Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Latest genetic testing: “Jews” may be actually descended from Khazars

Genetic testing service says a large portion of so-called “Jews” may be descended from the non-Jewish Khazar tribe


23andMe, which offer direct-to-consumer genome testing services, distributed an email last week to customers, announcing updates to the genetic reports corresponding to different haplotypes (genetic groups defined by certain DNA variations). The email promised that “a major update” of the company’s genetic history reports would help its customers “gain insights into fascinating and unusual details about your genome, details that set your story apart.”

One of the details revealed was that a large portion of supposed Jews" may actually be descended from the Khazars, a semi-nomadic tribe in the Caucasus—and not from the Israelites from several thousand years ago. 

“The origin of the Ashkenazi Jews has been traced back to a population of Jewish people living between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea before the Roman exile,” the report on the 23andMe report stated. 

The scientists at 23andMe further stated, “However, research suggests that Ashkenazi Jews who belong to your haplogroup may descend from a single male who…may have been a member of the Khazars, an enigmatic Turkic tribe that lived in Central Asia, and that converted to Judaism in the 8th century AD.”

23andMe does not try to isolate a “Jewish” gene — just Ashkenazic genes. 23andMe lists “Ashkenazi Jewish” as a reference population within the larger European population. Ancestry.com calls Jewish genes “European Jewish.” 

"Sephardic Jews" are not considered a distinct population by either company, or by researchers — their genetic make-up is not sufficiently different from surrounding North African and Palestinian populations.

In response to furious lobbying by so-called “Jews,” 23andMe has retracted their statement under pressure, and is now begging forgiveness  saying the inclusion of the Khazars in the company’s latest genetic report  for some Ashkenazi Jews, was “an error.”

“We apologize for this material not being struck from the reports before they were released to customers, which should’ve happened in the editing process,” Andy Kill, a spokesman for 23andMe, wrote in an email. “We do not endorse ‘Khazar theory,’ and are removing any language referencing the theory from the product today.” The company had not yet determined if it would issue a public apology or press release about the retraction.

The company also did not release the number of people who received the report. The haplogroup in question — called variously R-M512 and R1a — is present in about 50% of so-called “Jews” who imagine they descend from the tribe of Levi.

The Khazar genetics which undermine the pose of impostors who “say they are Jews and are not” (Rev. 3:9), has most recently been championed by Eran Elhaik, an Israeli-American genetics researcher. Elhaik’s analyses drew from the genetic data of 367 self-reported Ashkenazi Jews. 

Dr. Elhaik, and Prof. Paul Wexler, a linguist, also assert that Yiddish, a language widely understood to be a composite of Hebrew, German and Slavic languages, has its origins in eastern Turkey and not in Germany. 

Many historians concede that at the very least, the aristocracy of the Khazar empire (often named Kagan or having Kagan as a prefix), did in fact convert to Judaism in the 7th century A.D.

The most prominent promotion of the Khazar concept was by Arthur Koestler in his book The Thirteenth Tribe, (which Dr. Elhaik cites as having inspired his research), followed by Shlomo Sand, an Israeli historian, in his work, The Invention of the Jewish People.


Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Statue of Masonic Confederate General untouched

Prominent Washington D.C. Monument to Masonic Confederate General Albert Pike is untouched

By Michael Hoffman

The statue in our nation’s capitol of Confederate General Albert Pike, Grand Master of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry Southern Jurisdiction — the most powerful masonic organization in the world in Pike’s lifetime

Albert Pike was a a Confederate Brigadier General in charge of American Indian troops fighting for the Confederacy.

After the war he assumed command of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction. No member of the U.S. government or Union Army, or Federal officials during Reconstruction, were permitted to harm a hair on his head. 

Quick as a weasel, shortly after the war he was operating in the North with impunity, freely meeting fellow Freemasons in the abolitionist-citadel of Rochester, New York.

Morals and Dogma, Pike’s magnum opus, was printed and distributed by the tens of thousands to Scottish Rite Freemasons in America. In this book, Pike detailed the true god — or should we say gods — of the Freemasons: the demon deities of ancient Egypt:
"...the BLAZING STAR...Originally it represented SIRIUS, or the Dog-star, the forerunner of the inundation of the Nile; the God ANUBIS, companion of ISIS in her search for the body of OSIRIS, her brother and husband. Then it became the image of HORUS, the son of OSIRIS, himself symbolized also by the Sun, the author of the Seasons, and the God of Time; Son of ISIS, who was the universal nature, himself the primitive matter, inexhaustible source of Life, spark of uncreated fire, universal seed of all beings. It was HERMES, also, the Master of Learning, whose name in Greek is that of the God Mercury. It became the sacred and potent sign or character of the Magi, the PENTALPHA, and is the significant emblem of Liberty and Freedom, blazing with a steady radiance amid the sweltering elements of good and evil of Revolutions, and promising serene skies and fertile seasons to the nations, after the storms of change and tumult… 
"The Blazing Star in our Lodges, we have already said, represent Sirius, Anubis, or Mercury (Hermes), Guardian and Guide of Souls…by its genial influence dispenses  blessings to mankind."  
A prominent monument to a Masonic Satanist of Pike’s stature is certainly appropriate for the Washington D.C. cesspool. It is undoubtedly revered by certain highly placed Democrat and Republican operatives, as the icon of a man who was an avatar of the aeon of demonic insanity which has become ascendant in the 21st century. It is no wonder that thus far, Pike's statue has been immune to removal, while the strict constructionist, conservative Catholic Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney’smonument was  consigned to oblivion earlier this month.

*Taney (pronounced “Taw-knee”), is despised for his Dred Scott decision. Justice Taney freed his own slaves and lived a model life, but he was a strict constructionist which signifies at its most basic level of denotation, a judge who refuses to engage in Talmudic law-making. (In Pharisaic [Orthodox] Judaism laws are enacted by judicial decision). Strict constructionists reject Talmudic usurpation of the Constitution. Taney ruled in accordance with the law of the land—a Constitution which permitted slavery. The Constitution, tragically, did not grant rights to black people. Justice Taney would not himself make law by overruling the Constitution of the United States. Rather, he heroically “preserved and defended it,” and for his “horrible offense” his name and reputation have been smeared and he has been made a figure of undying contumely.
For further research 

Michael’s Truth Mission is made possible in part by donations from truth-seekers.

Monday, August 21, 2017

Statue of Judaic Confederate slave owner stands untouched

Statue of Judaic Confederate slave owner stands untouched in Florida

By Michael Hoffman

David Levy Yulee statue in Florida

David Levy Yuleee was one of the tens of thousands of Judaic slave-owners of Sephardic-Judaic descent who bought, sold or traded in black slaves in the western hemisphere, as documented in the revisionist history classic, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews (three volumes).

 In the year 2000 the Florida Department of State designated Yulee a “Great Floridian” and “award plaques in his honor” were installed.

Yulee's statue is in Fernandia, Amelia Island, Florida. Needless to say it is untouched. No calls from Republican scalawags or Antifa terrorists have been issued for its removal. 

Neither the ADL or the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), both of which are recent recipients of millions of dollars in “anti-racist” donations from Apple Computer CEO Tim Cook, and 21st Century Fox movie mogul James Murdoch (son of Rupert), have raised the issue of the statue’s removal.

In the halacha of the Babylonian Talmud, there is one law for gentiles and another for Judaics, a distinction which the “revolutionary Left” seems to observe and respect when it comes to memorial sculpture in honor of Confederate slave-driver David Levy Yuleee.

Yulee’s inflammatory pro-slavery rhetoric in the U.S. Senate earned him the nickname, “the Florida Fire Eater. He resigned his senate seat to support the Confederacy.


Tuesday, August 15, 2017

The Anti-Trump movement is failing

The Anti-Trump movement is failing

Editor’s Note: we are not as giddy about Donald Trump as Prof. Victor Davis Hanson (see his essay below), mainly due to our anxiety over the president’s grave blunders in foreign affairs, beginning with his Jared Kushner-engineered partnership with the terrorist-enabling kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose only lightly-veiled alliance with the Israelis has markedly improved the Saudis’ status in Jerusalem, New York and Washington D.C. One can’t fight ISIS effectively while empowering the Saudi dictatorship. Trump’s bombing of Syria is another grotesque result of the Jared/Ivanka Talmudism in the White House. 

On the domestic front, Hanson’s endorsement of unalloyed money-making, with no acknowledgement of Christian and Biblical law constraining avarice, is exceedingly unhelpful and myopic. 

With those qualifications in mind, what’s to recommend about Prof. Hanson or President Trump? Hanson is the scion of a pioneering northern California farming family. He cares deeply for the survival of the United States as he knew it growing up. We second his concern and like him, here in the Pacific Northwest we have seen indicators of new life in not only a previously moribund economy, where now construction companies are begging for work crews and paying living wages to obtain them, but also psychologically, in terms of a new-found optimism and self-esteem among our people. 

The war against us is primarily psychological and spiritual and it is on the level of fending off that psy-war that many of Trump’s domestic policies are welcome. 

Among these are opposition to open borders and globalization, fighting for American workers against Red Chinese suzerainty, a less liberal Supreme Court (and federal judgeships in general), justice for veterans who had been preyed upon by Obama’s criminally negligent VA hospitals, education free of tyrannical teachers’ unions, and on many other fronts related to the welfare of our land and people. 

We can’t dismiss these initiatives in our homeland because Trump is pursuing calamitous overseas policies, similar to all previous presidents extending back to Lyndon Johnson. If you wish to denounce our pragmatism in this regard, do so. As for us, our psyche was, as never before, grieved and wrenched these past years by the soul-rotting decline of the American people which we observed under Mr. Obama, and while it is true that nothing can ultimately save us if we don’t free our land of usury, abortion and infertility, for the present we will not gainsay the rebirth of hopes and dreams we have seen in northern Idaho and eastern Washington state since Mr. Trump was elected. 

Thus far, President Trump has represented an emergency-room resuscitation of our people’s vital signs. If this rebirth is sustained, it might prove to be a first step toward our national renaissance, long after Mr. Trump has left the American scene. — Michael Hoffman

The Anti-Trump Bourbons: 
Learning and Forgetting Nothing in Time for 2020

By  Victor Davis Hanson | August 14, 2017

“...Trump’s enraged critics still do not grasp that he is a reflection of, not a catalyst for, widespread anger and unhappiness with globalization, interventionist foreign policy, Orwellian political correctness, identity politics, tribalism, open borders, and a Deep State that lectures and condemns but never lives the consequences of its own sermonizing.”

Just seven months into Donald Trump’s administration we are already bombarded with political angling and speculations about the 2020 presidential race. No one knows in the next three years what can happen to a volatile Trump presidency or his psychotic enemies, but for now such pronouncements of doom seem amnesiac if not absurd.

Things are supposedly not going well politically with Donald Trump lately, after a series of administration firings, internecine White House warring, and controversial tweets. A Gallup Poll has him at only a 34 percent positive rating, and losing some support even among Republicans (down to 79 percent)—although contrarily a recent Rasmussen survey shows him improving to the mid-forties in popularity. Nonetheless, we are warned that even if Trump is lucky enough not to be impeached, if he is not removed under the 25th Amendment or the Emoluments Clause, if he does not resign in shame, even if he has the stamina to continue under such chaos, even if he seeks reelection and thus even more punishment, he simply cannot win in 2020.

In answer to such assumed expertise, one could answer with Talleyrand’s purported quip about our modern-day Bourbons that “They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”

Namely, Trump’s enraged critics still do not grasp that he is a reflection of, not a catalyst for, widespread anger and unhappiness with globalization, interventionist foreign policy, Orwellian political correctness, identity politics, tribalism, open borders, and a Deep State that lectures and condemns but never lives the consequences of its own sermonizing.

In particular, the current conundrum and prognostications ignore several constants.

Do Americans Really Believe that Pollsters and the Media Have Reformed?

One, despite the recent Gallup poll, most polls still show Trump’s at about a 40 percent approval rating—nearly the same level of support as shortly before the November 2016 election. That purported dismal level of support is pronounced to be near fatal, when in fact it is not.

Since a) pollsters likely have not much changed their methodology since 2016, and since b) it is fair so assume that the media and those who poll for them continue to despise Trump, and since c) Trump’s exasperating eccentricities continue to make his supporters cautious about voicing their support (even to anonymous pollsters and political surveyors), we can conclude that his actual support could be about 45-47 percent—or close to the percentage of the popular vote he won in 2016.

Given that Trump’s base in the key swing states of the Midwest (the so-called Democratic “blue wall”) has not weakened, there is no real reason yet to think Trump could not win the Electoral College again in 2020 in the same fashion as 2016. In 2004 and 2012, we were told respectively that an unpopular George W. Bush and a sinking Barack Obama might lose reelection; instead they both were re-elected largely with the same election calculus and an even stronger base of support that carried them to victory four years earlier.

Do Americans Really Believe the Messenger Nullifies the Message?

As in 2016, many of those who voted for Trump would prefer that he curb his tweets, clean up his language, sleep eight instead of five hours, and follow all the conventional-wisdom admonitions offered about his misbehavior. But that said, nearly half of the country is probably still willing to overlook his eccentricities for several reasons.

Trump now has a presidential record of eight months. Despite the media’s neglect of it, one can sense changes by just getting out and traveling the country. Even in rural central California, one can feel that it really is true that there is a 76 percent drop in illegal immigration, and immigration law is being taken seriously as never before.

It was no accident that the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”), without warning dropped its racialist nomenclature and is now UnidosUS (“Together, US”). Why is the Democratic Party now feigning a focus on class, not racial, issues with its new “Better Deal” FDR/Truman-like echo?

The same pragmatics about changed attitudes are reflected in dozens of local roadside canteens in my environs that have taken down their showy Mexican flags and are now waving even larger American ones. Cement trucks and construction cranes are ubiquitous on the roads in a way not true over the prior eight years. Talk to business people, and they are citing new projects and investments, not voicing anxieties about higher taxes and more regulatory hostility.

Much of Trump’s success so far comes despite congressional ossification and is clearly psychological: people with money to invest or to build things prefer to do so when the head of the regulatory state urges them to create jobs, make money, and help their country get richer, not when he warns them that it is not the time to profit, that they need to share and spread around their wealth, that they must calibrate when they have made enough profits, and that they should concede that  the state built their businesses as much as their own daring and talent.

Despite congressional failure so far on reforming Obamacare, conservatives are delighted not just with the Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court appointment, but also with literally dozens of conservative lower federal court appointments, who are both youngish and judicially restrained. Would they have preferred to let Hillary Clinton decide the trajectory of the Supreme Court for the next two or three decades?

Does anyone think a President John McCain or Mitt Romney would have pulled out of the Paris climate change accord? Trump’s team is reinventing the Environmental Protection Agency, giving clean coal a second life, opening up natural gas and oil exploration on federal lands, building pipelines, and exporting energy. The crash in world oil prices is bankrupting exporters like Russia, Middle East autocracies, and the Gulf States, whose influences are now pruned back by a dearth of cash.

The major cabinet officials are competing to deregulate the deep state and free up individual initiative.

At home the economy grew at a 2.6 percent annualized rate last quarter, and corporate profits at are record levels. So is the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Unemployment is lower than at any time in an over a decade.

The trade deficit is even shrinking and lots of companies have announced relocations to the United States, in reaction to record cheap energy costs and a perceived favorable business environment. And all this comes at a time when the United States is neither seeking optional military interventions nor backing away from thuggish aggression, but is trying to thread the needle in restoring deterrence along the lines of “principled realism.”

The point is not just that no one can know the ultimate fate of the Trump agenda, but rather that so far media hysteria and congressional calcification have not stopped perceived conservative progress. The bottom line is that Trump did prove to be far more conservative than Republican establishmentarians had forecast. To his supporters, Trump’s message is usually distinguished from Trump, the messenger. Politically that means pragmatist supporters can focus on his agenda not his tweets, while Trump’s die-hard voters like his Twitter combativeness, viewing it as a long overdue media comeuppance.

Trump himself is less rather than more likely to keep running a chaotic White House. Appointments like John Kelly as chief of staff, or H.R. McMaster as national security advisor and James Mattis as defense secretary are not symptoms of a sell-out to the Deep State, but evidence of Trump’s own acknowledgment that for his populism to be effective, he needs structure and focus.

In sum, lots of Americans support what Trump is doing rather than agreeing with what he sometimes is saying and tweeting—and even more of his base like both.

Do Americans Really Listen to the Conservative Elite Establishment?

Third, Trump does not run in a vacuum, but always in a landscape of alternatives. The Republican Party is split, but so far the NeverTrump establishment is smaller and less influential than the returning Tea-Party/Trump/Reagan Democrat conservative base that in part sat out in 2008 and 2012 or once voted Democratic.

What Trump loses to elite Republican and conservative disdain expressed in op-eds and news show round tables, or to Lindsey Graham and John McCain-like denunciations, he has more than made up with new populist Republican support in small towns and communities nationwide. For now, it is hard to imagine any other potential Republican nominee rallying a crowd like Trump or appealing to the losers of globalization in such dramatic fashion.

That we are, once again, being advised that Republican grandees are looking for a new version of Evan McMullin, or that a cranky John Kasich will reenter the primary race in 2020, or that Jeff Flake insists that he is the moral superior to those who stooped to vote for Trump, to be honest, means nada.

More than 90 percent of Republicans voted for Trump before he had a political record, and about the same will do it again based on his conservative agenda as expressed and enacted so far. If the economy hits 3 percent economic growth, with near 4 percent unemployment, the Dow does not crash, and if the Russian collusion charges end up only with symbolic scalps (and all that is possible if not likely), Trump will win over half the independents, solidify his base and likely take the Electoral College.

One of the strangest ironies of the present age is that Trump’s populism (e.g., “our farmers”, “our vets”, “our coal miners”, “our workers”), which saved the Senate and House for Republicans and delivered the greatest Republican majorities on the local and state level since the 1920s, is either ridiculed or ignored.

Yet the more the economy picks up, the more the administration prunes back the regulatory state, and the more the United States restores deterrence, the shriller will be the argument that Trump’s tweets and behavior nullify solid achievement. Just watch.

Will the New Democratic/Progressive Party Really Rebuild the Blue Wall?

Fourth and finally, the less publicized split in the Democratic Party is probably worse than that of its Republican counterpart. The latter did not stop Trump’s victory in the Electoral College, the former helped ensure Hillary’s “Blue Wall” collapsed.

The current head of the Democratic National Committee, Thomas Perez, is best known for his profanity-laced tirades; his more unstable subordinate Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) recently claimed that Kim Jong-un was a more responsible actor than the president of the United States, while Justice Neil Gorsuch was an illegitimate Supreme Court judge. The former DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is facing myriad bizarre scandals. Her replacement Donna Brazile became most famous as a CNN talking head who leaked debate questions to the Clinton campaign. With disreputable icons like these, who needs opposition research?

Almost any of Bill Clinton’s 1990s talking points on government, immigration, race, taxes, or law enforcement could not be voiced today by any mainstream Democratic politician. In 2008, Hillary drank with boilermakers; in 2016 she smeared the lower middle class with taunts of “deplorables” and “irredeemables.”

Truth is, the party mortgaged its soul to the identity politics lobby, and thereby embraced a number of fatally wrong assumptions.

First, record minority registration and turnout for Barack Obama were not automatically transferable to other Democrat grandees. Obama pushed the party hard leftward with a new strategy of uniting previously feuding minority groups under an us/them binary of anti-“white privilege” while at the same time soothing liberals with his Ivy League pedigree, his exotic, hip, multicultural name, and his mellifluent banality. It is hard to see too many other candidates recreating such political gymnastics.

Second, if Obama did not bequeath an upside legacy, he certainly left a downside. Tribal obsessions with identity politics were implicitly an attack on the white working class. Those in Ohio and Pennsylvania were not just angry for being written off as bitter clingers, irredeemables, and deplorables, but also furious to be scapegoated for having “white privilege” by those who alone enjoyed it. 

A party run by Pajama Boys, half-educated media talking heads, Middlebury-prolonged adolescents, Bay Area billionaire techies in t-shirts and flip-flops, Hollywood gated grandees, Al Gore green elites, and Black Lives Matter activists is not going to win easily back Michigan and Wisconsin.

Finally, the Democrats failed to see that class-based populism is a far more inclusionary and thus dynamic phenomenon than is racial tribalism—for both whites and non-whites. 

Democrats are finally worrying that they have lost the white working class; they should be even more terrified that they might lose 40 percent of the traditional minority vote if the economy keeps growing and Trump keeps talking about protecting low wage-earners from the dual threats of globalization and illegal immigration.

In sum, the Democratic Party has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. It is doubling down on exactly what lost it the Blue Wall.

Ditto the Republican NeverTrump establishment that seeks to recapture relevance by reemphasizing exactly what lost it influence in 2016. The argument that Trump, the man, is so beyond moral redemption that Trump’s agenda is irrelevant will not fly with those who feel that they are already better off than in 2016. And the idea that conservative populism is a temporary deviation from a winning and properly orthodox Jeb Bush conservatism is delusional.

Trumpism is not an eponymous political movement per se. It was merely an adjective for the reification of far greater preexisting political realities.

Victor Davis Hanson is Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and History at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University.


Monday, August 14, 2017

The Fiasco in Charlottesville

The Fiasco in Charlottesville
American conservatives of every color were the losers

By Michael Hoffman 

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville was  a gift to Hillary, Barack and the Democrat Party. Given the state of the media in the USA, and the nature of the government in Virginia, it was pure folly for “white civil rights” demonstrators to parade together with representatives of terrorism in the South — members and supporters of the masonic Ku Klux Klan, and expect to be greeted calmly

White rights activist Jared Taylor is indeed correct when he points out that the local government colluded with violent Left-wing demonstrators, who threw bricks and initiated fighting and looting (for which crimes only three arrests were made; reminiscent of Berkeley, California where masked Leftist terrorists torched the college campus with impunity while obstructing a conservative speaker). Mr. Taylor writes that according to the corrupt moral calculus of the media and the government of Virginia, “Racially conscious whites deserve violence simply because of what they think.”

In response to Charlottesville, when President Trump condemned “hatred and bigotry on many sides” he was met with the ancient cry of the totalitarian, “There is only one side!” All other views are forbidden and will be suppressed by street mobs and a politicized police command that deviously creates a situation where white protestors are violently attacked. Then the lightly-policed fighting becomes the excuse to stop the rally. The ultimate victim of this barely concealed set-up is the First Amendment. The more unpopular and obnoxious the group, the more vital it is to guarantee their right to peaceably assemble, but the civil liberties issue has been lost in the ensuing hysteria. 

The fault is not entirely with the Left, however. If the objective truly is white civil rights and not inflaming bitter feelings between blacks and whites leading toward a race war, then the template of a mass parade consisting in part of Klansmen, along with neo-Nazis sporting their regalia, is a non-starter. How could the “Unite the Right” rally organizers not know this?

Any rally of this type, to have a chance of success, would have to include at least a handful of sympathetic conservative black people at the head of the march. Moreover, it would have to consist of families carrying American flags and marchers wearing their Sunday best. All other symbolism would be excluded.

Conservatives cannot gain or maintain power in statehouses and legislatures, and Congress and the White House, without making common cause with black Americans who have been exploited by NAACP poverty pimps who, along with Democrat Party politicians such as Elizabeth Warren, obstruct the growth of charter schools for educating disadvantaged youth outside the confines of the public school monopoly. This issue is central to the advancement of black people in America. It is in the interests of conservative whites to assist black Americans in this cause and build good will in the process.

Black people have also suffered at the hands of the de facto open borders policy of their Democrat Party “saviors.” The populist Republican campaign to limit foreign immigration has direct benefits for American blacks and is another potential common cause between the races.

Furthermore, historically, black Americans have been victimized by a conspiracy of Klansmen and Judaic leaders who covertly backed the KKK in the South from Reconstruction to the eve of the Second World War, as documented in the book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, volume 2.

The Democrat Party was in disarray before Saturday’s march in Charlottesville  split asunder and bickering  while losing the moral high ground on issues such as abortion. Saturday’s tragedy in Virginia will reinvigorate the Left. They will seek to conflate all Republican Conservatives with bitter-enders in the South who imagine that it is 1920 again and the sight of klansmen in sheets and Confederate battle flags will cause American whites to rise up and assert themselves.

This chimera reflects a profound misreading of the mood of white Americans. Granted, many are angered by reverse discrimination in employment and education, and by the lawlessness of the thugs  white and black  churned out by the criminally negligent public school system. They are repelled by the Hate Whitey mentality, wherein taking personal responsibility for one’s own life takes a distant second to blaming the white man for one’s lack of ambition and work ethic.

American whites by and large however, are also desirous of comity between the races, based on equal opportunity and justice before the law. 

The prudent mainstream of conservative whites believe in advancing their own people through building strong families and family values, electing genuine conservatives to office and quietly relocating to sections of the country where folks of like mind gather in community.

This is not only the new model of white empowerment, it is the only model that has a chance of success under present circumstances. Unfortunately, a minority, the so-called “white nationalists,” who are seldom personally invested in raising large families, periodically gain headlines with nationally publicized stunts that almost always backfire, uniting the Left and giving the media the opportunity to once again portray whites seeking to preserve their heritage and rights, as moral lepers and cretins.

"Unite the Right” should have been billed as Unite and Empower the Left. This was the Charlottesville fiasco’s primary “achievement.” American Conservatives of every color were the losers.

Copyright ©2017 Independent History and Research