Yes We Khan….Send Them Back

The rancid media libocrisy on display in their latest manufactured hysteria over Trump’s comments to some pedofaced Paki whose son was killed in the Iraq War that Hillary Clinton approved, and subsequently flaunted at the DNC degenerate freak parade to score anti-White political points, is so over the top that I find it hard to believe normal Americans will put up with this clown world for much longer.

This is the media scum we are dealing with:

Trump should not back off from this fight, even if the entire corrupt establishment — Dems, GOPe, media, billionaire oligarchs — is arrayed against him. He has a more powerful weapon:

WOKE WHITES.

A Muslim migrant who lost a son in a stupid American war based on lies is a poor premise upon which to base a nation’s border policy. This toolbag Khizr Khan (or so he innocently postures; he could very well know exactly what he’s doing) has so many sharia-friendly skeletons in his closet that he’s starting to get nervous about all the publicity he, or the DNC, unleashed upon himself. Khan is an immigration attorney who specializes in getting more Muslims into the US; he has ties with the Saudi government; is alleged to be a Muslim Brotherhood agent; and has connections to the slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation. The latest news about him is that his law firm’s web site was recently deleted. THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HARAM….

Various shiv-righters on the Twatter and at MPC also gleefully pointed out the ¡SCIENCE-Y! numbers don’t support the Khan Is Who We Are Now Narrative: more American soldiers have been killed by Muslim-American soldiers than Muslim-American soldiers have been killed in action fighting for the US.

Unfortunately the link is dead, but assuming this is still around at MPC, it says it all about the Side of History we are being stuffed into, come hell or sharia law:

Via:

It’s amazing how coordinated the hottake on the DNC has been.

The new rally point is Mr. Kahn, the father of the Muzzie soldier KIA who held up a (pristine) pocket Constitution and challenged Trump to read it and discover the inviolable Zeroth Amendment (Sailer’s phrase) which guarantees limitless immigration to the U.S. for shitskins. Apparently according to the DNC, Mr. Kahn’s son was one of 14 killed on the American side in the GWOT. (Last night in chat I posted that this represents a 0.3% KIA rate for American Muslims compared to the total).

If I had the time to research it, we could probably come up with 1) the number of American Mohammedans killed fighting against the U.S. and/or for terrorist entities which likely exceeds 14; and, 2) the number of Muslim U.S. servicemen who turned on the U.S. while in uniform (Nidal Hassan, Hasan Akbar, etc.) which is not insignificant, and whose body count in the aggregate likely exceeds 14. It’s probably a significant net negative in either event and blows the proposition that Mr. Kahn was trying to establish out of the water.

LET THEM IN BIGOTS! ALMOST HALF OF THE SOLDIERS FIGHT FOR THE USA INSTEAD OF AGAINST IT!

***

Maximus, great observation!  I’ve been tweeting this hatefact at the usual suspects all afternoon.

The stats are:  Nidal killed 13 and Akbar killed 2, for 15 American soldiers killed by Muslim-American soldiers. There’s been at least one terrorist plot  planned by a Muslim-American soldier (Hasan Edmonds) thwarted. If you were willing to hammer it home, you could add the Beltway Sniper.

The number of Muslim-American service men killed in combat is supposedly 14, a number that was reported out of the House Homeland Security Committee by Chairman Peter King in 2011.

I actually have some doubts about the 14 number, but whatever.  The point is still valid….. More American soldiers (15) have been killed by Muslim-American soldiers, than Muslim-American soldiers have been killed in combat (14).

It’s great sadistic fun to rub shitlib faces in the FACTS, BIGOT! they purport to sacralize, but the essential nature of this war is a simpler proposition: No nation has a moral obligation to allow untold numbers of migrant foreigners on its soil. This goes double for immigrants who by genetic inheritance and habit are incompatible with American culture, and unlikely to ever become compatible. This is the tooth and nail of it: Neither the Constitution nor historically shared common sense sanctions that an endless infernal flow of alien peoples must necessarily remain unabated if America is to “live up to her principles”. The truth that even shitlibs acknowledge to themselves when alone in bed as a cold shiver sends them to sleep is that a limitless invasion of migrants will not only change America, it will change America’s principles. Forever.

The stakes could not be higher.

#MAGA
#Trump2016

The Great Men On Americanism

H. P. Lovecraft (the same early 20th Century fright-fi writer whom modern day SJW wikinerds are trying to obliterate from the historical record) wrote a treatise on what it really means to be an American, and it’s chock full of so much shitlordery source-pool realtalk it could double as Trump’s first martial law decree. H/t:

It is easy to sentimentalise on the subject of “the American spirit”—what it is, may be, or should be. Exponents of various novel political and social theories are particularly given to this practice, nearly always concluding that “true Americanism” is nothing more or less than a national application of their respective individual doctrines.

Slightly less superficial observers hit upon the abstract principle of “Liberty” as the keynote of Americanism, interpreting this justly esteemed principle as anything from Bolshevism to the right to drink 2.75 per cent. beer. “Opportunity” is another favourite byword, and one which is certainly not without real significance. The synonymousness of “America” and “opportunity” has been inculcated into many a young head of the present generation by Emerson via Montgomery’s “Leading Facts of American History.” But it is worthy of note that nearly all would-be definers of “Americanism” fail through their prejudiced unwillingness to trace the quality to its European source. They cannot bring themselves to see that abiogenesis is as rare in the realm of ideas as it is in the kingdom of organic life; and consequently waste their efforts in trying to treat America as if it were an isolated phenomenon without ancestry.

“Americanism” is expanded Anglo-Saxonism. It is the spirit of England, transplanted to a soil of vast extent and diversity, and nourished for a time under pioneer conditions calculated to increase its democratic aspects without impairing its fundamental virtues. It is the spirit of truth, honour, justice, morality, moderation, individualism, conservative liberty, magnanimity, toleration, enterprise, industriousness, and progress—which is England—plus the element of equality and opportunity caused by pioneer settlement. It is the expression of the world’s highest race under the most favourable social, political, and geographical conditions. Those who endeavour to belittle the importance of our British ancestry, are invited to consider the other nations of this continent. All these are equally “American” in every particular, differing only in race-stock and heritage; yet of them all, none save British Canada will even bear comparison with us. We are great because we are a part of the great Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere; a section detached only after a century and a half of heavy colonisation and English rule, which gave to our land the ineradicable stamp of British civilisation.

Most dangerous and fallacious of the several misconceptions of Americanism is that of the so-called “melting-pot” of races and traditions. It is true that this country has received a vast influx of non-English immigrants who come hither to enjoy without hardship the liberties which our British ancestors carved out in toil and bloodshed. It is also true that such of them as belong to the Teutonic and Celtic races are capable of assimilation to our English type and of becoming valuable acquisitions to the population. But, from this it does not follow that a mixture of really alien blood or ideas has accomplished or can accomplish anything but harm. Observation of Europe shows us the relative status and capability of the several races, and we see that the melting together of English gold and alien brass is not very likely to produce any alloy superior or even equal to the original gold. Immigration cannot, perhaps, be cut off altogether, but it should be understood that aliens who choose America as their residence must accept the prevailing language and culture as their own; and neither try to modify our institutions, nor to keep alive their own in our midst. We must not, as the greatest man of our age declared, suffer this nation to become a “polyglot boarding house.”

The greatest foe to rational Americanism is that dislike for our parent nation which holds sway amongst the ignorant and bigoted, and which is kept alive largely by certain elements of the population who seem to consider the sentiments of Southern and Western Ireland more important than those of the United States. In spite of the plain fact that a separate Ireland would weaken civilisation and menace the world’s peace by introducing a hostile and undependable wedge betwixt the two major parts of Saxondom, these irresponsible elements continue to encourage rebellion in the Green Isle; and in so doing tend to place this nation in a distressingly anomalous position as an abettor of crime and sedition against the Mother Land. Disgusting beyond words are the public honours paid to political criminals like Edward, alias Eamonn, de Valera, whose very presence at large among us is an affront to our dignity and heritage. Never may we appreciate or even fully comprehend our own place and mission in the world, till we can banish those clouds of misunderstanding which float between us and the source of our culture.

But the features of Americanism peculiar to this continent must not be belittled. In the abolition of fixed and rigid class lines a distinct sociological advance is made, permitting a steady and progressive recruiting of the upper levels from the fresh and vigorous body of the people beneath. Thus opportunities of the choicest sort await every citizen alike, whilst the biological quality of the cultivated classes is improved by the cessation of that narrow inbreeding which characterises European aristocracy.

Total separation of civil and religious affairs, the greatest political and intellectual advance since the Renaissance, is also a local American—and more particularly a Rhode Island—triumph. Agencies are today subtly at work to undermine this principle, and to impose upon us through devious political influences the Papal chains which Henry VIII first struck from our limbs; chains unfelt since the bloody reign of Mary, and infinitely worse than the ecclesiastical machinery which Roger Williams rejected. But when the vital relation of intellectual freedom to genuine Americanism shall be fully impressed upon the people, it is likely that such sinister undercurrents will subside.

The main struggle which awaits Americanism is not with reaction, but with radicalism. Our age is one of restless and unintelligent iconoclasm, and abounds with shrewd sophists who use the name “Americanism” to cover attacks on that institution itself. Such familiar terms and phrases as “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom of speech” are being distorted to cover the wildest forms of anarchy, whilst our old representative institutions are being attacked as “un-American” by foreign immigrants who are incapable both of understanding them or of devising anything better.

This country would benefit from a wider practice of sound Americanism, with its accompanying recognition of an Anglo-Saxon source. Americanism implies freedom, progress, and independence; but it does not imply a rejection of the past, nor a renunciation of traditions and experience. Let us view the term in its real, practical, and unsentimental meaning.

-from the United Amateur, July 1919

Executive Summary: Diversity + Proximity = War. Also, Cognitive Stratification + Noblesse Malice = Anti-Americanism.

America: A gift in the process of being squandered and sacrificed by the ingratitude of her soft, effeminate, decadent, virtue signaling inheritors. What would Lovecraft have thought of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act and the resulting third world bazaar America has since inevitably become? He’d probably say, “holy fucking hell, and I thought the micks were bad news”.

Programming note: Joyce Carol Oates greatly admired Lovecraft. I wonder if she knows about his unauthorized thoughtcrimes?

***

PS As TOG put it in one of his classic rants, “White people need to realize its not the Ice Age anymore and we are now dealing with the threat of diversity”.

Three Rules To Navigate The Post-America Sexual Market

Scanman posits three rules of dating in post-America:

A few gems of sage advice that I will pass on to my sons —

1. If a woman has ever been photographed wearing a crown or tiara on her birthday, she is likely a shit human being.

2. Ditto for any woman who has referred to herself or her friends as a goddess.

3. Women who claim to “love helping people” are invariably manipulative, untrustworthy and usually treat their own family like shit.

I find nothing objectionable in this crib sheet. If you just want a simple guide to girls that requires the least bit of pattern recognizing effort, steering clear of tiara girls, “goddesses”, and avowedly altruistic women is as good as any dating guide you’ll find in laddies mags.

The beauty of Scanman’s rules for red pillers is that following them effectively screens out the worst of the post-America girls: the pathological narcissists and ¡lookatme! attention whores. It also screens out a lot of fatties, because I can’t help but notice a calorically-dense number of broads who wear tiaras and refer to themselves as goddesses are fat fucks.

The last rule might invite skepticism — after all, women as a sex are more empathetic than men and can thus be expected to have stronger urges to “help people” — but understand that there’s a crucial distinction between the typical sappy woman and the virtue signaling SJW urbanette who makes a big show of her altruism. Aggressively empathetic women can be as dangerous as aggressively cold-hearted men. More dangerous, actually, as ruthless men aren’t likely to flood their nations with millions of incompatible mud worlders just for the self-righteousness high.

***

Commenter chris adds labcoat context to the third rule.

“3. Women who claim to “love helping people” are invariably manipulative, untrustworthy and usually treat their own family like shit.”

There is a scientific explanation for this.

Basically, doing things that are regarded as ‘moral’ makes people feel like they have built up a ‘moral credit’ that they can draw on in the future to offset any immoral behaviour or ‘moral debits’ they engage in.

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/PSYCH_2015072217203971.pdf

Nazis by Kraut: A Playful Application of Moral Self-Licensing

Abstract:
Doing something moral gives one a license to do something immoral. This form of moral compensation is called “moral self-licensing”. Interestingly, the moral behavior can take place in another domain than the subsequent immoral behavior. For example, buying eco-friendly products gives one a license to steal. This article is based on the idea that a healthy diet has a moral dimension. As a consequence, consuming a healthy product should give one a license for immoral behavior. This research supports this hypothesis on a playful study. This study shows that drinking sauerkraut juice contributes to a stronger support of Nazi-esque right wing ideology than drinking either nothing or a less-healthy beverage (Nestea).

Avowedly, assertively altruistic women (or women who claim the altruism mantle) are probably sluts with a well-fed rationalization hamster ready to justify their future infidelities.

Memory Loss Game

I remember reading a long time ago a story in a local magazine about a young man who had been in a bad car accident and sustained bouts of memory loss from it. I wish I could find a link or a publishing date/name, because the article was astounding confirmation, in a roundabout way, of the effectiveness of Game. (An association I hadn’t made at the time reading it, but upon recalling the article realized it was there.)

Buried in the middle of a winding bio about the car-struck man was a funny aside he admitted regarding his post-accident dating life. Paraphrasing, he said that he was dating more girls than before his accident, and it surprised him because he kept forgetting their names, faces, and the circumstances in which they met. He said a girl would call or text him (this was long enough ago that calling was still a thing) and he would have to ask her name and how they hit it off. If he initiated the follow-up call or text, he’d scan his phone for newly added numbers (which sometimes had the girl’s accompanying name entered as “BAR X GIRL”), and have to ask the girl to remind him where, when and how they met.

Hilariously, he said that this ordeal became so taxing that occasionally he’d just come right out and say “I have you as BAR X GIRL in my phone. I have memory loss from an accident, could you tell me if you were the girl I met at BAR X?”

His eureka moment came when, after months stumbling through his strange new memory-less dating landscape, he realized his inability to remember girls’ names or important facts about them had no effect on his love life. If anything, he said his dance card was more full than ever. He said girls would be offended at first by what they thought was his lack of consideration for their worth, but wind up making out with him at the end of the night anyway. Crucially, he mentioned he rarely told girls about his accident because he didn’t want his dates turning into sexless sympathy hugs. He’d just say he forgot this or that about the girls, and carry on as if nothing was amiss between them.

The lesson is an ancient one: chicks dig men who act like they have a surfeit of snapper options. And one way to signal your desirability to many women is to sometimes forget their names and favorite colors.

Why ‘All Lives Matter’ Rubs President Gay Mulatto The Wrong Way

The ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement provoked a whitelash from a few put-upon White shitlords-in-training, who answered with the more universalist (and cheeky) ‘All Lives Matter’ riposte. After all, who can argue against all lives?

Well, blacks can. ‘All Lives Matter’ really bugs blacks and virtue ejaculating fagwhites. I don’t recall exactly from whom I heard this, (I think it came from president Gay Mulatto xirself, but it easily could have been any random dindu), that the reason ‘All Lives Matter’ is, despite the innocuous message of the slogan, a slap in the face to Our Unsullied Underserved is because it belittles the “special vulnerability” that blacks experience in their violent, crime-ridden communities and to the police that are tasked with the thankless (and life-threatening) job to keep order there.

Apparently, to our aggrieved half-blood president and sun-dried blacktivists, only blacks have a special vulnerability to black violence and to police abuse of power. But the reality is, as usual, 180 degrees removed from the Numinous Negro Narrative; if anything, Whites have a special vulnerability to predatory, violence-prone blacks. Even after controlling for relative population sizes and frequency of inter-race contact, black-on-white crime is disproportionately more common than the inverse. And police shootings disproportionately involve White suspects. Those are two big media-manufactured anti-White whoppers debunked by stone cold data.

What is going on here is pure psychological projection. Blacks and their perpetually pissed mulatto mouthpieces and libfag White patrons know deep down that EVERYONE ELSE is especially vulnerable to black predation; it’s not just blacks who can’t relax around other blacks….. no one can. So when a black hears ‘All Lives Matter’ he is reminded that once again Whitey is not giving him the MUH RESPECK he feels in the haze of his tumescent self-esteem he richly deserves. Blacks, especially the talented tenth ones, get that their race is a stand-out menace, and that’s what motivates projecting their failures onto the White Man, who serves as the shame-magnet for black dysfunction. To be rudely informed by the implications in a harmless and inclusive platitude that black lives are not uniquely vulnerable to police misconduct or violent crime is a Bled Pill too ferric to swallow for a race so thin-skinned they kill if you dawdle while handing over your wallet.

A Test Of Your Game: A Twitch In Time…

You’re on a first date with a girl. During the date, she conspicuously scratches and rubs her nose. Red-faced, she explains that when she’s nervous her nose twitches and itches uncontrollably. You reply:

A. Warm smile: “Aw, don’t worry about it. My nose itches like that when I’m nervous, too.”

B. Sly smirk: “I see that charm school tuition really paid off.”

C. Frown: “Damn, gross.”

.

.

.

.

.

The astute reader will note the given replies are representative of the major dating male archetypes: the beta, the charming jerkboy, the asshole. Two of those three you don’t want to be (and one you definitely never want to be). The lesson here is that newbs often confuse jerkboy charisma and assholery as the same thing, when they are very different, in execution if not in substance.

Which Group Hates Trump The Most?

Days of Broken Arrows writes,

I’ve noticed that no one — and I mean no one — despises Trump quite like barren older women. As with Sarah Palin, they seethe with envy because fertility. The biggest anti-Trumpers I know are dried up old tarts.

I think this is right. Basically, Trump’s biggest haters are TheCunt’s biggest supporters. Which is fitting. This epic cage match is, when you boil it down, a war between White self-annihilators and proudly fertile Whites (using fertile in both the biological and cultural meanings). Existential, you might call it.