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.

“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.

Confused Truthers


By Brandon Martinez

On the one hand various “truthers” proclaim that al-Qaeda doesn’t exist. James Corbett even released a documentary some years ago with the title, “Al-Qaeda Doesn’t Exist.” But today their story has changed. Now a lot of these same truthers say that al-Qaeda is so dangerous that we need Russia to bomb them in Syria. Most of them support this Russian military campaign to eliminate various al-Qaeda or Isis-affiliated rebels throughout Syria. Even the non-al-Qaeda rebels are considered fair game to bomb by some of the more fanatic pro-Assad truthers. So which is it? It can’t be both. Do these groups exist or not? Are they a “manufactured threat” or are they such a huge menace that they need to be wiped out by Russia?

The incoherence of the truther narrative is comical. They’re clinging to the outdated truther narrative about the fraudulence of the “terror threat” but at the same time contend that the threat is real over in Assad’s neck of the woods. But at various points they say even some of that stuff, like the beheading videos, are fake. Even so they contend bombing Isis is good if it’s the Russians leading the campaign. Their narrative is wildly incoherent. They want to maintain that Muslims are innocent patsies who are always set-up by the West, so they’ve resorted to saying that Isis are just “paid mercenaries” under CIA mind control or masked Mossad agents. This takes the blame away from the radical Islamic ideology that drives these groups and puts it back on suited intelligence officers in the West. The poor, innocent Muslims have no responsibility or agency. They don’t make their own decisions. They’re all just hapless dupes doing someone else’s dirty work.

Overlapping geopolitical interests have caused various states (including the US and Israel, but principally the Gulf States) to tacitly enable Isis’s rampages, but that doesn’t mean the group isn’t genuine in its stated goals to establish a Caliphate and implement Sharia law as all Islamic radicals say is their divine mission here on earth. Manipulation is not the same thing as “creation” or top-down pyramidal “control.” Even a leading Saudi cleric admitted that:

The Isis Caliphate is clearly real as this documentary shows:

The devilish Saudi regime has influence over these radical groups and can steer their direction through the funds it gives or withholds from them. The Saudi monarchs use these terrorists as tools of their jihad to purge “heretics” (Shiites, Sufis, etc.) within the Muslim world as well as to slaughter non-Muslim kaffir. But the Saudis know these deranged maniacs will eventually turn on them because the pure zealots believe Saudi Arabia itself is an illegitimate monarchy even if it has implemented some form of Sharia law. There have been numerous Isis-inspired attacks within the kingdom over the past two years. The Saudis are content to direct the most militant of the bloodthirsty beheaders that their ideology has produced into neighbouring rival states, thereby containing them within their own kingdom. But not even they can fully control it and it will eventually come back to haunt them.

Liberal “truthers” cannot face up to the fact that radical Islam is a real thing because it would put a huge dent in their flawed narrative that all evil stems from “the West.”

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.

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.

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.