I spent time in Bosnia and Serbia this year speaking to people from both sides of genocide that took place in the 1990s. Those events and the Great Replacement idea have become inspiration to some today. This is what happens when you get your ethnostate: https://t.co/qfsNwnC49d

— Murtaza Mohammad Hussain (@MazMHussain) September 1, 2019

A Moslem terrorist named “Murtaza Mohammad Hussain” writing for the Intercept has dug up the Bosnian genocide hoax and said that the right-wing is planning to commit such a cartoonish atrocity.

I haven’t heard about the fake “Srebrenica genocide” in years and years. Young people have probably never heard of it. It is an atrocity lie designed to justify the NATO bombing of Serbia. The hoax is so stupid and so easily disproved that it just got completely buried by the media and academia.

Basically, NATO claims that 8,000 civilians were killed by Serbs for no reason. But there are nowhere near that many bodies, and the UN officials who were actually there say that the graves the initial hoaxers point to were the result of a three-year period of low-intensity conflict.

In actual fact, a lot more Serbs than Moslems died in this place, and some of the graves they point to are actually Serbian graves.

Anyway, it’s a low level stupid hoax that no one believes. It was created in the TV era, where no one had any access to any information about something happening in the depths of the newly liberated former Yugoslavia.

Leftists didn’t even believe the hoax. Noam Chomsky’s BFF Edward Herman wrote of the hoax: “The evidence for a massacre, certainly of one in which 8,000 men and boys were executed, has always been problematic, to say the least” and “the ‘Srebrenica massacre’ is the greatest triumph of propaganda to emerge from the Balkan wars… the link of this propaganda triumph to truth and justice is non-existent.”

Leave it to some 80 IQ haji and his white female ghostwriters to go dig this up and remind everyone how stupid it was.

Anyway, in his 6 million word essay, which I only skimmed because wow just wow, he makes the claim that Serbs were worried about the birthrate of Moslems, so they tried to exterminate them, and that’s the same thing as white nationalism in America, which is why whites are evil.

Basically, he says “this is just like that time there was a war…”

Because obviously – obviously – every single war involves killing, usually over land or some other resource allocation between groups. There was no reason to talk about the Srebrenica hoax. He could have just told the truth – that Serbs went to war with Bosnians over land, and that this is like the El Paso shooter being worried about Mexicans displacing white people. But then there is the whole “yeah but isn’t that the same as most every other war in history though?” issue. So he wanted to tie it to something really distasteful – a ritual throat slitting bridge and a rape spa.

The US is the only country in the world that performs surgery.

A diplomatic breakthrough Saturday on securing and destroying Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile averted the threat of U.S. military action for the moment and could swing momentum toward ending a horrific civil war.

Marathon negotiations between U.S. and Russian diplomats at a Geneva hotel produced a sweeping agreement that will require one of the most ambitious arms-control efforts in history.

The deal involves making an inventory and seizing all components of Syria’s chemical weapons program and imposing penalties if President Bashar Assad’s government fails to comply will the terms.

After days of intense day-and-night negotiations between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and their teams, the two powers announced they had a framework for ridding the world of Syria’s chemicals weapons.

The U.S. says Assad used chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 attack on the outskirts of Damascus, the capital, killing more than 1,400 civilians. That prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to ready American airstrikes on his order — until he decided last weekend to ask for authorization from the U.S. Congress. Then came the Russian proposal, and Obama asked Congress, already largely opposed to military intervention, to delay a vote.

Obama said the deal “represents an important, concrete step toward the goal of moving Syria’s chemical weapons under international control so that they may ultimately be destroyed.”

“This framework provides the opportunity for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons in a transparent, expeditious and verifiable manner, which could end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people but to the region and the world,” he said in a statement.

Kerry and Lavrov said they agreed on the size of the chemical weapons inventory, and on a speedy timetable and measures for Assad to do away with the toxic agents.

But Syria, a Moscow ally, kept silent on the development, while Obama made clear that “if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act.”

Read More

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a strange way of speaking straightforwardly, without all the artificial and “morally superior” airs one expects from Western politicians.

Putin to Obama: What will you do if it turns out that the armed rebels are the ones who used weapons of mass destruction?

Earlier, for example, he wondered why Western leaders were supporting cannibals in Syria:

You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras. Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years.

Putin was referring to the notorious video of a jihadi leader biting into the organs of a Syrian soldier while screaming Islamic slogans.

Now, the straightforward Russian has asked another equally important and straightforward question — the sort of question so full of common sense that most Western politicians never expect to hear a fellow politician asking (and, as usual, one the Western media have failed to report on, though Arabic media is abuzz with it).

In a videotaped interview published today concerning U.S. attempts to go to war in Syria, not only did Putin criticize Secretary of State John Kerry’s  dissembling concerning the nature of the Syrian opposition, but he also said:

There is another question: if it turns out that the armed rebels are the ones who used weapons of mass destruction, what will the United States do with the armed rebels?  And what will it do with those sponsoring the rebels? Will they stop supplying them with arms? Will they start fighting against them?

Indeed.  Considering that invading Syria is almost entirely being rationalized in the context of Assad violating the human rights of others, what will the U.S. — Obama, Kerry, McCain, et. al. — do if it turns out that the al-Qaeda led rebels are, in fact, the ones using such weapons, as significant evidence already indicates?

Probably what they are doing now: continue misleading Americans and go to war anyway, since — and once again — this has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

Update: RT posted the video and translation of Putin’s questions regarding what the U.S. would do if it turns out the rebels used chemical weapons (here, around the four-minute mark).

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
September 3, 2013

No one with two brain cells to rub together is buying the idiotic Jewish lie that Assad, right in the Middle of a winning streak which was clearly set to end in total victory, all of the sudden decided to gas people so as to cause the US and Israel to begin bombing; Still, I think it is worth asking: what if it were true?

I will contend, as you may have expected, that Assad gassing some people in the process of trying to maintain control of his country is nobody’s business but Assad’s. But let’s put it in perspective. The US government – that is, the Jews who run it – funded foreign terrorists to go into Syria and attempt to overthrow the overwhelmingly popular charismatic ruler of this nation and install a militant, backward Islamic dictatorship. So far, this decision has resulted in an estimated 110,000 deaths. And they are telling us – again, let’s just take them at their word, for the sake of argument – that we need to invade the country because Assad gassed a few hundred people?

How does this make sense?

The logic, used by the Jews, is that the people they need to convince that it is necessary to attack Syria function purely on emotion. This is, perhaps regrettably, completely true. Clearly, basic math dictates the fact that 100,000 deaths are worse than a few hundred deaths. But gassing – oh, and gassing the innocents – this is something that stirs people. If it is framed correctly.

The good news is, they did not succeed in framing it correctly, and the whole thing has come across as silly. Large numbers of people understand that Assad was winning the war, and that committing an atrocity – which was of little or no tactical value, he would have had to do it just because he wanted to do something diabolical – made zero sense.

This failure to properly execute a faked atrocity has given us a unique opportunity to view how the Jewish media machine works in tandem with the Jew-controlled politicians to stir emotions in the masses to justify otherwise insane plots. Based on the present public sentiment, I believe the masses are in a position to learn from this.

The Jews will almost certainly go ahead with the attack on Syria based on this atrocity lie, because they are Jews and they think they can get away with it. But this big lie is going to give the lie to the next big one, as the wheels of the Jewish reality-manufacturing machine continue to fall off and the day of Our Retribution draws ever more near.

Syria said Sunday it would allow United Nations inspectors currently present in Damascus immediate access to areas around the capital where the opposition accused the regime of using chemical weapons against fighters and civilians five days ago.

But the U.S. rebuffed Syria’s decision, saying the offer came too late to be credible.

“If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the U.N.— five days ago,” a senior administration official said.

“At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the U.N. team is too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime’s persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days,” the official added.

Read More