George Galloway – Classic Sabbath Kaffir

By Brandon Martinez

I recently found this video pretty much proving with his own words that former British MP George Galloway is a crypto-Muslim.

Galloway made a career out of shilling for Arab and Muslim causes in the Middle East. He routinely traveled throughout the Middle East lecturing to Muslim and Arab audiences about the evils of the West. Domestically, he bent over for immigrants, especially Muslims, who make up 25% of the population of Bradford, the British city Galloway represented in parliament. Within Britain Galloway was a left-wing communist shill for multiculturalism, open-borders and hate speech laws. He variously called for “Holocaust deniers,” anti-Semites and critics of Islam to be thrown in jail. This is what happens when a white Westerner converts to Islam: they become poisoned with its alien Semitic culture and totalitarian ideas that are antithetical to Western freedom.

Confused Truthers

confused

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 They’re clinging to the outdated truther narrative about the fraudulence of the “terror threat” but at the same time contend that the threat is real over in Assad’s neck of the woods.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.”

Diversity in London Brings Terror

By Brandon Martinez

Another day, another terror attack in Europe. Soon enough this will be a daily occurrence.

Muslim radicals seem to have a thing for vans, trucks and knives, don’t they?

Some radical Muslim killers just ran down and knifed a bunch of innocent people in London while shouting the usual Muslim slogans. Seven are confirmed dead, and close to 50 are wounded.

This comes on the tail end of the monstrous Manchester stadium bombing where an Isis devotee blew himself up, killing mostly teenage girls.

As London’s globalist Muslim mayor said last year, terrorist attacks are just “part and parcel” of living in a major city… perhaps in cities where his co-religionists are a sizeable minority, like London.

I always find it confounding that “truthers” instantly play the false flag card for an attack that happens in the West, but never do so for attacks that happen elsewhere.

In the past few weeks there have been multiple attacks by Islamist militants in the Middle East. In late May there was a vicious assault in Egypt targeting a bus full of Coptic Christians. A bombing near the Afghan presidential palace took place in Afghanistan around the same time. Back in April there were two separate bombings against Christian churches in Egypt. All the attacks were claimed by Isis or affiliated groups. An Isis affiliate recently invaded the city of Marawi in southern Philippines, killing hundreds.

How can all of that be a grand “false flag”?

The biased “truthers” never apply their hardened skepticism to events that occur outside the West. Actually, they usually just ignore anything that can’t be pinned on a Western regime. That’s because their propaganda is designed exclusively to discredit and demonize “the West.” Violence in non-Western countries is ignored, downplayed or somehow pinned on the West, too. These are not researchers, they’re basement-dwelling dolts with a nihilistic agenda to tear down Western civilization.

Some of them, like Kevin Barrett, vigorously support the migrant invasion of Europe and strive for an Islamic Caliphate that they hope will one day beat down and humiliate the Kaffir West. Islamists like Barrett have some lunatic leftist allies in Europe who want the same thing:

The van/knife attack in London is standard MO for radical Muslims in Europe who have launched similar attacks in France, Sweden, etc. If these are “false flags,” it only serves to benefit the nationalist opposition challenging the liberal elite currently in power across Europe. So if the pro-open borders liberal elite in power were constantly staging false flags, it’s much more likely they’d frame-up right-wing nationalists to discredit their principle opposition. Why would they constantly stage false flags and blame Muslims or migrants when they’re the ones who let these malcontents in? This would only serve to disgrace the current rulers and empower the nationalists.

None of that matters to the “truthers” who are pushing a narrow pro-Muslim, leftist agenda. The liberal truther narrative must maintain that all violence by Muslims is fake or, if real, was the result of a sinister CIA mind control program. Because Muslims would never commit violence on their own volition unless under mind control by evil white CIA agents in black suits, right?

But who cares. Such people are insignificant and exist mainly as fringe trolls in the social media sphere, retweeting each other’s nonsense.

The only way to stop terrorism in Europe is to elect nationalist leaders to power who will secure the borders and deport the radicals immediately. Muslim and migrant terrorism should be used to discredit the leftist elite ruining Europe. They, along with their migrant pawns, have European blood on their hands. The blood will keep flowing so long as they stay in power. They let it happen by welcoming in savages who have no respect for the cultures they’re squatting in, and who have allegiances to foreign countries and groups with primitive Abrahamic values.

In response to the latest outrage, British PM Theresa May said, ‘enough is enough.’ But her words are meaningless if she won’t actually do what needs to be done. May is not a nationalist, but a globalist hack working in lock-step with the Sorosian-Kalergiite Zionist elite who want to kill and bury Western civilization, permanently.

Watson’s Vid On the Spiralling Migrant Crisis

By Brandon Martinez

Paul J. Watson’s new video exposes how people smugglers operating off the coast of Libya are literally running a taxi-service for migrants, ferrying boat-loads of Africans across the Med with the help of George Soros-funded NGOs and aid agencies.

Soros’ sprawling network of NGOs and aid agencies are working in tandem with the criminal human traffickers, communicating directly with them and helping “rescue” the smugglers’ human cargo off the coast of Italy. The agencies then let the Africans loose into Italy where they’re now taking over southern cities and turning them into crime hubs. Far from being poor, destitute refugees fleeing war-zones, these migrants cough up 1500 euros to get a seat on one of the traffickers’ boats. Other videos have shown migrants loitering around Europe wearing decent clothing and carrying expensive smartphones. They are not in desperate need of aid and assistance. Rather, they’re selfishly country-shopping throughout Europe looking to score the best welfare deal.

Watson cucks out in the video around the 7:30 mark, where he denounces racism, xenophobia and declares the anti-migrant activism of the growing identitarian movement “futile vigilantism.” He goes on to say the issue is not one of race but solely “culture.” This is the standard position of alt-light kosher conservatives. They can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the importance of two thorny issues that they know will bring heat down on them: race realism and the Jewish question.

True to form, Watson avoids both like the plague. He’s put out triggered attack videos on the alt-right alongside SuperCuck Mike Cernovich, wherein together they railed against the alt-right calling them right-wing social justice warriors. This is the Milo Yiannopoulos line. The self-styled “dangerous faggot” also wants to discredit white identitarianism and nationalism by comparing it with Black Lives Matter and other non-white identity groups pushing their ethnic agendas. Meanwhile, the hypocrite has ardently expressed good wishes and support for Israel, a Jewish ethno-state based on the identity politics of Zionism.

The modus operandi of Watson and the alt-light in general is to frame the discussion as an issue of “culture” and “Western values,” which supposedly anybody can adopt through assimilation. But that ignores a whole host of genetic and cultural factors that inhibit certain groups from integrating. And the issue is not merely culture or values, but the ethnic replacement of whites through mass immigration. The culture of the West cannot possibly be preserved if the genetics of the people who created the values and ideas underpinning that culture is severally altered or erased. Africans couldn’t re-create Europe or maintain its high standards – even if they were given a blueprint on how to do so – simply by sharing some cultural attributes with the indigenous whites of the continent, like a London accent or European manner of dress.

Paramount to the alt-light agenda is ignoring, downplaying and otherwise belittling discussions of Jewish power and its role in the Cultural Marxist mission. Loyal to their paymasters, alt-light gurus dutifully steer discussions away from the evidence of elite Jewish involvement in opening the floodgates of immigration in the West, a policy tailored to suit their own tribal interests as a “minority” trying to dominate a majority. Instead, the alt-light focalize attacks squarely on Islam and “the left.” The only Jew they’re willing to go after is George Soros, but they make sure to obscure his Jewish messianic motives and purposefully fail to connect him to the broader Jewish-Zionist establishment who back the same destructive policies contributing to our demise.

Whites Are the Global Minority

Commentary by Brandon Martinez

Lana Lokteff poses an interesting question in her latest video: why would anyone actually want to be a minority? You’ll often see minorities in the West complaining that they’re “not being treated fairly”; not being given “equal rights” or opportunities. Yet why then did they choose to leave their own country where they were most likely part of the majority? Why deliberately put themselves at a disadvantage as a minority?

The reason is that the living conditions in whatever country they came from was obviously so bad that being a minority in a Western country is better than being part of the majority there. Additionally, they know that minorities in the West are not treated badly, but are propped up on a pedestal by the liberal-leftist establishment. They’re handed all kinds of free stuff until they can “get on their feet” in our societies.

This minority whining game is a shaming tactic to guilt whites into relinquishing resources to support the “poor, helpless” minorities in their midst. Minorities are very good at this game. Shaming works like a charm on bleeding-heart liberals, leftists and cucks. But it doesn’t work on strong, nationalist men and women who see through the charade.

Lokteff makes the case that whites are by far a global minority. So while black, brown and Asian people may be “minorities” in Western countries, their races form the majority of the world. Numerous projections have affirmed that in a few short decades, whites could become minorities in our own countries. A recent study out of Canada forecasted that in less than two decades, 7 out of 10 residents of Vancouver will be visible minorities. Despite this drastic decline of white populations around the world, only white Western countries are being subjected to mass immigration. That’s because the globalist “diversity” agenda is precisely designed to make the West less white.

Leftists, in their utopian quest to empower the “underdog,” oddly do not extend any hand of support to the minority white populations in South Africa and Zimbabwe who have been ruthlessly discriminated against for decades. The black President of South Africa Jacob Zuma recently called for the expropriation of white-owned land without compensation. He wants to kick whites off land they’ve lived on for centuries and hand it to random blacks. Imagine if a European leader proposed something like that? They’d be endlessly assailed as the “reincarnation of Hitler.”

Loony leftists side with blacks even when those blacks are the majority because they claim whites once had the upper-hand during colonialism. So in order to right that wrong, it’s okay to commit another wrong: discrimination against whites. The crazy logic of the left has always been that whites cannot ever be victims in any sense, especially not victims of discrimination and state-sanctioned racism as we’re seeing in South Africa today. Therefore, the very impetus driving leftist politics today is a genocidal animus against whites. They want to tear down “white privilege” wherever they claim it exists. And in places where it discernibly doesn’t exist, they will invent it as a boogeyman to keep themselves relevant.

The leftist-minority coalition is growing more brazen in their attacks against whites. And it doesn’t look like they’ll stop any time soon the way things are going.

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

false-flag

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.

Barrett-Manchester

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.