Moment of Unity in a Disintegrating World

America’s “moment of unity” caused by the Las Vegas Massacre lasted 20 minutes. Do I have that about right?

CNN, celebretards, libtards, politicians on the left, NFL players and God knows who else began blaming Trump, Deplorables, conservatives, the NRA, and white people in general for the massacre almost immediately. Likewise, most on the right began blaming leftards for the mass killing of conservative country music fans.

Pat Buchanan ponders the question of what will hold America together when the divisions, hatreds, and envy run so deep.

Secession is in America’s future. White people with a traditional frame of mind must begin to prepare to create a future white homeland. Constitutional conventions working out how to prevent the many disasters that the current Constitution has allowed must be formed and draft Constitutions be written. Then there’s the matter of planning a military strategy to fight, if it comes to that.

Pat Buchanan

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“An act of pure evil,” said President Trump of the atrocity in Las Vegas, invoking our ancient faith: “Scripture teaches us the Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.”

“Our unity cannot be shattered by evil. Our bonds cannot be broken by violence,” Trump went on in his most presidential moment, “and though we feel such great anger at the senseless murder of our fellow citizens, it is love that defines us today and always will. Forever.”

Uplifting words. But are they true?

Or will this massacre be like the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut, or Charleston massacre of black churchgoers by Dylan Roof — uniting us briefly in “sadness, shock and grief” only to divide us again and, more deeply, in our endless war over guns.

Continue reading

Florida Viral “Hot Cop” Hero of Hurricane Irma Under Investigation for Anti-Semitism


The persecution of the white male has reached Satanic dimensions. Officer Michael Hamill is just the latest victim of the moral panic witch hunt that sees social justice warriors virtue signaling by destroying the hated white man.

Excerpt from

A police officer who went viral in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma because of his good looks is alleged to have written anti-Semitic posts on Facebook.

Michael Hamill is under investigation after it emerged that he wrote that ‘stupid people’ should be dealt with ‘the Hitler way’ and put in an oven.

Screenshots captured by local newspaper the Gainesville Sun reveal that he wrote the comments in April 2013 with one person responding that his views were ‘messed up.’

He joined the police force three years later in April 2016.

Hamill wrote: ‘Who knew that reading jewish jokes before I go to bed would not only make me feel better about myself but also help me to sleep better as well.

‘Here is one for everybody, “What’s the difference between boy scouts and jews?” Anybody know? Well it is because “Boy scouts come back from their camps”.’

In another post he wrote: ‘so i find it funny that people will talk about how our government needs to do something about our economy and in reality its YOU who needs to stop taking advantage of our system and get a life and do something with your life.

‘Gotta love reality when it hits you in the face. Stupid people annoy me. put them in an oven and deal with them the hitler way. haha’.

His account is no longer on Facebook and the police department tweeted to say an investigation had been started.

Gainesville PD wrote: ‘Several citizens have brought information to our attention regarding a complaint against Officer Hamill.

‘GPD is reviewing the allegation and will do so in accordance to Florida law and department policy. Under Florida Law, complaint information is confidential until an investigation is concluded, and we will not be offering any further statement until that time.

‘The Gainesville Police Department prides itself with our philosophy and mission of compassion, inclusion, and respect and will fully review the matter.’

Earlier this week the picture of him went viral after they were posted on the GPD’s Facebook page with people writing things like:

‘This pic is exactly why your grandmother always told you to wear clean underwear in case you’re in an accident.’, ‘These guys really change the meaning of the song F*ck the Police…’, and ‘as if Florida wasn’t already wet enough’.

He was pictured next to fellow officers Nordman and Rengering as they went about their business to help out during Hurricane Irma.

Wonderfully inappropriate comments such as ‘I never seen breakfast lunch and dinner in the same pic before’ and ‘I wonder if they need help discharging their firearms?’ rolled in.

Setting aside the stupidity of the gays and women who became sexually aroused at the sight of Hamill and his fellow officers, the argument that will be used against him in a hearing is that Jews won’t report a crime knowing that the department approves of antisemites. Therefore, Hamill must resign or be fired.

That argument is nonsense. If Hamill had a record of beating up poor helpless Jews for no reason, then there might be some validity to the argument. But all he did was crack a few mild jokes that mentioned Jews.

Since Florida is infested with Yankee retired Jews, Hamill is in trouble. Here’s wishing him good luck.

Betsy De Vos Vows to End Obama’s “Kangaroo Courts” in Campus Rape Cases


At my former university, the President, Ricardo Romo, sent word via our woman department head, that every accusation of a sexual nature would be viewed as true. There would be no appeal for a professor or student if he was accused. I’m living proof that POS Romo told the truth. Every accusation leveled at every white male faculty member resulted in the professor being punished, sometimes severely.

Karmic justice must have been at play because Romo resigned earlier this year after three WHITE women accused him of sexual assault. He blamed the women, claiming that white women just don’t understand Mexican men.

If Betsy de Vos prevails, males falsely accused of sexual assault will at least have a chance to prove their innocence. Likewise, female students will have a fair procedure for obtaining justice.

New York Times

ARLINGTON, Va. — Saying that the Obama administration’s approach to policing campus sexual assault had “failed too many students,” Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said on Thursday that her administration would rewrite the rules in an effort to protect both the victims of sexual assault and the accused.

Ms. DeVos did not say what changes she had in mind. But in a strongly worded speech, she made clear she believed that in an effort to protect victims, the previous administration had gone too far and forced colleges to adopt procedures that sometimes deprived accused students of their rights.

The accused are generally male students who have been found guilty by universities even when the accuser is a loon, like Emma Sulkowicz.

“Through intimidation and coercion, the failed system has clearly pushed schools to overreach,” she said in an address at George Mason University in suburban Arlington, Va. “With the heavy hand of Washington tipping the balance of her scale, the sad reality is that Lady Justice is not blind on campuses today.”

Advocates for assault victims reacted strongly and swiftly, as did Arne Duncan, who was education secretary during most of the Obama administration.

“This administration wants to take us back to the days when colleges swept sexual assault under the rug,” Mr. Duncan said in a statement. “Instead of building on important work to pursue justice, they are once again choosing politics over students, and students will pay the price.”

It was Obama who always chose politics over the rule of law and fairness. Obama’s rules demonized primarily white males by setting up a system that said, “If she accuses, you’re automatically guilty.”

But Ms. DeVos’s remarks, delivered to a student chapter of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers, echoed complaints by conservatives and lawyers for accused students that colleges were punishing students unfairly.

Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy for the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, noted that courts have reversed some punishments handed down by campus administrators.

“I think DeVos laid out a sensible, responsible approach to crafting a more measured policy that can better secure the rights of all involved,” he said.

In recent years, campuses across the country have been roiled by high-profile sexual assault cases. A scandal involving the Baylor University football team ultimately led to the removal of the school’s president, Kenneth W. Starr, the former independent counsel whose work led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

A 2015 survey of students at 27 schools, commissioned by the Association of American Universities, found that nearly one in four women had complained of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. Advocates for victims seized on the study, but as with similar reports, it was criticized by some for overstating the problem, and even its authors acknowledged that it had limitations.

One in four? If a male and female student get drunk and have sex, is that always rape if she later regrets her unwise decision? That’s where the one in four number partly comes from.

Though Ms. DeVos said she believed that accused students were often mistreated, she also said that victims were being ill-served by a quasi-judicial process that lacked the sophistication required for such sensitive matters.

Ms. DeVos repeatedly used the term “survivors,” a term often preferred by victims when speaking of sexual assault. And she also vowed that colleges would not return to the days when sexual assault complaints were ignored.

“One rape is one too many,” she said. “One assault is one too many. One aggressive act of harassment is one too many.”

But her remarks focused more heavily on the young men who, she said, were denied due process in campus proceedings, sometimes attempting suicide.

She referred to campus sexual misconduct hearings as “kangaroo courts” that forced administrators to act as “judge and jury.” Referring to scores of lawsuits filed by punished students, she said: “Survivors aren’t well served when they are re-traumatized with appeal after appeal because the failed system failed the accused. And no student should be forced to sue their way to due process.”

Any move would be aimed at revising or rescinding a 2011 guidance letter from the Education Department to college officials across the country. The letter required a tougher response to campus sexual-assault accusations under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, and it warned the colleges that federal funding would be at risk if they did not comply.

Most controversially, it asked schools to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard in evaluating accusations, a lower bar than many schools had previously used. In essence, schools would hold accused students responsible if more than 50 percent of the evidence pointed to their guilt. Previously, many universities had required “clear and convincing” evidence to substantiate an accusation, meaning that the claim is highly probable.

If Donald Trump himself were in charge of this mission to restore fairness and the rule of law, the firestorm of “p***y grab” accusations would be deafening. Betsy De Vos may be able to pull this off because she’s a woman.

Full speech. 30 minutes:

Berkeley Proposes Allowing Women to go Topless in Public

Attention whores have always found the San Francisco area to be appealing. “San Francisco values” even has its own Wikipedia page. In the 60s the area was hippie heaven. Today, the old freaks are dying out to be replaced by a new generation of freaks. The whole area seems to enveloped in narcissism, with everyone screaming, “Look at me.”


BERKELEY, Calif. — Berkeley’s city council is looking at amending its nudity laws to allow women to go topless in public.

The issue is seen as a matter of giving women equal rights to men, who are free to go around in public without a shirt on.

Prior to 1994, it was legal for anyone to roam the streets of Berkeley naked.

It took a Cal student showing up to class naked for the city to change the law.

The naked guy subsequently killed himself. He was stone cold mentally disturbed. And yet he was allowed to attend his classes totally naked. Where were the demands for safe spaces back then? I think I would refuse to teach a class with a naked guy sitting there in front of me. Furthermore, I’d keep a spray can of Lysol handy to disinfect the area where he sat.

To this day, men can go shirtless in Berkeley while women cannot. And that’s what the council could soon change.

Several women raised the question about equalizing gender nudity laws, and Councilmember Kriss Worthington listened.

“I just don’t think Berkeley should be defining (that) women are not allowed and men are allowed,” he said.

Since Worthington proposed it, he’s been hearing from people who want him to go further by letting anybody wear their birthday suit in public.

Yuck! I hope this isn’t the start of a nationwide movement.

The proposed change applies only to public streets.

Private businesses could still refuse service to people not wearing shirts or shoes.

The city council is scheduled to take up the topless issue on Sept. 12.

I wonder what will happen to the number of rapes in the area after toplessness is legalized. Some things are better not seen in public, but only in the privacy of one’s home.

Men don’t have “titties.” Women do. There’s nothing for men to cover up. Women who don’t want to cover up are power tripping, seeking male attention just so they can complain about what ***holes men are for looking. Never trust a feminist!

Restaurant Forced to Close After Owner’s Support for David Duke Revealed

Mass hysteria revolving around Nazis and the KKK have claimed another white victim. A restaurant whose owner is a David Duke supporter is facing a boycott for expressing his political views by donating to Duke’s Senate race.

We on the alt-right have some scores to settle in that regard too. Our boycott of Target last year was quite successful. We need to do more.

CBS Local San Francisco

SANTA CRUZ (KPIX 5) — A Santa Cruz restaurant is shut down for what the owner is calling “political terrorism.”

Some employees and patrons boycotted the Chinese restaurant, after public records obtained by Indybay revealed restaurant owner Roger Grigsby gave $500 to David Duke’s campaign last year.

Duke ran for a US Senate seat in Louisiana and lost. He is an avowed white nationalist, anti-Semite and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Now, after 38 years in business, Grigsby’s restaurant, O’Mei on Mission Street is closed.

There is a sign in the window telling patrons, “O’Mei has come under attack. Slanderous and malicious Internet rumors concerning this business, it’s owner, and staff have forced us to close for now.”

Grigsby sent KPIX 5 an e-mail, saying, in part:

We are just a token in a much larger process of terrorizing white European Americans into silence in what has come to be known as the “war on whites.” My campaign contribution was to one of the men supporting European American civil rights.

It is unclear if or when the restaurant will reopen.

White House Petition to Declare George Soros a Terrorist Almost at Magical 100,000 Signatures

We’re closing the gap fast. Once the petition hits 100,000 signatures the government has to respond.

That’s not the purpose though. Let Microchip explain via these statements I copied from his Tweets:

let me know when you figure out that it doesn’t matter of they are made into law, it’s for agitprop

If a petition happens to be turned into policy, great, but I don’t give a shit if it does or not. It’s effective either way.

It’s about planting an idea in their head and subliminally influencing them to act on it. It’s not that hard to comprehend.

In reference to his successful antifa petition, Microchip wrote this:

Reason the Petition worked is because it forced everyone to “look at” and “consider” the question, “What is #AntiFa”? Everyone engaged.

We want everyone in America talking about George Soros and asking why he’s funding our destruction. The government isn’t going to arrest him (at least I don’t think they will), but the more he’s exposed as an evil-doer, the less effective any organization that takes his money will be.

GLP Forums has a long thread on the petition. The national media are paying attention:

Link to Zerohedge petition article.

Link to RT petition article.

Breitbart Writer Married to Mexican Defends Stormfront, Daily Stormer, et. al.

The author at Breitbart who defends free speech on the Internet in the excerpt below is named John Nolte.

Nolte goes through the obligatory denunciation of “white supremacy” and so forth, while proclaiming that the removal of the Daily Stormer and Stormfront are offenses against freedom.

This part of the article is the second half, which delivers the free speech argument.

Excerpt from Breitbart

If corporations band together and choose to ban you from the Internet, you lose your ability to exist.

Moreover, there actually is a conspiracy afoot…

The Silicon Valley robber barons and the media are scheming to continue to expand the definitions of hate speech and the alt-right to include opinions and people they do not like. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is the tip of this spear, an organization the establishment media takes seriously for only one cynical reason — because it gives them the cover they so desire to label those of us who do not hold the “correct” views on immigration, gay marriage, affirmative action and the welfare state, as part of the neo-Nazi brotherhood. And by extension, this makes the traditional conservatives and Christians part of the neo-Nazi brotherhood.

See where this is going? And it is happening in ways big and small.

The media and left not only cheer on campaigns that target a right-leaning site’s advertisers, which in turn gives corporations another form of veto power over speech, they express no outrage when corporations fire individuals over their personal political views.

How can a freeborn American enjoy the spirit of the First Amendment when mega-corporations are given the power to destroy and disappear us? We can’t. But do we really want to give neo-Nazis a platform?

Yes — yes, we do.

Hey, I’m a Roman Catholic married to a Mexican. You think I have any love for white supremacists like the KKK? Or Marxist supremacists like Antifa? Or the black supremacists in Black Lives Matter? Or the Hispanic supremacists in La Raza? Or the Islamic supremacists in CAIR? Or the cultural supremacists at CNN? They are all sides of a single coin. But they all should enjoy the right to spew their toxic beliefs.

The left used to understand that the only way to secure all of our speech was to defend the vilest of speech. Once you start adding asterisks, the toothpaste is out of the tube.

The line you draw when it comes to speech is a very simple one: Violence. Endorsing, promoting or encouraging violence is illegal and should be (which does beg the question of how CNN stays on the air). Anything else… bring it on.