeans to pave out their bloody caliphate. They should ban immigration altogether, but will instead bring more backwards people here to rape, rob and kill us. The Zionist Kalergiites and the Islamists have shared interests to genocide white people. The only difference between them is that the Zionist Kalergiites want Jews to be our eternal slave masters – with radical Muslims and other non-white invaders serving as a short-term instrument of terror to kill us – whereas the Jihadists want us to submit to a medieval Islamic Shariah tyranny, beheading anyone who refuses to lick the dust off the Mohammedans’ feet.

Like a classic Trojan Horse, the Zionists have opened our gates to numerous dangers that combine to facilitate the extinction of our sacred continent. We must stop them!


Jared Taylor Crushes Hispanic Hypocrite and Muslim Leftist

By Brandon Martinez

In these two interviews racialist thinker Jared Taylor totally annihilates Hispanic Hypocrite Jorge Ramos and a Muslim leftist journo at ABC.

Ramos is a clownish buffoon who openly celebrates the Hispanization of the US and demands that Hispanics get more positions of power in the government. He’s openly an advocate for the ethnic interests of his people yet condemns Taylor for doing the same for his people. The thing is Ramos is a white Mexican of most likely Spanish European descent, but since he culturally identifies as Hispanic he puts himself in the brown camp. He may be deluded about his own race as some white Latinos are.

Taylor points out that no people would want to become a minority in their own country, but whites are being asked to celebrate their dwindling numbers by these non-white usurpers. When Taylor gave the example of whites pouring into Mexico and changing that country’s demographics and culure, and how the Mexicans would likely fiercely resist this, Ramos tried to shift the argument and claim that the US is “different” in its founding as a “nation of immigrants,” which is utterly false anyway. The US was founded by whites for whites and all the founding fathers agreed that the country should be maintained as a nation of whites from Europe.

And none of that would explain why Europe itself is also being flooded with non-white immigration so what would Ramos’s argument be there? In that case he’d probably use the colonialism guilt trip which is also a totally bogus argument.

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.

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.