Women should not be allowed to drive.

This bitch says she wasn’t drunk. Okay. Well, then she was on her phone. And a man is dead now.

New York Post:

A California father died after being struck by a car Thursday night while helping a family of ducks cross a busy road, witnesses said.

The horrifying crash took place at Stanford Ranch Road and Park Drive in the city of Rocklin, about 22 miles from Sacramento, just after 8 p.m.

William Wimsatt, a 12-year-old boy who witnessed the kindhearted stranger’s actions, told KCRA 3 the man had stepped out of his car to help the ducks avoid traffic.

“He got out of the car and was shooing the ducks and everyone was clapping because he was being really nice,” William said.

The young boy took photos of the man, who has not been identified, with his cellphone as he and the ducks crossed in front of his mother’s car.

“He helped them get up over the curb because all the little baby duckies were having trouble and then he walked in front of our car,” the boy recounted.

After the ducks made it safely to the other side of the road, William said, onlookers in their cars applauded the good Samaritan’s actions.

“My mom rolled down the window and said, ‘Good job, good job,’ and I said, ‘Good job’ to him too.”

Right after that, William said, the man was struck by a car that seemingly came out of nowhere.

…

After the accident, William’s mother got out of her car and comforted the man’s children, who were sitting in their own car and witnessed the crash.

A makeshift memorial — full of rubber duckies and flowers — was set up on the corner where the accident occurred.

…

The driver, a 17-year-old girl, is cooperating with authorities and is not currently facing any charges.

The charge should be manslaughter.

The man is dead forever now.

What is the price we are willing to pay for feminism?

How many must die?

There is no way that this ends well.

Washington Post:

First Congregational Church of Oakland shares a neighborhood with many homeless people who often come to the church in times of mental health crises. Sometimes church members feel unequipped to deal with the erratic behavior: The most heart-wrenching scenes, volunteer leader Nichola Torbett says, are the times when the church is closing for the day, and a person with nowhere else to go absolutely refuses to leave the building.

At least once or twice a month, at their wits’ end, the church members call 911.

Now, the church has joined a small handful of like-minded congregations with a radical goal: to stop calling the police. Not for mental health crises, not for graffiti on their buildings, not even for acts of violence. These churches believe the American police system, criticized for its impact especially on people of color, is such a problem that they should wash their hands of it entirely.  

This crazy, no-holds-barred sympathy for everyone that isn’t us isn’t healthy, isn’t normal, will be the death of our people.

Sometimes I feel like a cold and rational autistic monster. Like a modern-day Sherlock Holmes who doesn’t have to actually do any detective work because I know that 9/10 times the nigger did it and that all great world conspiracies and crimes have a grinning merchant behind them.

First 45 seconds

I’m not particularly mad at the church for doing this – I am practically certain its a cat lady haven and therefore lost to us anyways.

It’s the same way that I feel about the Starbucks op.

These people spend their days virtue-signaling and indulging in excess sentimentality. This is a grave sin and it’s going to result in them being stabbed to death by negro junkies.

I feel no sympathy for them. Frankly, I believe that they deserve everything and more that’s coming their way.

In fact, we should do the Starbucks op on churches like this as well.

We can’t let them virtue-signal without consequences. You want to be a goody-goody two shoes? Here are some black heroin addicts for you to take care of.

Virtue-signaling needs to have a cost attached to it again.

Though all human experience is subjective, and the perception of the self especially so, I have always considered myself a generally good person.

Let me, while remaining humble, give a list of reasons why I can, looking at my own behavior, posit that I meet the generally accepted social definitions of being a good person.

• I am do my very best to take care of my mother, emotionally, and let her know I am there for her. When I am outside of Ohio, I try to call her on a regular basis, and ask her how she is doing and if there is anything I can do for her.
• I am always kind to animals. In my teenage years, I was even a vegetarian for a while, before I realized the health issues associated with it. Even now, I try to buy ethnically-raised and slaughtered meat whenever possible.
• I hold doors open for women, or for men if it is appropriate. I don’t ever push my way in front of people, and will allow others to go first in lines if there is some confusion about who was first.
• In the relationships I’ve had with women, I have always tried to be kind and fair, and not make the girl feel like she is being used for sex. I like to buy women flowers, and do other things which let them know I’m thinking about them.
• If a friend needs something from me, and asks, I will do everything in my power to help them, whether it is something financial, emotional or practical. I also will help strangers if they ask me and it is reasonable.
• I always tip well at restaurants and bars.
• I am generally polite in all human interactions, and do my best to smile and make others feel comfortable around me.
• I do not commit crimes (at least not which involve a clear victim).
• I will carry around trash in my pocket rather than throw it on the ground, even if the area already has trash on the ground (this rule usually excludes cigarette butts, in honesty, unless I am in a nature park).
• I try to help out the poor, whether it is by throwing change in a cup or buying something they are peddling which I do not actually need or want.
• When people look sad or upset, even if I don’t know them, I try to think if there is something I can do to cheer them up.
• I always try to bring gifts to my grandmother, or send them through the mail, to let her know that I’m thinking of her, care about her, and appreciate everything she’s done for me.
• I regularly consider the times in my life when I have hurt people, because I think in considering these instances, it will make it less likely that I will do it again.
• Always, I try to put myself in the position of those around me, and consider how I would like me to act if I were them, and do my best to act in this way, if it does not violate my own value system.
• I purposefully try to be extra nice and give compliments to unattractive women.
• I always do my best to respect older people, and help them out if they appear to need help.
• Last – but hopefully not least – I have given my life to a political cause, rather than devoting it to money, luxury, sex and so on. This has not been profitable, but I get a great sense of personal satisfaction knowing that my life will have mattered, that after I die the world will be different because I have lived.

Again, the perception of self is the most subjective possible thing, but these are behaviors I can observe in myself, as fact, and this leads me to believe that I am indeed a good person.

However, earlier this week, when I read the articles meant to make me tear-up about the horrible sinking boat in Greek waters where children and infants died, instead of tearing-up, I actually laughed out loud. I feel absolutely nothing for these dead, whatever their age. And I do not feel guilty that I feel nothing.

I actually wrote an article joking about the drowned Syrians.

Beyond this, the idea of sending the military out onto the streets of Europe, and declaring open war on anyone with a Moslem appearance, including the use of lethal force, does not bother me in the slightest and in fact seems like a great idea.

When I say that Hungary should put landmines on its border, I am not joking. I believe they should do this. And I could look at film, or actually go there physically and watch these people stepping on these mines and being blown apart, and feel absolutely nothing.

I cannot remember ever laughing harder than at this gif image of Petra Lazlo kicking this Syrian child.

According to the Jewish media, all of this means that I am biologically evil – because despite the blank slate theory and so on, the constant implication is that Whites are born evil.

And, being a person who believes in self-examination, I have to ask myself: does laughing about drowned Syrian children make me evil?

Because the media is technically correct when they say these people are “innocent.” I mean, Europe has, in so many words and actions, invited them to come live on welfare in a country much more wealthy than their own. I do not doubt that the overwhelming majority of these people coming into our base are thinking “this is going to lead to a better life for my children.”

So why am I totally incapable of empathizing with them, to the point where I laugh when I hear about them drowning?

This can be simply explained by evolutionary biology. These people, innocent as they may be, are a threat to my people. Their very presence is a threat, and in doing what is the right thing for their own children, they are harming my own people’s children.

As such, feeling anything other than contempt for these people, as a collective, would represent a form of masochistic psychosis.

These people are going to completely annihilate us, everything our ancestors built, our millions of years of genetic inheritance, if we do not stop them.

They are already raping our little girls.

They are raping our adult women as well. They are killing our people on the streets. And though each as an individual is not “bad,” each individual is a part of a group, and a group which will destroy us, if we allow it.

The first step to not allowing it is to remove any emotions of empathy associated with these people. If you lack empathy for them, you are not evil. You are just. Your genetic program is functioning as it should.

A Very Simple Analogy

As I said above, I care about animals.

Presently, wolves across North America are under threat, with dwindling numbers. I believe in preserving these wolves, and have a great respect for the organizations devoted to doing so.

However, if I am out camping with my family, and a pack of wolves begins hovering around my site, ready to move in and eat my kids, I’m going to shoot them. And as I stand over the bodies of the wolves I just shot, I am not going to be saying to myself “oh my God the poor thing, it was just trying to feed itself and its young.”

No.

I am going to have an adrenaline rush, and a feeling a manly pride that I protected my family from a dangerous threat.

It is the same thing with these invading non-White hordes. I do feel empathy when I see the Jews slaughtering the Palestinians, I feel horrible that my government is blowing up families with drones in Pakistan. I believe these people, like the North American gray wolf, have a right to exist in their own habitat.

However, when these people move in to take what is mine, to hurt me and my family, I will feel no pity in watching them drown.

You are Right

Those who would feel empathy for a force which is trying to destroy them are psychologically ill. They have been infected by a Jewish brain virus which was created for the purpose of making us complicit in our own extermination.

Righteousness is to be found in the protection of one’s own, in ensuring a future

Do not feel guilty for not feeling guilty. Continue to do and to feel and to act as your blood guides you.

Hail Victory.

What Western countries need is a break from immigration, but instead our politicians are inundating us with waves of “refugees”. We are doomed if we continue to base our response to the migrant crisis on sentiment and emotion rather than facts and reason.

Imagine that you are on an ocean liner crossing the Atlantic. Your pilot is a historical re-enactment fanatic who, in a moment of drunken insanity, decides that the time is ripe for re-creating the sinking of the Titanic and rams the ship into an iceberg. Like everyone else on board you head to the lifeboats. You wait in line, they put you on board a lifeboat, and when it is full lower it onto the sea.

From the safety of your lifeboat you watch the ship go down and realize, to your horror, that something has gone wrong with the evacuation process. A panic has broken out and in the irrational frenzy of that panic several of the remaining lifeboats have been damaged and rendered useless. There are no longer sufficient lifeboats to carry everyone on the ship and people are jumping into the ocean and desperately swimming towards the ones already afloat, including yours.

You are now faced with a dilemma. You know that your lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity. If you let more people onto the lifeboat you risk running out of the lifeboat’s resources before being rescued or, worse, capsizing the lifeboat. If that happens, you will have not only have failed to save the people you pulled from the ocean, but will have needlessly killed yourselves in the process.

American biologist and ecologist Garrett Hardin first posed this dilemma in an article for the September 1974 edition of Psychology Today entitled “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, the awful subtitle of which, added by the editor without the author’s approval, misses the point completely. Wealthy countries, Hardin argued, like lifeboats have limited carrying capacities and therefore taking in masses of immigrants from poorer countries will not solve the problems of poor countries but will only sink our lifeboats, metaphorically speaking.

Hardin’s article is timelier today than when it was first published forty-one years ago. For weeks now the most important international news item has been the horde of migrants evacuating Syria and flooding into Europe claiming to be refugees from the war that has ravaged that country and from the terrorism and tyranny of ISIS. The better informed among us know that this is only part of a much larger wave of migration from Africa and the Middle East into Europe that has been accelerating over the last year or so. The television and newspaper media have manipulated this story in such a way as to make us feel that Western countries are morally obliged to take in these refugees and they have been aided and abetted in this by irresponsible clergymen like the present Pope and by most of our politicians who seem to be competing with each other as to who will sink their country’s lifeboat the fastest. It is as if they were all acting out roles in a script written for them by Jean Raspail forty-two years ago.

In Raspail’s apocalyptic novel, The Camp of the Saints, an armada of one hundred ships carrying a cargo of a million of India’s poorest and most wretched, sets sail from Calcutta en route to the French Riviera. While many in France, including her president, can see the handwriting on the wall and know that if their country and civilization are to survive they must turn these invaders, armed only with their own plight, away, they lack the moral courage to do it, being paralysed by guilt induced by decades of liberalism. With the exception of a small handful of heroes in which the spirit of the old West lingers on, France succumbs to an invasion that is cheered on by her own media, politicians, and church.¹

When Hardin first used the lifeboat metaphor his concern was a country’s limited supply of material resources. What Raspail’s novel illustrates is that there are more important things at stake in keeping our lifeboats afloat. Our customs, way of life, beliefs, laws, traditions, history, and our very identity are all more important than physical resources. Indeed, it is these things which make possible the conditions that are attracting all of these migrants from other parts of the world.

Laws which protect and secure our persons and property, a respect for personal liberty that allows us to thrive and prosper balanced with a sense of fairness and justice that demands that we collectively look after the weaker and less successful among us, with recognized, established, and, for the most part respected, civil rights do not just come about on their own. Whether these things draw immigrants for their own sake or for the sake of the abundance of material goods that these make widely available in our countries, we tend to think of them as being based upon universal, abstract, principles available through reason to anyone, anywhere, at any time. This liberal assumption, however, does not bear the scrutiny of history in which these things developed slowly within the context of national cultures that claimed the heritage of classical Greco-Roman antiquity and of Christendom as their own. Should those cultures go down with our lifeboats, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that these things would survive, and there is plenty of evidence that they will not do so in the failed states that were once thriving colonies of European empires.

Make no mistake — the sinking of our national lifeboats, and our entire civilization along with them, is the doom that we choose for ourselves if we continue to base our response to the refugee crisis on sentiment and emotion rather than facts and reason. It is not as if the refugees were pouring into a healthy Europe of countries confident in their traditions and identities. They are pouring into a Europe which has experienced decades of low fertility in which governments have relied upon large scale immigration to keep their population levels up, a pattern encouraged by the European Union that has developed over the same period of time. While a healthy country can take in and absorb a certain number of immigrants without harm to itself, for a country to rely upon large numbers of immigrants to make up for low fertility as a long-term policy is to adopt a policy of population replacement over reproduction which is to embrace its own death as a nation.

After several decades of this, what Western countries need is a break from immigration, but what our politicians are offering us instead is to inundate us yet further with thousands of migrants who claim to be refugees but are clearly behaving more like a mob of invaders. The British government has offered to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020, with the opposition party and its supporters complaining that this is not enough. The governments of Germany and Austria have opened their borders wide to any and all claiming asylum. Even here in Canada, an ocean and half a world removed from the Middle East, each of the two largest opposition parties are vying to outdo the other in accusing the present government of culpability in the death of the three year old boy whom the media have been dishonestly presenting as a victim of Western heartlessness and in the tens of thousands of refugees they are promising to resettle should they win the upcoming election.

There are those, of course, who will insist that to think about preserving our national identities, cultures, and ways of life while other people are fleeing persecution and war is to show a lack of perspective and wrong priorities. They might further insist that the idea that we should not think only of ourselves but of others as well is the highest ethical principle of the faith at the heart of our traditional cultures and that to abandon that principle is also, in a sense, to lose who we are. While these objections should not be lightly dismissed, we must distinguish between moral principles themselves and the sentimental way in which some would apply them.

The Golden Rule tells us to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” but as none of us in our right mind would want another country to take us in if it did so in such numbers that it lost everything that made us want to move there in the first place, this clearly does not contradict the logic of lifeboat ethics, whatever the current pretender to St. Peter’s throne has to say about it. Christianity calls upon us to follow the example of Christ, and that example is one of self-sacrifice for the sake of others, but a cross is something that can only be taken up individually, not collectively. It is one thing to throw yourself in front of a bullet to save another person. It is quite another thing to put your child in the way of the bullet and then later try to claim the laurels of a hero. To insist that out of humanitarianism and compassion we resettle this growing flood of migrants in Western countries is to be like the latter person, not the former.

Worse, as is the whole point of the lifeboat metaphor, it is to be like the man who credits himself for heroism for sacrificing his child but failing to stop the bullet.

^{[1] English translation of The Camp of the Saints (PDF), free to download}

Follow our ongoing coverage of the migrant invasion of the West.

“If anyone does not take care of his own relatives, especially his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1st Timothy 5:8

A year ago, I came very close to falling victim to a variant of the so-called “Grandparents Scam.” The scam works like this. Someone posing as your granddaughter or grandson, affecting distress, phones to tell you that he or she is in deep trouble in a distant land. She has been jailed for a given offence, and is too embarrassed to ask her parents for help. So she asks for your money. And you send it.

To pull it off, the scammer must make the victim feel that she is indeed a relative that you have lost touch with. That’s the first hurdle. But the second one is to convince the victim of the urgency of sending the money. You must act now before it is too late. Hurry.

Once the victim’s emotional button has been pressed — and there is little time to stop and think — sending a money order to her fake lawyer post-haste is a likely response. In my case, two imposters —who should be given an Oscar for their performance — succeeded in making me believe that my nephew — whom I had not seen for years — was about to be sent to jail if money was not sent to his lawyer immediately. It is a long story, but I almost bought the pitch. Imagine, a ‘smart’ guy like me.

Following the phone call, I called the police, and was referred to the West Vancouver Police Department, and a certain Constable who specializes in that scam. Why West Vancouver? Because it’s target rich. It has a very high density of rich grandparents and folks in my age category. Folks who want to leave a legacy, or do something for those in our family who need our help.

During the interview, the Constable revealed a very interesting fact. You don’t have to be a sucker or simpleton to fall for this scam. Some very intelligent and well-educated people, including retired doctors, engineers, architects and teachers have been taken in. Why?

The answer is that we are not rational creatures. When our emotions are fully engaged, they can instantly overwhelm our judgment. That, I think, is the case with the issue of refugees, or those sad, tearful and emaciated African kids that we see on the screen whenever World Vision is conducting a drive. “Just a dollar a day will allow little Akbar to eat and go to school.”

Of course, some people are more susceptible to this kind of emotional manipulation than others. Especially those who do not use the left side of their brains to its full potential. Creative, right-brain people typically cannot think in quantitative terms. They are governed by emotions, and ooze with empathy, which has become the buzzword of pathological altruism.

They are typically innumerate — and typically leftist in their politics. When they tell us that we must fund the Arts, or invest more in education or the health care system or daycare or outreach programs for under-represented minorities, they will not say how much. When they tell us that we must run a deficit to kick-start the economy, they will not say how much or when it will be paid down. When they tell us that we must accept more immigrants or refugees, they won’t tell us how many. They will only say “more.” And if they do give a figure, it is only provisional, a stepping stone to future solicitations. Their demands are always open-ended. The goal posts are always moving.

They are not numbers people because their emotions are in the driver’s seat, and they make a point of showcasing their “compassion,” especially those of them who are running for office. Slogans like “People before profits” and “The economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around” fit their mindset. When you want to appeal to emotions to win the day, it always useful to present a false antithesis.

That is why the Arts Community in Canada is almost uniformly in support of the far left New Democratic Party. And naturally, they drink from the trough of the CBC Pravda, which, like public radio and television in the U.S., presents itself as the voice of elite (i.e., left) culture and artistic expression. If you see an NDP lawn sign, most likely you will see a “We Vote CBC” alongside of it.

It is therefore imperative that in order to mobilize the vast numbers of people who “think” in this fashion, the state media — and the social media — frame the refugee debate in purely emotional terms. Pictures of desperate people, of tragedy being played out every day and every hour, must be front and centre of every news item on the subject. The tragedy must be given a human face.

However, those in the host countries who must move over for these migrants, or see their social safety net collapse from the burden, or face future job displacement from cheap labour, are left unseen by the cameras. There is no human face attached to their plight. The only images of them that we are permitted to see are those of angry demonstrators — spiced up with a few neo-Nazis for good measure — shouting outside of migrant reception areas. Nothing like tarring legitimate outrage with the Nazi brush to discredit their grievances.

State media and its clones have a game plan:

The discussion must not be allowed to stray into the cold territory of numbers, resources, or likely long-term effects. Viewers must not be confronted with the reality that Europe simply does not have the capacity to accommodate the numbers of people who seek sanctuary and residence within its borders. Or that so-called “rich” countries like Canada and the United States, propped up by fiat currency and a bubble of purchasing power, cannot accept the hundreds of millions, and possibly billions of migrants who are anxious to flee poverty, famine or war. In short, viewers must not be allowed to understand the concept of limits.

If Western civilization is to be buried in an avalanche of migrants, its epitaph will be, “They died of misplaced empathy.” Empathy stoked up by photos and images promoted by our hostile elites in the media, eagerly grasped by ambitious politicians, and channeled towards the outsider at the expense of those within our ranks who are asked to sacrifice their space, their resources and their cultural heritage to serve the cause of “humanity.” Of course, those who would oppose this agenda are characterized as callous or selfish — worse.

But the issue is not one of compassion or lack thereof, but to whom compassion should be directed. Who should receive priority. Them — or us? Theirs — or ours?

This is a footnote to to Tim Murray’s current TOO article, “Pulling at Our heartstring: How the Enemy Within Uses Our Empathy Against Us.” In this Guardian article, note the reference to the famous photo and its effect in motivating empathy and (pathological) altruism:

The school hall was packed, with all eyes fixed on the video screen and its images of overladen boats, lines of refugees and shell-shattered buildings in Syria.

This was no normal Sunday service for the congregation of the Cornerstone Baptist church, who gather each week at the local primary school in Thame, south Oxfordshire.

Sunday’s service was dedicated to the plight of refugees, mainly Syrian, but those from Eritrea and elsewhere too.

The pastor, Paddy Harris, had thrown open the doors to all in the local community, to anyone troubled, especially by recent tragic images, including that of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi. To anyone that wanted to find a way to help, he said. Now, more than 100 people – parents with young children, teenagers, the elderly, a whole cross section – had gathered.

“I’m hoping it will show me ways to act, guide towards a practical solution,” said Sally Hobson, 39, a community paediatrician and regular church attendee, whose heart had been telling her to do something but she wasn’t quite sure what.

Amanda Clarke, 46, a barrister and part-time judge, agreed. “I’m hoping it will inspire us towards a more positive way forward,” she said.

Thame is a small town, one of the safest Conservative seats in the country, whose former MPs include Boris Johnson and Michael Heseltine. Here, as in many communities across the UK, the scale of the humanitarian refugee crisis was appreciated. The question to be addressed on Sunday, though, was what they could each do.

So these are predominantly White, Christian people in a Conservative district — more evidence for the pathology and bankruptcy of so much of contemporary Christianity and what passes as conservatism. I notice that Thame is a few miles from Oxford where there was a notorious ring of Asians who raped ~300 young girls, often with “violent depravity.” One would think the good citizens of Thame would have had quite enough of immigrants from that part of the world — that the empathy well would have about run dry. But hope (and empathy) spring eternal.

How could they help? They could pray, he told them. Or pledge money. Anyone with a property for rent could make it available to the local council for refugees. Perhaps they could foster an unaccompanied minor. Or find other ways to help integrate refugees into their community.

The image of tiny Aylan, whose lifeless body cradled by a Turkish police officer went around the world last week, was not shown. But others, stark images of walking lines of the displaced, and the bombed-out places they once called home, conveyed just as powerful a message. …

Mike Hill, a senior officer with the Metropolitan police, believed the horrific picture of little Aylan, and the tragedy that led to the death of him, his mother and his five-year-old brother, had shocked the nation into awareness that the government’s policies “are not looking after the most vulnerable people”.

Then this from a someone from South Africa:

“I think it is a dilemma for Christians,” said Steve Paver, 48, who is originally from South Africa and who described himself as “an economic migrant”.

“The temptation is the quick and easy actions and the short-term needs. And that is important, but it’s going to be a long-term problem,” he said.

“I think the need is so overwhelming and as a Christian I believe even the small things we can do have greater value than we realise.”

One detects a bit of skepticism in the South African. Could it be he is really a racial migrant—a White who got out before he could be victimized because of his race — and before the deluge to come? Or had he already become a victim? Were his economic prospects dashed by favoritism to Black South Africans? One has the feeling the South African understands that the long-term effects of this are not going to be at all easy.

But in the heat of the upwelling of empathy, all that is forgotten. Their descendants won’t so easily forget.

Model Debbie Baigrie was walking to her car in down town Tampa Bay when a 13-year-old Ian Manuel approached her.

The youngster and a friend demanded change for a $20 bill, but seconds later the boy drew his gun and shot her in the mouth.

Baigrie, who was 28 at the time and had just had her second child, required years of facial reconstructive surgery while Manuel was charged with attempted murder and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences in an adult prison.

But more than 25 years after the attack the pair have struck up an unlikely friendship, and now she is campaigning for his release.

She feels sympathy for the shooter, because he was so young at the time, and is troubled by the racial discrimination in the case.

‘If he was a cute white boy at 13, with little dimples and blue eyes, there’s no way this would have happened,’ she told the New York Times.

‘When you’re 13, you do stupid stuff,’ she adds before saying ‘Walk a mile in his shoes.’

Their correspondence began the second Christmas of Manuel’s sentence when he decided to call her. She asked him bluntly why he killed her, he said it was a ‘mistake’.

He then sent her a card with a picture of a hand reaching through prison bars to offer a red rose.

Read More

In the midst of the ongoing hostage crisis in Sydney – which the media is now claiming may last for days – many Australians have taken to Twitter to pledge allegiance to the enemy forces.

Using the hashtag #illridewithyou, ethnic Australians are pledging that they will accompany any Muslim who fears retribution for their attacks and defend them from their own people who are under attack.

Could anything ever possibly be more insane than pledging allegiance to your enemy while he is inside of your base, actively killing your dudes?

Here’s some picked out from the top when I was reading through – and no, I am not singling out women, this is just what I found.

How is this even possible?  Each and every one of these Tweeters is committing treason, and in any sane nation would be prosecuted for it!

What other race could ever be so demented as this?

HINT: NONE – NO ONE ELSE DOES THIS, WHITE MAN.  YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO WOULD PUBLICLY PLEDGE SUPPORT TO YOUR ENEMY WHILE HE IS ATTACKING YOU.

To be fair, a good portion of the 1000 per minute are from Muslims being like “yes, thank you for giving us your base, I am so proud that we now own Australia through our colonization/world conquest program.”

But at least half of them are White people, by my count.  But the majority are women – obviously.

Though in women’s defense, the only anti-this hashtag I saw was from one.

Pathological altruism and women’s rights will destroy our race.

Official DS Sydney hostage thread here.

Can you imagine how the survivors are going to feel when they get out of this and find out that their own people were publicly declaring support for their captors in the midst of the crisis?

Try and picture the faces of your ancestors, White Man.

And hang your head as low as it will go.

A White mother and father whose son was tragically killed by Black savages who yelled “We f**king hate you!” at them in court, have still not learnt from what happened to them, WISN reports.

Instead of rejecting the Negro and loving their race, they have done the exact opposite and adopted a junior version of one of their son’s killers instead.

The problem with the people who do things like this is that they think they are being tested, which they are, but not in the way they think.

They think their love for humanity is being tested by one of the Black race killing one of their own. In order to show that they will not let this evil thing damage their capacity to love, they resolve to be even more loving to the race that hurt them.

However it is not their love for other races which is being tested, but rather the love of their own which is being encouraged.

The more we reject our own and show compassion to the other races, the more violent and heinous their crimes will get and the more they will hate us, as the natural order of the universe tries to put itself right.

Charity begins at home and therefore charity can only be for your own race. If it grows out towards any other race then it ceases to be charity and becomes chastisement instead.

These parents are not being charitable, but are being punished for rejecting their own race.

This will become more apparent to them as the simian grows older.

How much more evidence does the White man need that he is not helping anyone by interfering with the Ebola infected Africans?

The Blacks do not want our help, and all we do by trying is put other White people at risk of catching it.

Whenever there are too many of something in nature, nature has a way of taking care of it.

Thanks to us interfering with the natural state of the Black, they have been able to reproduce at a most alarming rate, with some countries in Africa having as much as 50% of the population under 20 years of age.

They are not capable of looking after themselves or even feeding themselves and if we take on that responsibility, we will eventually have no time or resources left at all for looking after ourselves.

Trying to prevent Ebola from running its course in Africa is like running on a treadmill – it will never actually get us anywhere and will just tire us out completely.

The latest gift of gratitude from the savages has been to attack the Red Cross team that was collecting the infected bodies for them. They even wounded one worker in the neck.

This comes on top of abducting and killing eight health workers last week, who had been trying to educate the natives about the dangers of the disease.

Doctors have been stoned, threatened and attacked all over Africa, as well as actually contracted the disease and then brought it back with them to White countries.

Obama is now sending 3,000 American troops to somehow ‘fight’ the virus.

This is insane. You cannot fight the natural order and the natural order has never meant having a Black planet. Nature will do all it can to prevent that happening and we should be working with her, not against her.

ABC:

One Red Cross worker is recovering after being wounded in in the neck in Tuesday’s attack in Forecariah, according to Benoit Carpentier, a spokesman for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.Family members of the dead initially set upon the six volunteers and vandalized their cars, said Mariam Barry, a resident. Eventually a crowd went to the regional health office, where they threw rocks at the building.

The attack is the most recent in a series that have plagued teams working to bury bodies safely, provide information about Ebola and disinfect public places. The most shocking was the abduction and killing last week in Guinea of eight people, health workers educating people about Ebola and the journalists accompanying them.

Ebola is believed to have infected more than 5,800 people in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Nigeria and Senegal. The unprecedented size and sweep of the outbreak have led governments to impose severe measures to control it, like a recent nationwide lockdown in Sierra Leone to look for the sick and spread information. On Wednesday, Sierra Leone said 30 more cases uncovered during the shutdown tested positive for Ebola, raising the total number discovered over the three days to 160.

Resistance to efforts to control the disease — from outright denials that Ebola exists to fears that the very people sent to combat it are in fact carriers — has frustrated efforts to end or slow the disease’s spread in all three of the most affected countries, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, say officials.

In April, Doctors Without Borders briefly pulled out its team from the Guinean town of Macenta after their clinic was stoned. In Liberia, the homes of some of the infected have been attacked. Last week, Red Cross workers were threatened in Sierra Leone, Carpentier, the Red Cross spokesman, said.