Black Guns Matter: The Movement to Put Guns into Black Hands to INCREASE Public Safety

MAJ TOURE, FOUNDER OF BLACK GUNS MATTER.

Do you think that arming blacks in a place like Chicago would make it safer if those blacks were trained to use firearms in self defense?

The Sun

A PRO-GUN campaigner says the wave of deadly gun violence in cities like Chicago can be tackled with more guns and better firearms training.

Maj Toure is the founder of Black Guns Matter, an organisation that aims to educate urban populations about their Second Amendment rights.

He claims more guns are the answer to America’s gun crime epidemic and believes that years of prejudice have convinced urban populations to associate guns with crime rather than defending themselves, their communities and their rights.

Maj, who was raised in north Philadelphia, said: “Growing up, people always told me that firearms were bad, and that if you have a firearm you either have to be the bad guy or you are law enforcement.

“That’s a lie. It’s just not true. The problem is the lack of information and education about firearms and safety in urban areas.

“There is a deliberate attempt to keep that information away from these highly populated areas because it’s not about gun control, it’s about people control.”

However, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence claims stats suggest removing guns from cities works better, saying ‘guns make violent situations deadly’.

Maj, who formed Black Guns Matter in 2016, has been taking his message across the United States for the past year, visiting areas such as Atlanta, Baltimore and Detroit.

The 29-year-old has also visited Chicago, where there were 3,550 shooting incidents, 4,331 shooting victims and 762 murders in 2016.

Maj believes a greater understanding of laws and education around firearms in Chicago would bring more ‘respect for the tool’ and greater ‘trigger discipline’.

This along with better teaching of de-escalation tactics would help reduce gun violence.

Maj, who is not affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement, said: “Clearly, gun legislation is not working. They have an extreme amount of gun control law and they still cracked 700 homicides last year.

“So what we do is inform the people better [about guns and the Second Amendment] to cut down on that.

“Information is always better than just legislation.

“A lot of times people in urban areas don’t even associate the Second Amendment with the hood.

“They associate the Second Amendment with guys in the military or crazy white guys down South.

“My job is to make sure that everybody understands the Second Amendment is for every citizen of America. It’s not my job to advocate more firearms. It’s my job to inform people about firearms.

“When you make something a taboo and you ignore it and pretend like it isn’t an issue, then there is no education and no knowledge – and a lack of knowledge is always dangerous.”

According to the American Trends Panel more than twice the amount of white people own legal guns compared to black people.

And while 51 per cent of people in rural areas own a legal gun, just 25 per cent of people in cities own a gun.

Black people were also two-and-a-half times times more likely to be shot by law enforcement than white people in 2015, despite black people making up 13 per cent of the population.

On his trips, Maj meets with community leaders in some of the poorest areas to educate people on their rights to bear arms.

Depending on state laws, they learn what rights they have against the police, sign up to get legal firearms and concealed and carry licenses, and also learn how to shoot properly.

As a conservative and a libertarian I’m for everyone exercising his gun rights. As a race realist, I fear that putting guns into the hands of blacks would be no different than putting them in the hands of children. There’s a lack of self control in the darker race.

What say you? Here’s a black man with a gun:

Richard Spencer Allegedly Waking Up to the Jewish Menace

The source story in this post is one of those opinion pieces where a reporter infers someone is this or that, using the evidence at hand.

The best way to determine whether Richard Spencer is an “antisemite” is to ask him. Of course, any criticism of liberal Jews would be interpreted as antisemitism by leftist journalists like the author of this source article.

Read this excerpt or click on the link and read the whole article to decide for yourself if the alt-right leader is a a Jew-hater. I don’t think so. He’s just perhaps getting a little more outspoken about the damage that liberal Jews are doing to America.

Excerpt from IREHR.org

During a recent broadcast, longtime neo-Nazi and vicious anti-Semite, David Duke, lavished praise upon his guest, “Alt-Right” white nationalist poster-boy Richard Spencer. Duke told the audience of his eponymous program, “We can’t help but love the guy, and he’s really coming around to our opinion.”[1]

The “opinion” David Duke is so thrilled to see Spencer “coming around to” appears to be Spencer’s move towards fully embracing anti-Semitism as central to the white nationalist Alt-Right struggle.

Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute has increasingly given voice to anti-Semitism and allied his cause with hardcore anti-Semites. Spencer’s alliance with neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer has already produced plans for a January 15th armed march targeting Jews in Whitefish, Montana. And Spencer is currently defending anti-Semites in a spate of Alt-Right in-fighting.

Spencer’s growing embrace of anti-Semitism could add to tension between neo-Nazis and those white nationalists who preach a pan-white nationalism that includes (some) Jews.

Richard Spencer’s Pan-White Political Roots

Open anti-Semitism was not always Spencer’s political bent. As IREHR’s Devin Burghart describes in detail, Spencer’s political chops developed in conservatism generally, and paleo-conservatism, particularly. After serving as assistant editor for Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative, and later as executive editor at the allied Taki’s Magazine, in 2009 Spencer began his fixation on “contemporary white consciousness.”

Even as he started AlternativeRight.com – which would popularize “Alt-Right” as an umbrella term for a coterie of white nationalists, anti-Muslim bigots, anti-Semites and misogynists – Spencer honed a racism that downplayed anti-Semitism in favor of pan-white nationalism. Such were the politics of Spencer’s paleo-conservative mentors, Sam Francis and Paul Gottfried, as well as Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance (AR), where Spencer became a favorite conference speaker.

The story goes on to note Jared Taylor’s pro-Jewish position and Andrew Anglin’s contrasting “Nazi” style exposure of Jewish mischief.

I’ll end this post with a quote from Richard Spencer which is contained in the story. I fail to see how this bit of honesty could be interpreted as antisemitic.

“I’m not saying that we need them…I’m definitely not saying that European civilization wouldn’t exist without the Jews… But I am saying what you’re saying, which is it’s like, we can’t underestimate their power and the degree to which they really have embedded themselves in our civilization and our psyche. Like it is a powerful thing, we’re not dealing with Mexicans, we’re not dealing with a Chinese civilization…The Jews, it’s a much more painful relationship… It’s a very tragic thing.”

Painful and tragic indeed. Our ancestors should have allowed only white Christians into the United States. We are paying the price for the error of their ways.

Richard Spencer’s Jewish Mentor Paul Gottfried–Godfather of the Alt-Right

PAT BUCHANAN, PAUL GOTTFRIED, AND RICHARD SPENCER.

The full history of Paul Gottfried, conservatism, and the alt-right offered at the link below is significantly longer than the excerpt presented here. It’s well worth the read if you care to understand where Richard Spencer came from and how the alt-right evolved.

This excerpt has 1250 words, which is about twice as long as most posts.

Excerpt from (Jewish) Tablet Magazine

Gottfried doesn’t resolve the alt-right’s contradictions so much as he embodies them. He’s a sniffy traditionalist, a self-described “Robert Taft Republican,” with a classical liberal bent, and a Nietzschean American nationalist who goes out of his way to exaggerate his European affect. He opposes both the Civil Rights Act and white nationalism. He’s a bone-deep elitist and the oracle of what’s billed as a populist revolt. “If someone were to ask me what distinguishes the right from the left,” Gottfried wrote in 2008, “the difference that comes to mind most readily centers on equality. The left favors that principle, while the right regards it as an unhealthy obsession.”

Inequality is the alt-right’s foundational belief. In this view, there are inherent, irreducible differences not only between individuals but between groups of people—races, genders, religions, nations; all of the above. These groups each have their own distinctive characteristics and competitive advantages; accordingly, inequality is natural and good, while equality is unnatural and therefore bad and can only be imposed by force. In practice, it is typically a belief in white supremacy and a rejection of universalism.

To the ancient idea that the world is ordered by natural hierarchies the alt-right adds new wrinkles. It shows a nerdish enthusiasm for data-driven attempts to classify group cognitive abilities, an update on the social Darwinist “race science” popular before WWII that often resolves into a genes-are-destiny outlook. It also embraces concepts from the controversial field of evolutionary psychology, which attempts to explain the behavior of groups in terms of Darwinian natural selection. Because equality is both impossible and a kind of civic religion as Gottfried sees it, government attempts to enforce it are only pretexts for the state to increase its power and reach.

Continue reading

France’s Hollande Threatens to “Suspend” EU Members Who Seek to Block the Muslim Invasion of Europe

THE SOLDIERS OF ODIN.
soldiers of odin

Globalists don’t like what is happening in Poland and Hungary, where nationalist governments have taken power. In response, up steps French president Hollande to make a rather empty threat.

Excerpt from Zerohedge

“French President Francois Hollande warned Friday that an EU member state could be sanctioned if the extreme-right came to power there — and could even be suspended from the bloc,” AFP reports.

“A country can be suspended from the European Union,” the President told France Inter radio.

“Human rights watchdog the Council of Europe last week expressed concern at legislative changes proposed by Poland’s new right-wing government that have been described both at home and abroad as unconstitutional and undemocratic,” AFP goes on to say, adding that “similar concerns have been expressed about Hungary’s right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orban.”

“When the freedom of the media is in danger, when constitutions and human rights are under attack, Europe must not just be a safety net. It must put in place procedures to suspend (countries) — it can go that far,” Hollande said.

“Checks,” he said, are necessary on Poland.

There are a couple of things to note here. First, it’s not at all clear why it should be up to France how another country’s citizens vote. Indeed, there’s something terribly ironic about the idea of punishing a country for their voting preferences in the name of democracy. There’s certainly nothing democratic about telling entire countries who they’re allowed to elect.

Second, Hollande’s comments seem to reflect fears that the worsening refugee crisis has led to a revival of nationalism in Europe. Between the growing support for PEGIDA, which staged bloc-wide rallies earlier this month)…

…and the popularity of groups like the “Soldiers of Odin” in Finland…

…it’s clear that the far-right is indeed staging a comeback. One wonders how many nations Hollande and Brussels are prepared to “suspend.”

Hollande is a New World Order shill who may very well face justice at the end of a rope if a “right wing” revolution takes place in Europe. His threats indicate he and his Zio masters are running scared.

A giant is awakening. Hopefully, in time.

Trump to Make Major Announcement Today: Internet Expects Sarah Palin Endorsement

WILL SHE OR WON’T SHE ENDORSE TRUMP?
Sarah Palin

Trump has told the world on Twitter there’ll be an announcement on Tuesday (today) and that it’ll be a lot of fun. Everyone is expecting that Sarah Palin is going to be there to say that she wants to Make America Great Again. Let’s wait and see.

Admittedly it’s all theater. As the saying goes, if voting really mattered it would be illegal. Nonetheless, it’s fun to watch Trump tweak the nose of the establishment over and over. If Palin endorses Trump, watch the liberal press blow a fuse. More fun!

Excerpt from Hot Air


She and Trump have been allies for years. No other pols have excited right-wing populists during the Obama era the way each of them has. When asked by CNN in November who the “standout” candidate in the race was, Palin mentioned Trump, not Cruz, which surprised me at the time. And Palin recently praised Marion Maréchal-Le Pen’s movement in France, signaling her openness to Trump-style nationalism. It would make sense if she went all-in for him.

It would make sense, I should say, if there were no “true conservative” candidate running for president. But there is. The irony of Palin endorsing Trump this year of all years, if it happens, is that the tea party finally has a candidate running who not only passes nearly every litmus test they can throw at him but who’s run a brilliant campaign and stands a shockingly good chance of winning. That’s Cruz, a guy whom Palin herself has praised repeatedly in the past.

Support from Palin would give Trump some cover on the inevitable attacks from Cruz that he’s an establishmentarian in populist clothing. That’s Trump’s biggest vulnerability; any cover he can get for it from another populist with a national profile will help him. The larger meaning of Palin endorsing Trump, though, would be the signal it sends that populist conservatism is now less about conservatism than it is about populism. If you have enough of the latter, you don’t need to worry much about the former. It would be a bookend to the tea-party era, which started with Palin and Glenn Beck yelling at Obama about progressive tyranny and would end with Beck yelling at Palin and Trump about progressive tyranny. That’s what makes Trump versus Cruz such good theater if you’ve followed the tea party during Obama’s presidency. Essentially it’s a test of whether tea-party revolutionaries want a counterrevolution, a return to the strongman after a period of chaos, or to stick with the guy who better represents their ideals in Cruz.

My prediction is that it’s not her. She’ll stay neutral between Trump and Cruz and Trump’s “major announcement” tomorrow will involve some local pol. Even if I’m right, though, the revolution/counterrevolution question persists.

The Daily Caller also has the story covered, although it’s missing any speculation.

A Short Primer on Traditionalism

putin-praying-AP

I describe myself as a traditionalist. So does Andrew Anglin at the Daily Stormer.

Russian thinker Alexander Dugin describes Vladimir Putin as a traditionalist.

What does traditionalism mean? The excerpt from a longer article below explains traditionalist beliefs. In Russia, or so Dugin argues, Putin is leading a conservative revolution. In contrast, Americans have twice elected soulless progressive Barack Obama, a symbol of our having lost our way.

About 1,000 words follow:

Continue reading

Chaos and noise cover the fraud and crime of the paper money system

money101014-800x500

Personal Liberty

Every person in the U.S. and in the world is now face-to-face with impoverishment at the hands of the paper money creators.

All paper currencies throughout history have become worthless. They are created to eventually become worthless. The only periods in history when paper money is stable for any length of time is when it is backed by gold at a set exchange rate. U.S. currency was completely and finally removed from the gold standard by President Nixon, who created the “Nixon shock” by ending the Bretton Woods agreement in August 1971.

Banksters, governments and politicians love paper money simply because it is a means of aggrandizement, wealth and power at the expense of the people. The people produce and save. The banksters, the government and the politicians steal the peoples’ savings and production with paper money. Every new dollar the banksters create is a dollar stolen from you.

You know that the government creates money through the Federal Reserve by printing money. And I described to you last week how the banks create money out of thin air in my column “How banks and the government rob you blind.”

This deception has gone on for years, and the people are unaware. Why and how can this deception work to the destruction of millions and billions of people for so long? The answer:

We are born into the system. Most people never question the system that they are born into.
The destruction of paper money is gradual. Anything can be accomplished over time. Only a very few people become alert to what is happening.
Noise: What is noise? Noise is constant bombardment by the system on the human psyche. Anything that keeps the mind from focusing is a form of noise. There are many distractions like war, pandemics, terrorism, political noise, weather, political scandals, etc.
For example, the current Ebola “crisis” is noise and a scam. Ebola cases are currently confined to a specific area of Africa — an area that has experienced decades of war and the detonation of chemical and possibly small-scale nuclear munitions and that has inadequate infrastructure, unsanitary conditions and little food. It is also the location of manufacturing facilities that are leaching toxins into the air, ground and water.

Malnourished, immunity-compromised people constant exposed to toxins are subject to a host of ailments that mimic the symptoms attributed to Ebola. The test that is used to diagnose Ebola is not even a reliable test. Who says? The Department of Defense said so in a manual titled “Joint Project Manager Medical Countermeasures Systems,” produced Aug. 14:

[The PCR test] should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Results [of the PCR] are for the presumptive identification of the Ebola Zaire virus (detected in the West Africa outbreak in 2014).

In other words, the PCR test may detect Ebola and it may not.

Continue reading