The whole attempt to turn the Alt-Right – which was essentially a cultural movement – into a street protest movement was the result of baiting by the Jewish media.

And it turned out to be a fucking disaster.

There were certainly good aspects to Charlottesville, and as an event, it was historically necessary. But all subsequent events following it have been horrible cringefests where the people still willing to go out on the streets at these planned events are simply further alienating the people who were previously energetic about the movement, further pushing our ideology – which is naturally mainstream and populist – into the realm of the lunatic fringe.

Everyone knows that there will be violence. Everyone knows this looks horrible in the media, that we look like ruffians, that it doesn’t matter who starts the fight we get blamed for it.

And look – by simply going to these events, we ARE responsible for violence, because we know there will be violence there.

What is the goal of this activity?

No one can explain that.

I have asked and asked, and the only thing that the defenders of this shit give is hollow and rhetorical “we have to show strength!” “we will control the streets!”

They do not explain how it will advance any single goal. And I am not even clear on what the goals of these people are. Matt Heimbach and the Traditionalist Worker Party – the main street antagonists in between Charlottesville and Heimbach getting arrested for beating his father-in-law and wife after it was discovered he was sleeping with his mother-in-law – appeared to vaguely have the goal of overthrowing the government somehow.

By fighting the military? 

With this crew?

What the hell is this shit?

What are we even talking about?

Look.

You are not going to overthrow the government. That is kiddie shit to even talk about.

If you were going to overthrow the government, you would not do it by bringing out a few hundred guys on the street to throw a tantrum and fight antifa trannies.

There is no path from “a few hundred guys doing tantrum activism in the street while being outnumbered 5-to-1 and getting shouted down” to “rushing the Congress and seizing control of the government.”

This is just not the way reality works.

The only reasonable goal of a protest is to demonstrate popular support for a cause.

That is what the Tommy Robinson marches did. And that worked.

They have tens of thousands of people and a popular cause. Most people supported the basic cause of Tommy Robinson. While many people DO support whites maintaining a white society in America, no one supports neo-Nazi street-fighting.

Literally no one.

I think this shit is cringy as fuck and gay.

The armbands, man.

Wtf.

At least people who LARP DnD have some humor. And aren’t trying to hijack a popular political ideology and make it into a gigantic fucking circus show joke for the Jew media.

That is what these people are doing: making a massive joke of OUR revolution.

There will be a time for marches.

At some point, we will be out on the streets. That point is a long way off. That is going to be at a point where we can get as many people as Tommy got, which means that our issues have to be as popular as Tommy’s were.

Armband neo-Nazism is never going to be that popular. 

These people are putting on a circus show for the kikes, making a mockery of people who actually care about the future of the white race.

Yes, I get that Heimbach is out of the picture.

I’m talking about Heimbach’s thing, and he’s obviously not going to be at this march.

I don’t know who is. But I assume is has to be these same types of people. After Charlottesville, and the doxings, and the lawsuits, the Heimbach type is the only type who would turn out to something like this.

And of course young kids who are being taken advantage of by people like Heimbach.

Here’s the thing, kids.

I want you each to be personally successful. I want you to get good jobs, have good lives, find women, be healthy.

I don’t want you to ruin your life by showing your face at a post-Charlottesville rally.

Everything is different now. This isn’t the same as the little demonstrations we did before Charlottesville.

If you show up at this event, and you are identified, your life will be ruined. You won’t be able to get into a university or get a good job, you probably won’t be able to even get into a trade school or join a union.

You need to protect yourselves. You need to lay low. We need good, quality people involved in this thing if we are going to do what we want to do, and getting doxed as a neo-Nazi street fighter will ruin your life, forever. Forever. You don’t come back from that. Even if you are only a teenager, you are making a decision that have a very good chance of ruining your entire life.

Racial grievance marches are harmful to you, they are harmful to the movement, they are harmful to the long-term goals we have for our people.

Just don’t do it.

We have Stormer Books Clubs, where you can get together with other people who think like we do in real life. We protect each other, we maintain anonymity, we do activism that is safe, that doesn’t involve street-fighting. There are other groups doing things like this.

We cannot win a battle on the streets. We cannot win a protest movement organizational battle.

We are currently winning a culture war, and were long before the kike media tricked us into Charlottesville.

We need to remain in the realm of the hip, cool, sexy, fun. We need to speak to the culture. We do not want the image of being a bunch of weird losers who march around like assholes while completely outnumbered and get mocked by the entire planet.

That is exactly what you do not want. And basically, that is what the Alt-Right has become synonymous with post-Charlottesville.

I don’t even care anymore.

I want nothing to do with any of this faggot unironic “Neo-Nazi” streetfighting horseshit. It disgusts me – as it disgusts virtually everyone on the planet. It is fundamentally repulsive, on a visceral level.

Yes, I supported Charlottesville.

Just to be clear, I did support Charlottesville, and I am not trying to pretend as though I did not. Hindsight is 20/20. I don’t blame anyone for what happened there. None of us knew that the police were setting up a trap. None of us knew how many antifa would be there, and how the police would lead our guys into them.

I also didn’t understand that “neo-Nazism” would be a main theme of it. I thought we were going for a IE type look, rather than cringe.

To be fair, most guys did look bretty good.

But this Neo-Nazi shit man… you are not ever going to get anyone onboard with that. And it isn’t because “it’s too hardcore” – it’s because it’s cringy and try-hard fag shit.

These people are anti-social freaks. In the above picture, the guy on the right, “Commander” Jeff Hall, was murdered in his sleep by his 10-year-old son.

I want nothing to do with any of this shit.

But yeah, Charlottesville: I personally thought we would be able to give a few speeches in a park, show that yes, we are a real life movement, then go home.

Oh how young I was. 

The purpose would have been simply to demonstrate that the Alt-Right is a real movement of real people. That was a clear, unambiguous purpose.

These post-Charlottesville marches have no purpose, other than to make anyone who supports white self-determination look like a fringe lunatic.

They are horribly destructive, and they need to stop.

I fully denounce this upcoming march in Washington, and encourage all of my readers to stay all the way away from it.

There is no imminent street-fighting revolution where we rally the troops to fight the military then do day of the rope. If you thought there was, that’s sad and I’m sorry for you. It must be like learning that Santa isn’t real.

But that is the reality.

What the hell is going on with these guys? Do they think this is cool?

Following the events of the Battle of Sacramento, I was interested in looking at what exactly is going through the minds of the anti-fascist (“antifa”) faggots who rushed the place and got all stabbed-up.

I had to look no further than Reddit, where I found a thread on /r/socialist discussing the event. I highly recommend that everyone go skim through that thread, just to get an idea of where these people’s heads are at.

I suppose it’s what I would have expected if I had spent a lot of time thinking it through. Basically, they live in a delusional fantasy world where the mainstream media is part of a fascist apparatus which supports Neo-Nazi White Supremacists.

For those who don’t know, the antifa are a violent wing of the social justice movement. Most of them are White, though they ally with brown people when they engage in terrorist attacks, and their leaders are presumably mostly Jews.

They self-identify more aggressively as “communist” than most SJWs are likely to, but their philosophy is the same:

• Anti-White/pro-Black/pro-immigrant
• Anti-male/feminist
• Anti-free speech/pro-censorship
• Anti-family/pro-homosexual/pro-tranny
• Anti-Christian/pro-Islam
• etc.

Just on down the line, they support all of the positions of the elite Jewish establishment, the government, the university system and so on.

At the same time, they want to identify as being rebellious. It’s an extremely difficult position to be in – to support all of the positions of the establishment, but also somehow feel like you’re a rebel.

Basically then, because the “rebel” angle can’t come from their politics, it comes from violent, illegal actions to shut down the freedom of speech of those who disagree with the government.

The idea is that the government simply isn’t aggressive enough in shutting down its opponents, which then fuels a conspiracy theory that the government secretly supports right-wing groups, otherwise they would be actively murdering anyone who thinks differently.

None of this is especially intuitive in any way, leading most people to give up on trying to understand the phenomenon.

If an alien were watching the planet earth, and had never heard of these antifa, then saw them attacking a right-wing rally held in a country with an extreme left-wing government, the alien would assume they were part of a state police operation.

They only appear when people disagree with the government, for the express purpose of violently silencing dissidents.

From my own observations of the antifa phenomenon, I believe that most of the rank and file – the White heterosexual males, I mean – are just confused and like the idea of going out on the streets and fighting for something. It is natural enough, to want to fight for something. What is unnatural is to want to fight against your own interests.

Most of them are obviously from affluent backgrounds, and thus don’t necessarily understand their own interests in the way working class Whites do. So it makes sense it’s taking them a while to really catch on.

I think that as we continue to win fights against them, many of the White male members will begin switching sides.

And when they do, we will embrace them as lost brothers who have finally made their way home.

The best way to expedite that process is by pointing out that they are shills for the elite, and drawing attention to how totally uncool this is.

Hail Victory.

Matthew “The New Face of Hate” Heimbach

Following the recent event in Sacramento, which will go down in history as the day the American race war really heated up, I talked with Matthew Heimbach, organizer of the event and head of the Traditionalist Workers Party.

***

Excellent work in Sacramento, Matt.

Thank you so much comrade, the true respect belongs to our very own “Sacramento Spartans.” Our comrades in California heroically defeated the hordes of the radical Leftists and inspired nationalists around the globe for their steadfast stand for Faith, Family and Folk.

What made you decide to hold the event in Sacramento?

The Traditionalist Worker Party has a very active chapter in California along with our alliance with the Golden State Skinheads (GSS). GSS organized Camp Comradery last summer which was a great nationalist event with over 200 attendees and it really demonstrated to me the power of White nationalist organizing potential in California and I got to know the comrades in GSS and really respect them for their dedication to the Cause, their families and one another.

Matt with Comrades at Camp Comradery, 2015

We picked Sacramento because of our Party chapter there but also because it is a bastion of liberalism, Cultural Marxism and anti-White sentiment in California. If we can march in Sacramento, we can march anywhere. So we came, we marched and we won.

What was the specific goal of the demonstration, and do you feel that goal was achieved?

The goal of the demonstration was to bring awareness about the clampdown on political speech and freedom of assembly for nationalists and anyone who disagrees with the far-Left radicals. Donald Trump supporters are forced to go through a gauntlet of bricks, bottles and punches even to just get into one of his rallies, especially in California.

Trump supporters were brutally attacked at a recent rally in San Jose, demonstrating again that while Democrats might not be the real racists, they are the real threat to peace and safety.

We are told that six people were stabbed and some number of others were injured. Which of those were our dudes and which were enemy dudes?

Only one of our comrades was seriously injured, the rest of those in the hospital are the antifa aggressors that started this fight and summarily lost it. It is truly amazing to see how our comrades were outnumbered 10-1 and the antifa brought an entire cache of weapons but they still got stomped into the dirt.

You invited the Golden State Skinheads to the event, and they were the ones who really showed the antifa what time it was. I was very happy to see politically-minded White nationalists working with skinheads. I have always found the opposition to skinheads among political White nationalist groups to be elitist and faggoty. What made you decide to invite skinheads to the event?

This is actually a big issue that needs to be discussed in depth. I have had the pleasure to get to know a lot of different people in the White nationalist movement over the years I have been involved in this Cause. One of the biggest problems I have found in our movement is the sub cultural divides between various factions and classism within certain factions. The skinhead subculture is a working class movement with a lot of diversity within it.

Often people make the mistake of thinking skinheads are either those of the Jewish anti-White propaganda film American History X or thinking that prison gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood that put more stock in running drugs than being pro-White are White nationalist skinheads. These portrayals are simply propaganda put out by the enemy to demonize working class Whites who organize on the local level to defend their communities and to take a stand for their people.

The Heroes of GSS were on the frontlines of the Battle of Sacramento

In my experience skinheads are overwhelmingly hard working folks who love their families and have true fraternity with one another.

One of the biggest failures of our movement historically has been the division of groups based on class. Members of our Cause can posture and pose about being above working with everyday folks, but it is those dedicated men and women who are the frontlines in this struggle and our necessary for our success.

The State is increasingly anti-White, refusing to enforce the rule of law when radical Leftists attack us. We need blue collar men who are willing to defend our political space, march in the streets and be able to talk to and recruit other working class White men and women.

One of our primary functions as a movement must be uniting our people and promoting class cooperation, gender cooperation and religious cooperation. The enemy seeks to divide us, we must unite as one people; standing shoulder to shoulder in defense of our folk.

Skinheads bled for the cause in Sacramento.

They also defended, causing enemies to bleed for their cause.

The Golden State Skinheads are a shining example of a skinhead organization. GSS is made up of family men, blue collar workers and comrades who understand the principles of nationalism and how through activism and politics we can achieve our objectives. They are the opposite of the Hollywood caricature of skinheads and I am proud to call them my friends, my brothers and my comrades.

The Traditionalist Worker Party rejects all classism and I would gladly stand next to any skinhead who is dedicated to fighting for the future of our people. Without men like this, the forces of anarchy and Red violence will forever be able to attack and intimidate our supporters, but with men like those in GSS, we can defend and advance our political space, reach new people and show the Reds that they cannot bully us off of the public stage.

Our Cause here in America needs an SA to serve the same purpose they did in Germany in the 1920’s and 1930’s, to be the frontline soldiers of our nationalist struggle and thus in this day I call for movement unity between the “boots and suits,” it is the only path to victory.

The antifa who spoke to the media said that the ideas of nationalists are a form of violence, and thus mob attacking you was self-defense. Does that make sense to you? Do you think it is a narrative they will be able to uphold long-term?

This goes to show the Orwellian doublethink of the radical Left. They have justified attacking police and even Donald Trump supporters on the same idea that enacting nationalist policies are a form of violence, thus justifying them holding riots and attacking people they disagree with politically, even aiming to kill those on our side. This narrative will quickly fall apart and already is.

We’ve now got Breitbart defending skinheads.

Breitbart.com released a story detailing the radical and violent nature of groups like By Any Means Necessary and other antifa groups who view everyday conservatives, pro-lifers, traditional marriage supporters and even 2nd Amendment supporters as being on the exact same level as nationalists. This radical Leftist agenda and their continued violence will only send an ever increasing amount of everyday White people into the nationalist camp. As one Breitbart commenter said “These people have forced me into the position of having to defend my own existence just because of the color of my skin. I’ve never been able to stomach the KKK, Nazi, skinhead types. And now I am backed into the corner of joining with them in my own self-defense.”

The Left is polarizing American politics and pushing White working families into our camp, it is now our duty to organize and mobilize them for the principles of nationalism.

The organization which organized the attack, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), is classified by the FBI as a terrorist group. The attack on the Traditionalist Worker’s Party clearly fits the definition of a terrorist attack. As I understand it, they publicly told people to bring bricks and baseball bats to the rally. Those who brought knifes could reasonably be charged with pre-planned attempted murder. What do you think the chances are that members of the group and/or the organizers will be brought up on charges?

I think that there is a chance that BAMN will suffer charges for the premeditated attempted murder of our comrades. They said publicly that “this is not a protest, this is a shut down” and the fact that they did not receive any permits for their counter demonstration indicates they had no interest in ever peacefully protesting.

The BAMN radicals chanted “Kill the Nazis” and “Kill the Fascists” as they attacked our comrades, urging on antifa with knives, bats and even a gun to kill our comrades, a clear incitement to immediate illegal activity which is the legal definition of inciting a riot. For that alone the BAMN organizers should be investigated, charged and convicted for Federal civil rights violations and incitement to riot.

The real threat to society – this fat pear woman needs immigrants because White men won’t have sex with her. 

The System of course is anti-White and I am not holding my breath that the law will be upheld, but I am hopeful that justice will be done and these Leftist radicals will serve serious jail time for their violent terrorist assault on our peaceful and legal rally.

Are any of our guys being brought up on charges following the event?

None of our comrades have been charged because the police made clear to us and to the media that our comrades were simply defending themselves within the limits of the law.

Negroid Antifa stabbed-up, legally.

Our men were armed with shields and a few flagpoles defended themselves against knives, a gun, bats, chunks of concrete, bottles and improvised weapons. Our Sacramento Spartans defeated the enemy and followed the law, a true credit to their discipline, courage and skill.

The antifa did not appear to have been very intelligently organized, and made themselves look very bad. Do you think there is some strategy there I am missing, or are they just dumb?

I think that the radical Left has spent too many years attacking those who do not fight back. Going after conservatives who have an Establishment that will not resist the attacks of the radical Left or those in our movement who hide in conference rooms have given them a false sense of invincibility. The Leftist coalition cannot be very well organized because it doesn’t make sense or have a unifying principle or ideology other than hating nationalists.

The communists want a totalitarian State while the anarchists want no State. The Black nationalists want their own Homeland and self determination while White liberals dream of a multiracial utopia.

You have radical feminists and homosexuals marching next to Muslims who oppose their lifestyle. Blacks and Hispanics when Whites are not in an area end up fighting one another and their coalition is fracturing. White antifa are being iced out of the Black Lives Matter movement because even “White allies” aren’t welcome in Black “safe spaces.”

Their coalition is built simply on trying to stop White nationalism in America and as we grow, get more organized and begin winning more victories against them, their alliance will fracture even more against our steadfast and united movement.

What do you think about the psychology of the individual antifa fighters? I tend to think they are just young guys with a lot of energy who want to fight for something.

I think that White masculinity having been deemed “toxic” by mainstream society has pushed a lot of young White men into the ranks of antifascist groups because it is one of the only places they find community and a socially acceptable outlet for a natural male instinct to fight. The Jews and radical Left uses young White men as cannon fodder and making them “useful idiots” for the anti-White Cause.

This young, healthy-looking White lad is probably just confused and looking for something to fight for.

Others among antifa have different reasons for being involved, of course.

Joseph Goebbels famously said that it was easier to convert a communist to National Socialism than to convert a conservative. Do you think it is likely that as we gain momentum, many of these guys will join our side?

I think when many Leftists realize that we as nationalists are the true socialists, the true anti-globalists and the true anti-capitalists I believe they will come to our side. White antifa have no place in the future of the Left wing movement and that is already being made clear to them. Several of our Party comrades are previous IWW and CPUSA members who came to our side for these very same reasons. As nationalism grows, the Left will have a large defection of the White blue collar individuals who have long made up their ranks.

Following the event, I noted the difficulty the media was having in fitting it into their “evil Nazi” narrative. The coverage was awkward and fumbling, not in part due to the way the antifa spoke to the media. How do you feel about the way the media covered the event and its aftermath?

I want to give a specific shout out and praise to the ABC 10 reporter Frances Wang for her coverage during the event. Ms. Wang is a Chinese immigrant and seemed to have far more journalistic integrity than any #cucked White reporter or Jew would ever give us. While most reporters are tools of the System, we should always give praise to reporters who buck the PC line and actually report the Truth. She reported accurately on the ground that the antifa were the aggressors, they came with weapons and that our men defended themselves.

Skinhead-friendly Asian reporter Frances Wang actually tried to report the event honestly

Overall I was pleased with the media exposure, especially from conservative outlets that are not White nationalist but understand the implications of this event. If Leftist radicals can attack nationalists and attempt to shut down our freedom of speech and assembly, they can do it to normal conservatives as well.

Our victory in Sacramento is huge because it shows only by standing strong and defending your political space can you beat back the Leftist hordes. Conservative outlets spoke a lot about freedom of speech and how the fact we had a permit and the Left did not is proof that we should have been able to have our rally without any problems.

While some Leftist rags trotted out the old “Neo-Nazi” line on us, the majority of outlets were forced to report the fact that we were in the right and the Left committed actual terrorism, this is a good sign for things to come and I believe the anti-White Left suffered a huge media defeat in this case.

Will we be seeing more of these events this summer and will you let us know at the Daily Stormer so our guys can attend?

The Traditionalist Worker Party has active chapters all around the country and will be participating in a variety of events, some based on community service, community outreach and also public demonstrations. We had originally planned to be at the RNC in Cleveland but the city is making the situation very difficult. Permits will not be officially given until a few days before the RNC and to only some of the groups who have applied. It is likely after speaking with several sources in Cleveland that our Party would not be granted a permit unless we were willing to wage an expensive legal fight against the city of Cleveland.

In place of this, we are calling all comrades to New York City on July 30th. We will be holding a large protest outside of the United Nations building and are filing our permits now to ensure that we get them with proper time to plan.

The UN is of course one of the largest forces for globalism in the world and we will be marching against globalism, the UN support for demographic displacement of Whites and so called “hate speech” laws that are used against nationalists. This will be a rally in the belly of the beast and one that will show the System and the world that White men and women will no longer cower, instead we will stand strong and march forward to our final victory.

We encourage all nationalists to join us on July 30th and take a stand for Faith, Family and Folk!

Excellent! We will be announcing more about how folks can get involved with that in the near future!

Hail Victory!

Hail Victory!

Insane video. Crowd sees any signs of "Nazis" and they run&attack. A lot of people bleeding/getting maced. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/PoFhILfZ95

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Today’s TradYouth rally in Sacramento turned into a complete fiasco with multiple people getting stabbed and dozens upon dozens attacked.

LA Times:

At least five people were stabbed, some critically, during clash between a neo-Nazi rally and counter protesters at the state capitol in Sacramento Sunday, fire officials said.

Chris Harvey, public information officer for the Sacramento Fire Department, said five patients were transported to local hospitals with critical stab wounds. Several other people suffered cuts, scrapes and bruises but were not taken to the hospital, Harvey said.

“It was quite a bit of a melee,” Harvey said, mentioning that several different groups had descended on the Capitol, including counter protesters.

Harvey said he did not know which groups the stabbing victims were from.

Emergency responders got the call at roughly 11:45 am. The victims were spread out over the Capitol grounds, which covers multiple blocks in downtown Sacramento, Harvey said. As of 12:45pm, the crowds had been dispersed and most protesters had left the area.

The Traditional Worker Party, a white supremacist, anti-immigration group, was holding a march Sunday “to protest against globalization and in defense of the right to free expression,” according to the group’s website. They appeared to be vastly outnumbered by counter protesters, who held up signs that read “Nazi scum,” according to photos and videos posted on social media.

An organizer of the rally who wasn’t at the capitol, said on a web live stream that one person from his group had been stabbed and was being transported to the hospital.

“They got one of us but we got six of them,” he said.

This is the way the Jews work. If they can’t stop you from speaking through legal means, they will just stab you on the streets in response to your free speech.

Absolutely unbelievable.

These people have just declared war.

Consider the challenge accepted, faggots.

Here’s Matt on Red Ice.

This is all happening live, right now.

Here is the series of Tweets from ABC 10 reporter Frances Wang.

"Counter protestors" in place already for a protest at noon put on by alleged "Nazis" coming to the Capitol. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/yyL11ka1GJ

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

N&10 blocked off. Police expect more "counter protestors" than protestors from Traditionalist Working Party. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/rWpEaRqqhV

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Some description of the Party on their website. Counter protestors calling them "racists," "Nazis," "Fascist" @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/icGs4M5yyz

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

A look at some of the chants going on. There's also huge groups on the other end of the street. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/YFTd8VK5BT

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

They've been here for at least 2 hours already! Many of them all in black. And it's HOT. https://t.co/wxg2RgRA2d

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

The Party's FB page referring to today's rally. The group got a permit at the Capitol. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/w3K7BMc0W3

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

VIDEO: Police stepping in to stop a man from being attacked. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/Wzd9Q8zt1j

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

A lot of people needing medical attention. Trying to report yet stay away because of pepper spray in the air. @ABC10

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

People are yelling for medical attention. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/WFPYziSWv8

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Counter-protestors telling me multiple people have been stabbed. Working with Fire Dept. to confirm. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/jmVpjPVtvH

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

#BREAKING Sac Fire just confirmed multiple people have been stabbed at the Capitol protest. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/afuc69Sw5r

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Horrifying…Blood spatters all over the ground. Police trying to control crowds. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/aPtjTAO6pj

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Many of the counter-protestors don't want their faces shown. Here's one of them getting medical attention. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/7MOJN3JiNe

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Police putting up crime tape around area where stabbings just happened. Crowds heading back to Capitol steps. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/f2PuvWvO7n

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Counter-protestors calling this group of police "Nazi chauffeurs" @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/2hTSK5jj3T

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

VIDEO to show what today has been like. See crowds running. Follow crowds. See people getting attacked. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/nhUlm6eGW9

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Just heard a loud BOOM. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/GvpRQWYZgJ

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

#BREAKING The "original protest" organized by the Traditionalist Working Party has been cancelled. @ABC10

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Sac Police: no arrests have been made. According to Sac Fire, 5 people have been stabbed. @ABC10

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

A clip of a media update from Sac Police. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/zZuLr6aliv

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

A man trying to document the event got attacked. He says he doesn't identity w/ any white supremacist group. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/TQFnYugqHa

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Believes he may have gotten attacked for live streaming the protests/counter-protests. @ABC10 pic.twitter.com/gHtOtUw4Hd

— Frances Wang (@ABC10Frances) June 26, 2016

Matt will be giving further details himself soon, as this madness continues to unfold and exactly what has happened becomes clear.

Whatever the case, this is a major victory for Neo-Nazism, proving that we are the normal and peaceful people and the leftist SJWs are the violent psychopaths.

It’s getting huge media coverage.

One way or another, we will have justice for what has happened today.

Hail Matthew Heimbach.

Hail TradYouth.

Hail Victory.

Matt Parrott wrote a response to my recent series rticles on feminism, and I would like to give a response to his response.

Before I begin, I want to say very clearly that this has nothing to do with “infighting,” but is simply a gentleman’s disagreement. I have a very high level of respect for Mr. Parrott and all others involved in TradYouth, and I feel we can have an open dialogue as comrades without there being any subtext of hostility.

On the whole, Parrott seems confused not only about what it is I am trying to communicate, but what he himself is trying to communicate as well.  The understanding he has of my positions on this topic could have come from a feminist report on what I have written rather than a direct reading of my material, and his own position changes drastically in the course of the essay.

I will go through point-by-point and comment, skipping only the introductory paragraphs.

Parrott begins with some kind words about our project here at the Daily Stormer, and then agrees with my position that political spaces should be fundamentally male spaces. He states some facts about the nature of women which I would wholly agree with.

Women, young and old alike, are neither designed nor inclined to develop or encourage politically aggressive subcultures. Women tend to prefer compassion and compromise over conflict, albeit social or physical. Women tend to tag along with the herd rather than staking out their own course. Women tend to be more sensitive to safety and security considerations, with a general attitude of risk-aversion. Women tend to think in terms of people and details rather than abstractions and ideals.

All of these general inclinations make for superior nurturers, superior community organizers, and superior secretaries. But they also make for counter-productive and corrupting distractions from the development of radical subcultures if they’re allowed to set the tone, guide the conversation, or steer the decision-making process.

I could have written all of that myself (though I probably would have used the word “tend” much less). So here we see that we definitely agree more than we disagree, for the time being.

Women are absolutely equal to men in value for our communities and for our cause. They’re complementary halves of our racial whole, and we should strive to respect them, protect them, and go out of our way to put their energy and talent to use for our survival.

Here, we begin to differ slightly as Parrot begins his veer to the left. I would never use the e-word in a discussion of sex, as I believe it is dishonest, a way of pandering to modern sensibilities.

Of course, it is true that in strict biological terms, men and women are both necessary for the continuation of this or any other species which reproduces sexually, but that having been said, women’s abilities in virtually all relevant areas of life outside of those relating to children and keeping house are significantly less than those of men. We also might note that a group of men could clearly survive until they grew old without women, women could not survive at all without men.

“Equality” also implies an equal share of power in society, which should clearly not be the case.  All of the power in a society belongs to men.

So, though this may partially be an issue of semantics, I don’t feel it is correct to use this liberal buzzword in a discussion of gender roles.

But Anglin’s correct on a fundamental point: Our work is implicitly male at this stage and we can’t afford to waste time trying to make it more comfortable for or inclusive of women. Predictably, he goes astray in his application of this point for the same reason Anglin always misses the mark, because his approach is ultimately secular, modern, and biologically reductionist.

This idea of a secular vs. a religious position is interesting to me, and I would have liked to have heard how my secular stance differs from a religious stance in his perception. Unfortunately, that is not something which Parrott elaborates on.  If I were to elaborate on it myself, I would note that Biblical gender norms are the same as any other historical European gender norms and the sort I am promoting.  I don’t exactly know where Parrott could have gone with this thread, or why he mentions it at all.

And though I would fully agree that my position on this matter is secular – my official position on all matters is secular, given both that I believe it is only professional and appropriate in the context of politics to focus on the scientific and that my own spiritual belief is that the natural world itself is inseparable from the divine – I see nothing at all “modern” about my own position. I have in fact, repeatedly, used the word “medieval” when describing my perception of appropriate gender roles. Regrettably, Parrott does not elaborate on that accusation either.

In the general framework of Radical Traditionalism, more specifically within the Christian Traditionalist framework, a dynamic has been developed wherein men are trusted and expected to lead in political matters while women are afforded complementary opportunities which are every bit as vital to our long-range success.

I would need a citation on this, as Parrott is apparently claiming the authority of a “radical tradition” which I am not aware exists. When we speak of “tradition” (whether “radical” or otherwise) we are generally talking about a consistent historical precedent, and I dare say there is no historical precedent whatsoever for the position that women are “every bit as vital” as men to the success of a political agenda.  We could go all the way back to ancient Greece and all the way up through the industrial revolution and have a very hard time finding a single man who would not burst out laughing if you claimed that women were vital to your political agenda.

My own position – which is absolutely backed up by consistent historical precedent – that is, tradition – is that women are irrelevant to the success or failure of a political agenda, assuming they are barred from being involved in politics. If they are involved in politics, then they are at best a hindrance, at worst devastating.

Of course, women have been a part of the Jewish cultural Marxist agenda to break down society, but this is categorically different, as this was a psychological and sociological war of destruction. The Jews have built absolutely nothing, and have used women in the political realm for the purpose of tearing down existing social and moral structures within our society. And, suffice to say, there is nothing traditional about cultural Marxism.

Simply borrowing from the “manosphere” and its groupthink to arrive at our approach to gender relations is as toxic as imbibing the implicitly feminist and egalitarian approach to gender relations which secular women who happen to be pro-white generally expect.

I’m unclear about what is meant to be communicated here. What specific concepts from the manosphere are we referring to? How does “groupthink” relate? How could anything be as toxic egalitarianism?

Elaboration is needed here, though none is given.  Instead we are left with vague insinuation (the core theme of Parrott’s essay).

A synthesis of insights from tradition, from the manosphere, and from the small but growing number of complementary feminine traditionalist projects is necessary, one which discards both the feminization of contemporary Christianity and the misogynist resentment of MRA culture.

Here we see that Parrott agrees, apparently, with certain aspects of the manosphere, while as noted above, disagrees with others. Still nothing specific.

He also mentions tradition, which I believe should be the sole place from where our ideals of gender relations are drawn; anything that I appear to have borrowed from the manosphere (I have used some of their terminology, simply because accepted definitions of terms are helpful when conveying larger concepts) were elements of traditional gender ideals which are a part of the manosphere.

Lastly, he mentions “feminine traditionalist projects,” but gives no examples of what those are. Without knowing what they are, I cannot comment, though I can say I would be sceptical about anything which would be defined that way.

He wants to discard feminized contemporary Christianity, which is good, but then he speaks of the “misogynist resentment of MRA culture,” which is yet another thing which needs elaborated on. The word “misogyny” is so meaningless to me that I won’t even comment on it. “MRA culture” does contain a lot of men who are resentful towards women, generally with good reason. The problem with discussing “resentment” in the context of a discussion of political and social ideas is that resentment is an emotion, not a political or social concept. One can say something while feeling resentment or while not feeling resentment and it doesn’t change the truth or falsehood of what is being said.

This having been said, I do not resent women, which Parrott may or may not have been suggesting. I find modern women shameless, ridiculous and disgusting, but these are simply observations. And though my personal emotions towards women are not relevant, because Parrott has brought up emotions, I will say that when looking at the modern woman, there is one emotion which I feel strongly and that is pity.

We could use more white girls supporting our projects and standing with our men, but we can’t and won’t achieve that by catering to them, propping up tokens, or watering down our message to make it more female-friendly.

This is fair enough, I suppose, depending on how we would define “supporting,” and I of course agree with keeping the message centered on men.  Though as we will see, Parrott will later disagree with this statement he’s made here and accuse me of being a “misogynist” for “driving women off.”

There’s a small contingent of white girls who are genuinely willing to marry and support men who have chosen a life of conflict with the system and sacrifices for the cause, but the drummer from Def Leppard can count them on his fingers.

Here we seem to be missing a core concept, which is a theme throughout this shifting essay. What a woman wants at a certain time is as relevant as the weather on a certain day. Expecting that you can base decisions on what a woman says she wants is like expecting you can buy your entire wardrobe, for the rest of your life, based on whether or not it is raining the day you go to buy it.

With a man, you can expect that if he is using logic in a manner you find to be sound, the odds are he will continue to use logic in that same manner. His positions may change, but those changes in position will be based (all things being equal) on processing new information, or a new situation, with the same logical mechanism. A woman’s position at any given time is based on her emotions, and her emotions are subject to environmental influence, meaning you as an individual have extremely limited control over what position she holds at any given time.

This is the core of the problem with women, Matt.

The largest influences on her emotions, and thus on her political and ideological positions, are those which dominate the environment.

When you have a society which is good and righteous, the default position of the woman is to follow the norms of that society and behave in a way which is good and righteous. She can be swayed the other way by desire or influence, but it is not the default, and she will be naturally driven back towards the society’s norm.

Conversely, when you have a society which is twisted and unnatural, the default position of the woman is to follow the norms of that society and behave in a way which is twisted and unnatural. She can be swayed the other way by desire or influence, but it is not the default, and she will be naturally driven back towards the society’s norm.

As such, there is no logical reason to ever place faith in the declared political or ideological values of a woman. Instead, you should simply assume that her value system will be the value system of the system.

So, as I have argued, saying #NotAllWomen is unhelpful, and simply shows a reluctance to accept the basic nature of female biology.

Being a political soldier in today’s environment is pretty much antithetical to being an ideal mate for most women. You’re not going to be “settled,” you’re not going to be financially secure, you’re not going to be respected by mass society.

I don’t know if that is true or untrue. Rebelliousness is a form of power, and power is what women are after more than anything else (security, money and respect are all forms of power), so it may be that women will be attracted to men involved in this scene. But that isn’t really the point of this discussion, and this is a non-sequitur.

Women in our scenes should stop nagging about the relative lack of “suitable” mates, because the problem can’t be resolved to their satisfaction at this time. The system systematically degrades, humiliates, and marginalizes the men who stand up against it. All things being equal, judging matters objectively, young women looking for a mate will be able to find a more settled and suitable mate outside of our subcultures. And that’s fine. Go.

Again, I don’t personally know the truth or untruth of these statements, and do not view it as important to this discussion, or even very important in a more general sense.

There shouldn’t be women in our scene in the first place unless they are already someone in our scene’s girlfriend or wife. My argument would be that it is men who should be looking for partner’s elsewhere, if they desire a partner, as the type of woman who shows up on the Nazi scene is unlikely to be stable for the simple fact that she is engaging in an unnatural behavior by rebelling against the norm (there may be exceptions – I don’t know or care, in all honesty).

Conversely, it is the natural behavior of a woman to adopt the belief system of a man she is involved with, as that is a method of supporting the man.

A woman who is excited about a Nazi scene because her mate is is something natural, while a woman who claims she is interested because she decided she believes in it through her own logical mechanisms is probably dangerous or deviant in some way.  Unless she is subconsciously looking for a man, in which case that is fair enough, but not something that we should be tolerating.

The few who are willing to make that sacrifice because they value the political soldier’s courage and commitment to the cause over material comfort deserve a great deal of gratitude and respect not only from their partners but from the entire dissident subculture, but the women who aren’t willing to make that sacrifice have a duty to stop complaining about the situation and go marry any one of the numerous men out there who quietly agree with our positions while refusing to make a public stand.

The only place wherein a woman will ever make a sacrifice is for her children, period. If she is involved with a political soldier, it is because she perceives power there. Power is what produces good children and what protects them, and so power is the only thing a childless woman desires. All romantic notions aside, this is just the reality.

Methinks that challenging this assertion of mine would have made a much more meaningful article, as it seems to be the core of what Parrott disagrees with, but rather than address it and offer a counter-argument, he has merely danced around it, misconstruing things I’ve said and repeating things I’ve already addressed without acknowledging that I’ve addressed them.

At a certain point, several years from now at the least, our dissident subcultures will hopefully develop to a critical mass point where women can have their cake and eat it too, finding mates who are settled and capable of offering them a comfortable life, while also enjoying high social status. Until that happens, things will carry on like they’re carrying on now, with pro-white men complaining that not a single pro-white woman will have them and pro-white women complaining that none of the dozens of men who will have them are up to their standards. That’s okay. Not all men could or should reproduce, and they should actively avoid marriage to women who insist on dropping their dissident work as a precondition for courtship.

Continuing with the non-sequitur here.

I’m trying to go point-by-point here, but I don’t really have any response to this. Seems like meaningless lecturing. The solution would be to do away with the concept that there is such a thing as “pro-White women,” and accept that women are not political creatures, and that if a woman is claiming to be pro-White, she is after something.

I am not familiar with the phenomenon of these allegedly “pro-White women” complaining about not being able to find a mate, but I will take Parrott on his word that this is happening. A woman saying that is obviously actually saying “I am looking for a man, are any of you men that man?” More likely than not, she would be of the “I’m a hard woman to handle, I’m outspoken and opinionated and you need to be a real man to be able to tame me” variety, which is the worst variety of woman, a modern phenomenon which has crawled up out of the sewer of the feminist project (then again, she might be okay, and genuinely looking for a man with strength, but I don’t personally care).

Engaging a woman saying something like this as if she is presenting a serious complaint which needs addressing can only be looked at as a form of insanity.

Reproducing is important, but our political work is more important than marriage if the two are to be juxtaposed, as they typically are. The man who heroically sacrifices himself so that white families can thrive is more needful and necessary at this point in our struggle than a man who has and raises children. Both are important work, but the implicitly feminine and biological reductionist attitude that we must all breed and must make whatever compromises we need to make in order to breed must be rejected. The men who perished at Thermopylae made a greater contribution to the replication of their genome than the men who stayed behind with their wives.

Glad to see Parrott is on-board with this point (at least while typing this paragraph). I’m more than fed-up with the ongoing “White nationalist” chant of “do your duty and have babies!”

We indeed have important work to do which does not involve our penises.

Personally, I don’t believe that implicitly male spaces like Daily Stormer should disrespect white women or drive them out. It’s not necessary or constructive.

I have engaged in neither disrespect or driving out. I have, unemotionally, stated my positions and backed them up as well I could.

Note the change in Parrott’s position from above, where he stated the message should not cater to women, and here now states that it should.  He would, presumably, say that he is not saying that the message should be catered to women, but claim that I have specifically tried to drive women away.  However, this would be false, as my writings attest.  All I have done is given a perspective on the biological nature of women, as well as stated the belief, based on available data, evolutionary biology, historical precedent and personal observation, that women do not belong in politics.

All they need to do is confidently and consistently remain implicitly male in their leadership, focus, and rhetoric. Websites aren’t tantamount to war rooms or initiatic leadership circles, and I believe Anglin’s recent aggressively misogynist effort to drive women off is unnecessary and less than honorable.

“Aggressively misogynist effort”? He does do not qualify this, or give any specifics as to what he is referring to. And I would have to assert that it is less than honorable to claim that I am less than honorable without specifying exactly why you believe this to be the case.

Again, this entire piece strikes me as a frantic jig around an elephant in the room which is my position on the biological nature of women, and the fact that Parrott does not wish to address it. Instead of addressing it, he repeats things I’ve already said, repeats arguments I’ve already addressed, lectures both men and women on proper mate selection and finally insults me.

There is absolutely nothing in this article which serves to forward a discussion on the topic this article was ostensibly written to address, which is my own view on gender roles.  (Truly, this single sentence could have been my entire response to this essay.)

Plenty of women enjoy and constructively participate in implicitly male spaces. From time to time, women will come along who insist on making the space implicitly female, and they can be ignored or driven off on a case-by-case basis.

I don’t agree that there is room for the implicit in what we are collectively attempting to accomplish, and so I have explicitly chosen explicitness.

But again, this is just saying something I’ve already addressed while pretending I’ve not addressed it. My question for those claiming that women have something to offer the political realm was explicit: I asked what they could possibly offer. The gentlemanly thing to do here would have been to give a direct response to that question. We already know that a lot of people are saying “they can constructively participate” but thus far no one has said how. And I have asked: how?

Because I am a traditionalist, Matt, and to me, as a traditionalist, the unqualified assertion that women have a role to play in politics appears patently absurd.  I have asked for that assertion to be qualified and explained in specific terms. It may be I don’t completely disagree with it, even (I have, for instance, not banned women from commenting on my site), but in order to comment further, I will have to know exactly what it is Parrott is talking about.

He may also wish to respond to the assertions I have made about the problems involved with including women in male spaces, which I went into in some detail in my FAQ about feminism and masculinity, and which anyone who has ever been in a workplace with women is fully aware of. They cause absolute chaos, on purpose, in order to make themselves a center of attention.

It has nothing to do with making the space “implicitly female” – what would that even look like? – they certainly don’t try to make everything about babies, cooking and nail polish. They want to exploit and break down the male dynamic in order to serve their own emotional needs.

Along with this, male-bonding is something which has been brutally attacked by through feminist idea of egalitarian inclusion Parrott is presenting. Male-bonding is the root of male identity, and thus of masculinity, and masculinity is the root of authority, authority the root of a healthy society. And it is entirely necessary for a right-wing political movement to have its roots in a sense of camaraderie between men. Both women and homosexuals destroy that when they are allowed to interfere.

So, when Parrott explain these as of yet completely unknown but assuredly vast benefits of having women in our political movements, I do hope he makes sure to explain how these outweigh the negatives.

There’s an important and operative difference between confidently asserting one’s masculinity and one’s implicitly male spaces…and disrespecting or degrading what’s female and feminine. Women are good for much more than making sandwiches and babies, and some of the most talented and dedicated advocates I’ve worked with over the years have been women. In fact, it’s not uncommon for them to have more physical and social courage than the average white guy. White girls are, love it or hate it, generally more assertive and less submissive than non-white girls, and we can’t simply borrow an Oriental approach to gender relations because our women aren’t Oriental.

I am not clear on what he is attempting to communicate here. Masculinity, necessarily, involves dominance over women – this is an inarguable fact, emotions surrounding it don’t matter, they are programmed by the modern system and our baby-boomer mothers. It does not involve disrespecting women, or femininity. I would assert that by attempting to include women in male spaces, Parrott is the one disrespecting femininity, given that it is extremely degrading to a woman to allow her to participate in such things, even if she claims she wants to. Again, one look at the modern workplace should make this explicitly clear.

You’ll note that Parrott is now claiming that women should be involved in political activism, whereas above he appeared to claim that this was a man’s role.  He is also apparently claiming that politics is a feminine activity, after claiming above that it isn’t.

All throughout history, up until the last hundred years, White women were expected to behave as Asian women presently behave or they would have been subjected to physical discipline. Regardless of whatever emotional response we may have to this historical fact, it remains an historical fact. It would be degrading to both myself and Mr. Parrott for me to list citations here. Reading any history of the role of women in European society before the 19th century and we are going to see the exact same thing: women were expected to serve a specific role in society in a sphere completely separate from the world of men.

Parrott suggested above that his position is based on tradition and mine is not. In reality, he has simply paid lip-service to traditional gender roles by saying “yeah, genders are different, women shouldn’t be involved in politics” before going on to say the exact opposite, that they should be involved in politics and that it is feminine for them to be involved in the realm of politics, after already conceding politics is a masculine realm, “because, hey – we don’t want our women acting like gooks, just running around giggling, cooking, making babies and serving men’s needs – they should be out on the streets doing political activism because they’re assertive and strong-willed empowered creatures.”

It’s all a bit silly, Matt.

Implicitly male spaces rather than explicitly male spaces or explicitly gender neutral spaces are vital for the success of our dissident subcultures, as the risk-affinity, boldness, and social courage expected in those circles will naturally attract two kinds of women who are critical to our success; women who are seeking to be helpmeets of men with high status in those dissident circles and women who can and will thrive in and contribute to an implicitly male environment.

These are incredibly extreme claims, drawn directly from Marxist philosophy and going against all historical precedent and basic common sense, claims which Parrott starts his closing paragraph with after having offered no arguments at all to support them.

While the mere presence of women does categorically entail that some women will test those boundaries, the answer is to strengthen the boundaries, not to drive off all the women. After all, even if you drive out all the women, there are more than enough men who are risk-averse, easily taboo-triggered, and mortified by the prospect that somebody, somewhere, might give them the stink eye at the water cooler if they find out he believes his people have a right to exist.

So, the final closing statement is that we need women because men are too big of cowards to do their own political activism.  He also appears to be suggesting that I don’t want women involved because I believe they are cowardly, something which I have never claimed or insinuated in any way, and which does not even make sense to me.

If it is true that men are such pathetic cowards that we have to rely on women to do our political activism for us, the best option is definitely just to give up.

Fortunately, I don’t believe that is the case, and know that by taking a traditional position on gender roles all we are going to do is strengthen a movement which is almost entirely male to begin with.

In conclusion, I found Matt Parrott’s essay highly disappointing, given that it came across as so fundamentally dishonest, failing to address any of my points, avoiding the core concept of my anti-feminist presentation, distorting what I said for the purpose of making it easy to attack.  I also found the technique of beginning with an argument and then shifting that argument into the opposite argument by the end of the essay very weird.

I will give Mr. Parrott the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume that he himself is still working through these issues in his own mind.  It is hard to believe that he would have knowingly posted an article which has opposite positions at the beginning and end of it, so I must assume he is experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance, attempting to find some middle ground between tradition, which he speaks quite highly of, and his own Marxist programming, which he probably has a hard time admitting he still suffers from.  Regrettably, no such middle ground exists, and one must choose between tradition and Marxism.

The first step for Matt will be to acknowledge that my position is the historical precedent and that his position is much closer to Marxism than it is to anything which could be called “traditionalism.”  An infinite number of vague insinuations and allegations of “misogyny” cannot change this objective fact.  After accepting this as fact, he can then decide for himself whether or not he wants to embrace certain aspects of Marxist philosophy or reject it all, but at least we can have a real and open discussion of the topics without all of the unnecessarily confusing rhetorical acrobatics wherein somehow feminism is a part of “radical Christian traditionalism.”

I look forward to Mr. Parrott’s response and clarifications.

The past couple of weeks have certainly been interesting.  The pro-White protest organized by the Traditionalist Youth Network against the Jewish White hating pig Tim Wise at Indiana University showed the true face of our political enemies.  To be blunt, they are nothing but a bunch of wimps and faggots.  They have no idea how to handle any sort of real opposition to their retarded Jewish ideas of Cultural Marxism.

Since their political ideologies are not based on any sort of fundamental logic, they are forced to resort to threats and violent behavior to silence dissent.  Wise and his faggot Marxist supporters were the one’s threatening violence and in the end engaging in violence.  One of Wise’s supporters was arrested for assaulting one of the pro-White activists and for punching a police officer in the balls.  There were also reports of the anti-racist thugs throwing things and engaging in anti-social behavior.  One member of this anti-racist goon squad was reported to have gotten so angry that he was literally foaming at the mouth and spitting all over the place.  There was zero evidence that any Traditionalist Youth Network member or their supporters engaged in any violence despite unproven lies from our retarded political opponents.

A similar phenomenon occurred at Arizona State University where the National Youth Front has been protesting an anti-White class called “The Problem of Whiteness.”  A teacher supporting the class named Robert Poe declared on video that he would engage in violence against White people if they organized politically.  Poe was so irritated that his calls for violence were exposed that he literally challenged a National Youth Front member to a fight.  This incident was also caught on video.

Like Wise and his motley crew of queers and degenerates, Poe also made unsubstantiated claims that the National Youth Front was calling for violence.  This is comical considering we have him on video saying that he would advocate violence against White people if they organize politically.  This type of hypocritical and mentally deranged behavior seems to be a common trait among our Jewish and Marxist enemies.

This is proof that we need to have more protests as it helps expose the utter hypocrisy of these fools.  Over the next couple of weeks, Tim Wise is scheduled to speak at the following schools.  If you are in the local area where he is speaking, please consider showing up to protest this disgusting Jewish agitator.  It looks as if some people are already planning to pay Timmy a visit at his next speech in Charlotte.  There’s also apparently some interest to protest his appearance at Alabama where he is speaking in front of a historically Black college.

3/25/15: Charlotte, NC Queens University of Charlotte
3/30/15: Huntsville, AL Oakwood University
4/7/15: New Orleans, LA Loyola University
4/10/15 – 4/11/15: Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
4/17/15: Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas
4/23/15: St. Petersburg, FL YWCA of Tampa Bay
4/20/15: Bryn Mawr, PA Byrn Mayr Presbyterian Church

Beyond this, we need to look at protesting groups like the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC and counter protesting any of these retarded Marxist oriented demonstrations which we will undoubtedly see over the summer.  Our enemies are a bunch of wimps and faggots so there is nothing to fear from them.