• in

    Justice Dept. Investigates Affirmative Action in College Admissions

    In a document received by the New York Times, it was revealed that the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division will be looking into “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.” In layman’s terms, the DOJ will be examining the legality behind affirmative action.

    This is a plus and will receive praise from libertarians and conservatives because it seeks to minimize the ability of colleges and universities to give racial proclivity above academic qualifications in their admissions. Affirmative action has allowed schools to reject admissions to qualified individuals in exchange for lesser qualified people strictly due to their race. When it comes down to it, this has meant that Asian and white students have been declined in favor of black and Hispanic students of a lower caliber. If a school currently receives federal funding, they may soon need to cease their affirmative action policies in order to be in cooperation with federal law if they wish to continue to receive their funding.

    On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court took up a case over the controversial practice of affirmative action and ruled that it is constitutionally permitted. The effects represent not only a contemporary legal milestone, but a major impact on the definition and action of race relations while being a slap-in-the-face to the founding principles of the U.S. With this, the Supreme Court gives approval that people of a certain race should be granted an advantage over those of a different race. Doesn’t this detract from the country’s conviction that all men are created equal?

    From that it follows a legal precedent  to racially discriminate. This form of discrimination runs opposite to the old kind in the U.S. This discrimination is obviously not as blatant as it was, say, against African Americans, but it now appears that we are living in the mirrored version of our own history. Welcome… to the Twilight Zone.

    Putting the ethics of affirmative action to the side for a moment, let’s examine a concept that you may have read under a similar context in African American history. Affirmative action is akin to the idea of slavery reparations. This idea meaning that since African American’s were oppressed for so long and harshly that they deserve a form of repayment from white American due to their accused liability. The follow-through of this plan usually involves financial reimbursements. Basically affirmative action is a kind of reparations.

    The use of affirmative action as a means of reparations would not be a good way to make amends because it does not solve the problems it aims to fix. Through affirmative action underrepresented groups such as blacks and Hispanics are placed into schools where they are unable to meet the standards. If a person is under-educated and unprepared for the level of rigor required by the school then their performance will most likely suffer causing them to do poorly, which leads to a higher rate of dropping or failing out.

    While on William F. Buckley’s Firing Line, black economist Thomas Sowell makes the point that this policy is “more preferential in intention than in results.” That quote could be the slogan for any current Democratic policy proposal, but I doubt they’d let it slide. He also said that “those blacks who were particularly disadvantaged have fallen further behind under these policies.” 

    In Wealth, Poverty and Politics Thomas Sowell provides an example of the failures of affirmative action. During the tenure of the University of California at Berkeley’s policy of affirmative action in the 1980s there were more black students admitted, but less of them graduated than previously to the policy implementation. When the policy was repealed in the 1990s there were less black students admitted, but more of them graduated. He continues by citing some numbers about the positive aftermath of the policy’s repeal for blacks and Hispanics: “those who graduated with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math rose by 51 percent; and those who graduated with grade point averages of 3.5 or higher rose by 63 percent.” But what does that all matter when the biggest aim of many affirmative action supporters is to virtue signal.

    Instead of creating a society constructed from equal opportunity, affirmative action seeks to punish those deemed to have a systemic advantage and ameliorate those at a systemic disadvantage. It essentially turns the tables so that those who originally held the privilege are now the burdened. This country doesn’t have to pull one group down in order to prop another up. We can just do what is more ethical and advantageous for everyone by improving the less privileged without relegating the more privileged.

    Former NAACP executive director Benjamin Hooks promoted affirmative action when he defined it as “any action taken to ensure or affirm equal opportunity for oppressed or previously disadvantaged groups.” In the context of America, he is making the claim that there are groups that are so currently or historically put down that they need others to bolster them up through the ranks of society.

    America is the Land of Opportunity and I find it hard to believe that there are groups here that are so subdued by others that they need such a degree of assistance from an outside force to further them along in society. People should be treated as individuals and not as a member of their group. Even though people may be deeply affected by their group membership, they are still enough of an individual to make independent life-decisions.     

    Is it right to inflict punishment onto another just because of their race? If your answer is yes than you must also not believe in the phrase two wrongs don’t make a right. We should not be going down the same route of wrongdoing this country has done in the past. We should realize that what needs to be dissolved is state-sanctioned racial preference.

    Why do we have to take and give opportunity based on race? We need to look at how we can help those deemed below us through direct action. Those communities that are not prospering have to learn proper life lessons and have a sufficient network of support so that they can eventually produce individuals who practice behavior that advances them through society. By just providing them with unearned opportunities we are only holding them to a lower standard and teaching them that success can fall into their lap. It takes away from the notion that hard work creates success.

    For more from Charles visit frontrowreview.com and follow @realFrontRow

  • in

    When Dry Rot Strikes: The Art of Tire Maintenance

    When it comes to car ownership, the amount of knowledge needed to be a savvy buyer is almost an impossible feat to conquer, let alone understanding the mechanical workings of a vehicle. It always struck me as odd that people will  educate themselves extensively on things like whether or not their lettuce is fair trade or organic, conspiracy theories, and what juice cleanse will help them free their liver of toxins. But they won[t take the time to learn about the second largest purchase almost every American makes. I myself prefer my lettuce dirty—and my liver even dirtier—but I do have an unnecessary amount knowledge on the inner workings of the modern automobile.

    I have spent the better part of the last decade working at two of the largest car manufacturers in the world, as well the largest tire distributor in the United States. I now own my own business related to the automotive field. During my tenure at those companies prior, though, nothing was drilled harder into my head than tires and tire care. One might call me a “tire expert.”  That’s right, tires—those little rubber things that keep you stuck on the road. I’ve endured countless hours learning about exactly how the rubber compounds (known as silica) are made, what causes treadwear, and even decoding all those numbers on the side of the tire that most people never even notice. Who taught me this. you ask? No one that special; only reps directly from Michelin, BFGoodrich, Goodyear, Hankook, Bridgestone, and Yokohama.

    Tires are often the most overlooked and ignored part on a car. I get that they are expensive, and clearly not that important, right? Its not like they’re your brakes.


    Tires are the possibly the most important safety feature on any vehicle, even surpassing the brakes. They are the only part of your car that actually makes contact with the road’s surface. Poor tire maintenance can have a negative effect of your vehicles, stopping distance, handling, and traction while driving in stormy weather. So every time that nice young service person recommends you replace your tires, I would advise you don’t just blow him off as a guy trying to make some commission. He may actually be right.

    But no worries, that is why I’m here. To educate my fellow Proud Boys in proper tire care, maintenance, and potential warning signs that something catastrophic may be around the bend. (Road pun?)

    First we must understand the anatomy of a tire and how they are categorized. Every modern tire is comprised of a series of strategically placed steel belts, surrounded by a rubber compound mixed with sand (forming silica) which is poured in a mold forming different tread patterns. The tread patch is the part of the tire that makes contact with the road, the sidewall is the part that goes from the tread patch to the bead, and the bead is the hardened part of the tires that goes onto your rim creating an airtight seal.

    Tires options are pretty much endless, but are categorized by a few different things. Tire
    size, traction rating, temperature rating, treadwear rating, and speed rating.
    Tire size—shown as a sequence of three numbers (205/55/16):
    The 205 refers the tread patch (205mm wide).
    The 55 is an aspect-ratio for the sidewall, meaning the side is 55% of the total width of the tire’s tread patch (smaller numbers means better handling by stiffer rides).
    The 16 is the rim size… simple enough.

    The traction and temperature ratings are determined by the department of transportation and based on bench mark tire for each manufacturer (in essence the least important rating of a tire but one that still shouldn’t be ignored). Treadwear refers to how hard the tread and rubber compound is, resulting in either increased or decreased tire wear. The speed rating normal at the end of a tire size (205/55/16H) refers to what the maximum speed the tire is rated for. In this case H is good for around 130 mph before it starts to lose its shape and structural integrity The speed rating will also effect the stopping distance of a vehicle as a lower speed rating will allow more flex in the tire, thus decreasing stopping distance.

    While all of this is incredibly simplified, you get the idea. Always select the correct tires for your vehicle as recommended by your vehicle manufacturer. Which leads
    to the most important part of tire ownership: maintenance, which includes:


    – Recommended tire pressures will be listed on the driver’s doorjamb (NOT ON
    THE TIRE).
    – Improper tire pressures (underinflated/overinflated) will cause uneven wear on
    both outer edges or only the center of the tire, as well a rough ride, decreases
    steering and handing capabilities, and possible overheating of the rubber (if
    underinflated), causing a blowout.
    – Remember that for every 10 degrees the outside temperature changes (up or
    down) the tires pressure will change, as the air density in the tire is affected.


    – Rotate your tires front to back every 5-10,000 miles.
    – Cross-rotate only if you have different tires sizes on the front and rear.
    – Lack of rotation will cause the front two tires to wear faster than the rear, seeing as your front tires also steer and on front wheel-drive cars propels the vehicle. They take a bit more abuse than the rear.
    – MORAL: Nothing terrible will happen, except you will be forced to buy tires sooner.

    – This is the MOST overlooked contributor to tire wear
    – Alignment has absolutely nothing to do with the tires themselves, but will 100% adversely effect how your tires wear.
    – Wheel alignment is referring to your suspension angles (Toe, Camber, Caster). All of these angles have a different effect on your tires’ wear. Most of the time resulting in wear only on the outer edge of your tires, feathering (choppy tires) or the vehicle will pull one way when your hands are off the steering wheel.
    -MORAL: Get a wheel alignment done at least once a year, or if you are having any of these symptoms.


    – While balancing will never be safety issue it is incredible annoying, usually causing a vibration around 60-70mph felt either in your steering wheel or the seat of your pants, while the brakes are NOT applied. Not to be confused with a brake pulsation which is a vibration when the brakes ARE applied.
    – The reason for balancing tires is that no tire is perfectly round, nor is any rim. So weights are applied to offset these imperfections, providing a smoother ride.
    – MORAL: Balance your tires when replacing them, or when symptoms are present.
    – Treadwear/dry rot
    – Most tires come with 10/32nds of an inch of tread, allowing your tires to maintain contact with the road surface, as well as evacuate water, snow, and road debris, from the tread patch via “sipes” and water veins. Tires should be replaced between 2-4/32nd’s of an inch. (You can get a tread depth gauge at an auto parts store, they are like $2.00. Or if you don’t have $2.00 you can use a penny.)

    Treadwear is normal and will vary depending on driving type, tire maintenance, as well as the rubber compound for that particular tire. General rule of the thumb, the softer the rubber (lower treadwear rating) the better traction you get. The harder the rubber (higher treadwear rating) the longer a tire will last. Which leads me to my next point… dry rot.

    . . . AND SPLIT SIDEWALL . . .

    Often seen on vehicle that sit for long periods of time, or aren’t driven, dry rot occurs when the natural oils in the tire dry out and the rubber on the side wall begins to crack or separate. Every tire regardless of tread life is recommended to be replaced after 4 years by the Department of Transportation (Pssshhhh what do those guys know?) Don’t know how old your tires are? Every tire comes with a DOT number on the sidewall of the tire, which signifies what week of what year the
    tire was made. The tires below was made in the third week of 2004 (very old).

    Dry rot could result in the steel belts that hold your tires together, breaking apart, which will lead to a slow leak or a blow out. This belt separation will often look like your tires have been slashed, but trust me that’s not the case. (FYI: when a tire is slashed, it will be a clean cut, with no jagged edges and not as easily detectable as you might think.)

    MORAL: Check your tread depth at every oil change, and inspect your tires DOT date to ensure you are not driving around on borrowed time.

    I know this seems like an awful lot of information about tires, but again they are the only thing keeping you connected to the road. So with all of this in mind, remember to always check your tires, always take preventative actions to extend the life of your tires, and ALWAYS changes tires when they are needed, even if they are not worn out.

    The safety of your vehicle is your responsibility, and if you fail to take care of your car, you are not only putting your life in danger, but the other drivers you share the road with, as well the AAA tow truck drivers, and the police officers that have to come to your aid on the side of the highway. Tires don’t give a shit if you’re black, white, famous, have a big nose, or how many followers you have on social media—they WILL blow up whenever they damn well please. And it will be 100% your fault since it is usually something that you could’ve prevented.

  • in ,

    NEW EVIDENCE: Muslim pedo gang slaughtered girl, 14, and turned her into KEBAB meat

    A 14-YEAR-OLD girl who disappeared in 2003 is understood to have been sliced up and churned into KEBAB MEAT by Muslim child grooming gang.

    Now, Brietbart London is reporting that Lancaster Police in England have arrested a man apparently connected to the gang suspected of murdering little Charlene Downes.

    If this turns out to be true, that these third world miscreants turned a school girl into kebab meat and sold her to the public, who unwittingly ate her… This would be one of the most horrific crimes to occur in modern Britain.

    In 2007, a mistake in a trial let Ilyad Albattikh for murder and Mohammed Reveshi for the disposal of Charlene’s body walk free.

    THIS IS MULTICULTURALISM IN ACTION — yet critics are lambasted as Nazis and racists. Obviously, all races commit crimes, but our third world immigrants bring their debauched morals with them. Even if it meant saving one life,we need to end this policy of mass migration to Britain

    Charlene Downes, murdered by third world Islamist rape gang. Pure evil.

    Brietbart reports the whole story very well:

    Police in Blackpool say they have arrested a 51-year-old man in connection with the 14-year-old murder case of reported child grooming gang victim Charlene Downes whose body was believed to have been chopped up and put into kebab meat.

    Charlene Downes, 14 at the time of her disappearance, was last seen in Blackpool in 2003 and is believed to have been not only murdered but that her killers disposed of her body by putting it into kebab meat at a local seaside kebab shop.

    Police have said they believe Charlene may have been linked to grooming gangs in Blackpool and say that they discovered at least 60 underage girls had been sexually groomed at “honey pot” takeaways in the city. The Daily Telegraph reported in 2011 that these children had been targeted with food, drugs, and alcohol in return for sex in the city.

    Fourteen years later, authorities now say they have arrested a 51-year-old man in connection with her disappearance only after Charlene’s parents were able to force police to examine CCTV footage that had been in storage for 12 years, the Daily Mail reports.

    A spokesman for Lancashire Police released a statement after the arrest saying: “The man, aged 51, who lived in Blackpool at the time of Charlene’s disappearance, is currently in custody. Charlene was just 14 years old when she was last seen in Blackpool on Saturday, November 1, 2003. A £100,000 reward remains on offer for information leading to the conviction of her killer or killers.” 

    Charlene’s mother expressed outrage that the CCTV footage had been kept hidden for over a decade saying: “It is unbelievable that they have had that footage all those years and never used it. It is an absolute disgrace and an insult to the memory of my dead daughter.”

    Photo: Lancashire Police

    She added that if the footage were available sooner than the 2007 murder trial, which, due to police error, led to the acquittal of Funny Boyz kebab worker Ilyad Albattikh for murder and Mohammed Reveshi for disposal of Charlene’s body, may have turned out differently.

    At the time of the trial, the court was told the fast food shop owner had “joked” Downes had been chopped up and put into kebabs that were sold to the public. After the acquittal, the two men were paid £250,000 in compensation.

    Earlier this year, another kebab shop made headlines after it was revealed that a 16-year-old girl was brutally gang raped by multiple Afghan Muslim men.

    Muslim grooming gangs also continue to plague the North of England, according to recent reports, in which police allege that the Yorkshire town of Keighley may be home to a new grooming scandal involving over 179 individual sex crimes.

    The most infamous case of sexual abuse of young girls still remains that of Rotherham in which over 1,400 underage girls were systematically raped, tortured, and many forced into prostitution and addiction to drugs. The rapists remained at large for so long largely because police were too afraid of the backlash for mentioning the ethnic origins of the Muslim male perpetrators.

    Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at ctomlinson(at)breitbart.com 

  • in

    North Korea’s Missile Tests Are Garbage

    Tuesday evening, August 1, U.S. and South Korean security experts observed footage of the North Korean Hwasong-14 Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile crashing towards Earth before violently disintegrating and succumbing to extreme heat and atmospheric pressure. Media coverage of North Korea’s ICBM program has been recurrent with dedicated segments appearing at least weekly on television networks across the U.S.

    Escalating tensions between reclusive North Korea and the rest of the world have been dubbed by many as the “New Cold War”—wherein the viability of peaceable negotiation has long since been abandoned. No doubt, the prospect of the aptly named “Rogue Nation” to launch nuclear warheads onto American cities is alarming, and the overstated capabilities of the regime by media sensationalists does little to accurately estimate their true capability. However, there is currently no concrete evidence for North Korea’s ability to successfully launch anything but a local missile strike.


    So-called media experts and talking heads often push the narrative that an ICBM threat to the U.S. is imminent, while neglecting to emphasize that none of these missile tests have yet been successful. The latest Hwasong-14 ICBM lacks re-entry technology, meaning their current technology is only capable of launching a cylindrical tube into space and not much else. Their recent and most “successful” test saw the disintegration of the missile as it re-entered the atmosphere. Not only that, but it’s highly doubtful that the North Koreans even have the technology to guide and detonate a missile capable of actually hitting the U.S, should re-entry technology be developed.

    The present concern is not that North Korea can strike the U.S. from the Korean Peninsula, but that they may soon develop the capability to do so. Even these approximations need to be taken with more than just a grain of salt, as weapons experts believe that the KN-08 long-range missiles displayed at a military parade in Pyongyang were largely fake. Not that it would take an expert to figure that out because the tips on one of these apparently fake missiles weren’t even placed correctly (pictured below).

    The probability is high that the Rogue Nation is simply blowing smoke to look intimidating and powerful. The comical propaganda campaigns launched by North Korea have become the subject of numerous satires and it seems the only people who are truly fooled by these attempts are the North Korean rulers themselves.

    So here we are, attempting to take a threat seriously from people who can’t even run a successful propaganda campaign nor produce believable replicated versions of missiles.

    So what is stopping the United States or South Korea from wiping this tyrannical brutish regime off the face of the earth? North Korea does currently have missiles and artillery pieces capable of hitting Seoul, one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Any action by the United States or Allies would indefinitely see the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians in Seoul by indiscriminate fire from North Korean artillery pieces. Should victory come, it would come “At great cost” as quoted by U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Not only that, but deciding what to do in the aftermath, with millions of brain-washed North Koreans who have been living in the world’s most oppressive totalitarian dictatorship, presents a costly and incomprehensible economic and political dilemma.

    Yet any consumer of mainstream media can sense that the American people and the world may be being groomed for the ensuing devastation that such a war would bring. Stories like the one of Otto Warmbrier, an American university student tortured at a North Korean prison camp, touch our hearts and prompt our spirits to retaliation. Horrific stories of the brutal government repression, previously unimaginable to most western audiences, at times seem to justify the option of carpet-bombing their entire country and leaving the land a barren space for ravens and jackals to take over.

    Mainstream media constantly overstates the capability and threat of the North Korean menace. Even though security experts clearly state that the North Korean ICBM program is far from strategic military viability, TV headlines continue to stream depicting trajectory lines for nuclear warheads across the Pacific Ocean. However, the U.S. as a nation—and as the leader of the free-world—must decide for itself whether pursuing a military option is the right course of action. It appears the decision is already being made by certain elites—and we are being groomed every day to accept it. 

    Follow Korvin on Twitter @KorvKennington

  • in

    LOOK BACK AND LEFT: This Month in Leftist Hypocrisy

    Leftists—what a newsworthy group of people. They never cease to amaze. Whether they’re protesting against some column they only half-read, or stumped when asked to explain socialism, they maintain a level of hypocrisy so high it was as if their rent depended on it—rather than on financial aid from their parents.

    In our first installment of LOOK BACK AND LEFT we review recent stories from the past month that exemplify liberal hypocrisy at its finest . . . and therefore Western culture at some of its worst. Basically a lot of what they do doesn’t make much sense.


    Former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz found herself in hot water following the arrest of her IT personnel Imran Awan. While renting out his home he forgot to remove certain hard drives from a laptop before the new tenants moved in. They reported their findings, leading to FBI involvement and seizure of said hard drives.

    This case is bad for DWS for several reasons. Although Awan was working for multiple Democrats, DWS was the only person to not fire him once the FBI began their investigation. Also, DWS threatened the Chief of Capitol Police, saying he should “expect consequences” if the laptop wasn’t returned. 

    Debbie looking like a cat left out in the rain.

    Hillary Clinton promptly hired DWS after she was forced to resign from her position for rigging the election in Clinton’s favor. During the campaign, Hillary was under intense pressure because her emails were under a FBI investigation. In a way, DWS’s case is very similar. They could be considered sisters-in-crime.

    Hillary would have her people smash the phones she used to send and receive sensitive governmental information with a hammer. Awan’s retrieved hard drives were also smashed.

    This story has big implications. Since Awan had access to her emails and files, he may have been a leaker. He could have even been the guy to have leaked the DWS emails that prompted her resignation from the DNC post. This situation leads one to wonder about what sort of information was on those hard drives. Why might somebody smash them?

    As Fox News reports, the Big Three broadcasting networks—ABC, CBC, and NBC—gave no coverage to the story on the date of its release. Since then coverage has been minuscule. During the height of Hillary’s email scandal mainstream media was similarly hush. It was the elephant in the room of potential stories they should have reported—yet they chose not to.

    Cherry-picking stories to report is a clear indication of hypocrisy. The MSM will harp on about fake news, like Trump making white power hand gestures. But when their side of the aisle is hit with some bad news they act like nothing’s there.   

    Related, after the news of the hard drives broke Awan was arrested for bank fraud while trying to flee the country to his home country of Pakistan. Guess how Awan’s attorney reported his arrest. If you guessed: Islamophobia. DING! You are correct. Intersectionalism (read: slothful rebuttal in lieu of zero defense) to the rescue!

    Like Hillary did during her scandal, DWS is avoiding the press. Now even more infamous than she was after her resignation, DWS must be running around in a frenzy. What a nice little scandal this has turned into.


    “Did you see how these two men sat today?” exclaimed MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on a segment of his show Trump Watch. He showed video of Trump and Putin sitting beside each other with their legs opened outwards. Chris Matthews dubbed these postures: manspreading—a posture demeaned as sexist by third-wave feminists, SJWs, and others worthy of being demeaned themselves.

    “‘Nobody is going to out manspread me,’ you could hear their little psyches urging them on,” Matthews continued. Is that what he thought when he did the deed with his own legs at the recent Nantucket Film Festival? The endeavor of . . . dare I say it . . . manspreading . . . 

    Chris Matthews manspreading his hardballs.



    Media personality Kat Timpf was scheduled to speak at a campaign event for her friend Ben Kissel in Brooklyn. While at the event a man assaulted her by dousing her with water. Although, it is doubtful that you have heard much, if anything, about this because she’s associated with right-leaning networks like Fox and National Review.

    On Twitter Kat explained, “a guy walks in, dumps an entire bottle of water on me.” Following the assault she wrote, “the very least he could have done was express what it was specifically that he had an issue with either before or after assaulting me.”  

    Kat T. — the ‘T’ should stand for ‘Ten.’

    Even though she is a libertarian and very critical of Trump, the left widely considers her guilty by association because of her connections to the right. And because of this, the left blew the incident off as not even being newsworthy. If she were a Democrat, it would probably have been made BREAKING STORY in the scrolling chyron.

    Although it was only water, the incident was physical rather than verbal, and verbal assaults—if such thing actually exist— usually trigger leftists to freak out.

    And where are the feminists? None have come out of the woodwork at the time of this writing. As the Women’s March On Washington showed us, the left claims to be for women’s rights, and fighting against violence against women. But it’s clear that there exists a double standard in cases involving females leaning to the right.

    Mainstream media and feminists alike are all too often silent when it comes to actual violence, instead reporting on hypothetical sexism and a campus rape culture that doesn’t exist. If they were to be true to their word about caring for women, then they would report stories that affect the lives of all women. Rather, they resemble a circus acrobat funambulating along their flexible truth in an attempt to balance an ego-driven, virtue-signalled narrative.  

    She may not be the most recognizable face in media. But she’s been a well-known figure in politics for years now. If any of the left’s women popular with the news media—like Hillary’s number one superfan Lena Dunham—were so much as looked at the wrong way, there would be gosh-darned fucking heck to pay.


    While in Warsaw, Poland, Trump gave a speech to a large audience who roared in support. He spoke about the West’s history, as well as why it needed to be preserved. In response, the left condemned Trump and again made him out to be a narcissistic maniac out to seek world domination. *Yawn*. 

    As every Proud Boy knows, the West is a glorious part of the world. It’s a shining star in the history books of human civilization. Especially compared to much of the rest of the world, the West promotes and spreads highly-valued human rights, freedom, justice and innovation. 

    This is not how the left took Trump’s speech. When he said ‘West,’ they heard ‘white.’ The same color of skin leftists believe oppresses the world. Now because they think that’s what he meant, everybody else has to put down the real work they were doing and try to explain to them how that makes no sense.

    Even much of the East ( . . .  maybe not so much the middle portion, mind you . . . ) enjoys the West. And this is made obvious by just looking at pop culture in Asia. If you were to watch any Korean pop music video you would most likely see the girls wearing NBA jerseys and the guys wearing Bart Simpson t-shirts. They even sprinkle in English lyrics into their songs! 

    The only people with a vehement dislike of the West seem to be leftists and Middle Easterners, so let’s use them both in an example. While using identity politics to knock the U.S., Joy Reid, MSNBC’s host of AM Joy, said, “Are we going to be the last Western country on Earth” to elect a woman president? 

    At least in the West we give women the chance to become their country’s leader. In the Middle East they stone their women and don’t allow them to leave the house by themselves. Just because a woman hasn’t been a U.S. President doesn’t mean that there is a systemic prejudicial force stopping it from happening. Somethings just take longer than others to play out.

    If the left wants to criticize Trump’s positive comments about the West, then they should stop actually enjoying the features of the West that he spoke highly of. As our women play music while driving their cars to go vote in democratic elections, the left should take a moment to recognize that Middle Eastern women are not allowed to do any of the things I just mentioned in their native countries.


    I sure hope that Hillary gets the chance to discuss this next one in her recently announced, upcoming book What Happened just so I know what NOT to believe.

    Politico reports, “A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.” At face value that sounds more fishy than the leftist’s usual explanation: that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia because . . . uh . . . just trust them, k?

    This story broke in January via Politico, but it has not picked up too much traction until recently. Now that it has been receiving a decent bit of airtime on the more conservative networks the left has been handed a decision—to either be fair and report the story, or, to ignore it. In large part, they chose to ignore it. A theme I’ve addressed elsewhere throughout this article.

    Adam Schiff is a Ranking Member on the House Intelligence committee and one of the more frequent guests on many of the cable news shows where he tends to tackle the Trump/Russia collusion controversy. He was recently brought onto MSNBC to discuss the DNC/Ukrainian controversy and he totally downplayed it. He felt that comparing the Trump/Russian collusion to the DNC/Ukrainian collusion was like comparing a “bank robbery to writing a check with insufficient funds.” 

    It’s so interesting to see Adam Schiff speaking so softly about the DNC’s situation and then see the left up in arms over Trump/Russia. Their arms must be tired because they have also been frantic over the meeting between several Russians, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner, with the previous three having to defend themselves in front of the Senate as a result. To not be partisan, the left should also push for DNC operatives to be put in front of the Senate for a hearing of their own.

    You know that the world is in an odd place when its biggest story is a conspiracy. 

    As the MSM spends half its time covering the alleged Trump/Russia collusion when reporting on Trump-related stories, the public scratches their heads in bewilderment. The MSM and the left as a whole have their horse-blinders on. All they can see are Trump/Russian conspiracies. As much as the left mocks Alex Jones, they sure have become comfortable sailing those same conspiratorial waters.

    For more from Charles visit frontrowreview.com and follow @realFrontRow

  • in , , ,

    Proud Boys had the PERFECT response to hate-filled journalist Simon Gilbert

    A HUMOURLESS journalist in England has picked a fight with the Proud Boys — for airing opinions he disagrees with on The Gavin McInnes Show.

    Kevin Donnelly, a British Proud Boy who lives in LA, and Gavin were the subject of a report by Simon Gilbert, chief reporter of the Coventry Telegraph.

    The journalist chose to write the story headlined “Right wing activist warns people to avoid ‘immigrant city”’ Coventry which he claims is ‘awful’”.

    Gilbert’s article opens with error, in the second paragraph he describes Kevin, from Coventry, as the head of the UK chapter. This is incorrect, and as far as we in the UK know, he is not a member of our chapter.

    Gavin and Kevin talk about the Proud Boys on The Gavin McInnes Show on Tuesday July 25.

    The hit piece, clearly designed to portray Kevin as a racist, then continued: “During Mr Donnelly’s appearance on Mr McInnes’ US internet TV show, Coventry is described as a Muslim city and Mr Donnelly said that people were “in denial” about the scale of immigration and that it was ‘totally irreversible’.”

    The article goes onto name companies which Kevin, a successful photographer, has worked with. Already, the journalist is attempting to alert employers to his views, which are outside the mainstream liberal ideas, yet completely factual.

    Kevin is incredibly entitled to be worried about Coventry, this is a English city where the Muslim population is growing rapidly. In the 2001 census, 3.88 per cent were Muslims, and in 2011 it more than doubled to 7.47 per cent, 23,665.

    In this small city, look how many mosques there are.

    Mosques in Coventry, showing a substantial Muslim population.

    To be critical of the changing face of your home does not merit an attempt to destroy someone’s reputation, career and livelihood.

    There is just no need for any of this negative coverage on individual Proud Boys, it’s simply hate-filled smearing in the guise of news.

    The Proud Boys are well used to incredibly bias hit pieces by mainstream, arrogant “journalists”, and this is just another to add to the list.

    They have an obsession with covering the activities of our men’s club, guys who meet up, have beers and talk politics and shit.

    After the article was published, Simon Gilbert received substantial feedback on Twitter and his Facebook.

    There is much lols to be had.

    Apparently, people are pond life for criticising his reportage.

    You can view them all here.

    While it is understandable that leftists and liberals are obsessed with reporting on the fact-based right and those critical of multiculturalism and political correctness, this reporter is clearly not interested in covering us fairly.

    This is the problem with modern “journalists” who contend they are objective. No where does it say on Gilbert’s website he is a liberal reporter, who seeks to hold the “right” to account, or anything for that matter.

    He is, through all intent and purposes, hiding his political bias and projecting his news stories as unbias facts.

    The news media, even at a local level, is a swamp ridden with these reporters who purport to be speakers of the truth, but are only in the job to build a social media following, virtue signal and feed their incredibly gigantic egos.

    Go back to covering bin collection, please, Mr Gilbert.

  • in

    We Spoke to a Civilian Defense Expert

    Let’s talk about personal responsibility. Anytime you hear the phrase “someone ought to . . . ” perhaps that someone should be you. Home defense and self-defense are always at the center of gun-related issues because even the most adamant anti-gun activists would have a difficult time telling us not to protect ourselves, family, and guests under our own roofs.

    According to FBI statistics a burglary occurs four times every minute in the U.S. Another fact is, 97% of invasions happen when nobody’s home, and burglaries overall are dropping. That’s a good thing. Overall—even with active shooters and terrorists—the United States remains one the the safest countries to live in. We are not paranoid alarmists praying for a vengeful apocalypse to rain down Mad Max-style shit on our block so we’re justified in going ahead and playing Rambo. But what about the chance that violence finds you? Three percent of the time when someone breaks into your home, you ARE there. The issue is when there’s no one around to do anything but yourself, and whether or not you can confidently answer the self-asked question, “What are you going to do?

    Any man worth his salt not only wants to protect his home, but is also reasonably confident in his ability protect his home. The truth is you have an OBLIGATION to protect your home. I can’t imagine a more guttural caveman instinct than someone coming to do their worst to your family and then wanting to turn in a combination of Brock Lesnar and Charles Bronson to show them they came to the wrong house. There two important questions to ask yourself. First: Do I have a plan? And second: Is my plan worth a damn? It made me think about my plan and how little I knew about the best tactics to defend my home in case any angry Bernie Sanders supporters want to “redistribute” my TV at four in the morning.

    So I decided to ask a friend of mine who knows more about tactics and defense than myself. Protecting his anonymity, “Michael Scott” is a senior-enlisted active duty member of the U.S. Military with 20 years of law enforcement and military special operations experience, tactical firearms training, and force protection experience. In other words, this guy ain’t talkin’ shit. And he sure as hell knows how to protect himself and others in an emergency situation. I had him go over some points on defense if the worst should happen . . .

    Proud Boy Magazine: As a tactical expert, what mistakes would you think people without training would make in home defense?  

    Michael ScottSome of the things I believe someone who is not trained in any type of tactics might overlook in home defense is having a plan. Thinking about all of the possible scenarios that could happen and having some sort of idea of what they would do. Another is not making their firearm accessible. Having it in a safe with a cable run through the barrel and locked and the ammo unloaded from the magazine is not ideal for defense because of how long it will take you to get that firearm operational. There is a balance between accessibility and safety. Another is not having a light source with their weapon. Even if you do not have a weapon you should have some type of high-output flashlight. Shining a flashlight in the eyes of a would-be assailant has been shown to diffuse situations. Some lights have strobe effects that can disorient attackers.


    If you believe someone has broken into your house what’s the first thing you should do?

    If someone breaks into your house the first thing you should do is alert law enforcement. No matter how much training or experience you think you have.

    Are bats or knives a good home defense weapon?

    Bats and knives: I will put it simply, have you ever been trained to fight with a bat or a knife? Introducing a knife to a situation which requires close quarters fighting, where you could be potentially become overpowered, and have your knife used against you, is not a good idea.  As a last resort I suppose it is better than nothing however don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.

    What is the best choice of firearm?

    One thing that we can all agree on is that you should have some type of firearm, because let’s face it; firearms have become the swords of the modern era. A man cannot defend his castle with a shovel. Everyone has their preference and “experts” will tell you what you should get or what is better. I am going to give you some food for thought because not every shooter is the same and not every home is the same layout. You should get a firearm that works for you and that you can safely and effectively employ. Whatever decision you make, it should be an informed decision.

    Should you purchase a rifle, shotgun or handgun? When it doubt, choose all three! However since price is usually a factor, you must consider the following: The rifle of choice for home defense is typically the AR-15, which shoots a .223 round. This round is a high-velocity round and depending on the type of ammo you use, shooting through your target is a very real problem. You should assess the threat angles in your house so that if someone is standing in your doorway and a round potentially goes through them, what is on the other side? It could be your neighbors, your child’s room, a pet.

    Which firearm would you recommend for someone unfamiliar with guns?

    Shotguns are great close range weapons and offer a greater forgiveness as far as accuracy goes. The racking of a round is an audible warning to any would be intruder given you are alerted they are in the house potentially scaring them away. Over-penetration is also not as probable given the proper choice of load.How do you feel about using a handgun?

    Handguns have pros and cons depending on whether you choose a revolver or a semi-automatic handgun. Handguns require a greater degree of accuracy than a shoulder-fired weapon but can be better in close quarters or small dwellings. Revolvers are less likely to malfunction but are slower to reload and limited in ammo capacity. Semi-autos typically have a light attachment point whereas revolvers do not.

    Where is the best place to be?

    This cannot be simply answered because every house is different. What you should do is figure out the safest place in YOUR home. You should have more than one entry and exit from that room so you cannot become trapped. You should have some form of communication with the outside world from that space. If you are in your “safe room” and someone is taking your TV downstairs it is best to wait and defend that space until law enforcement arrives. Most people do not have the training to clear their house and do you want to shoot a potentially unarmed intruder over a TV? No matter what happens if you discharge your firearm in self-defense you are going to be defending those actions in court so you must be wise in your decisions. Whatever room you choose make sure you are aware of threat angles.

    If you have other people in the house (guests, children, roommates, etc.) where should they be and what do they do?

    If you have other people in your house you should revert back to your plan. Do your children have a planned hiding spot that only you know where that is? It might be best to have everyone gather in your “safe room.” This will all depend on the size of your dwelling and the intentions and movements of the attacker. A plan is better than no plan at all. I have a friend whose children have a designated hiding spot and will only emerge if given a pass code from the mother or father. The important thing is if you have an intruder you do not want guests wandering around the house trying to see what is going on because than you have to distinguish, potentially in the dark, from a guest or an attacker.

    How do you know when to pull the trigger?

    This is difficult to answer and is not so black-and-white. You must know the laws for the state in which you live. Many laws protect you as the homeowner if you act in self-defense. I always revert to my training in regards to use of force. If a person intends me harm, has a weapon or the opportunity to deliver that harm, and shows any actions declaring so, I will defend myself.

    Under what circumstance would you advise submission to the invaders?

    Never. It is your home and your family and your duty to protect them. There is no way to know if the person invading your home is a desperate thief just trying to get a few things to pawn or a psychopathic killer intending on hurting your family. Notify law enforcement and defend yourself and your family. Material possessions can be replaced but your life can not.

    What is the best advice you can give to the average person who wants to protect their home?

    The important things to remember are to have a plan, practice retrieving your firearm from where you store and lock it (check your state and local laws), getting that firearm into condition 0 (ready to fire), and ensuring you are comfortable with the manipulation of that weapon. Know that most home invasions occur at night so you should have a light source on or near your weapon. You should also practice clearing malfunctions with your weapons because when it goes “click” at 3:00AM and you are half-asleep in your underwear, you need to know what to do. Practicing on a range is fine but it represents optimal conditions. Shooting under stress in low light with no hearing or eye protection on (unless you sleep with ear muffs on) is a whole different story. Before doing anything make sure you or someone alerts law enforcement as it is better to have backup. You have the home field advantage and should use that to your advantage by being prepared!

    The good news is the overwhelming majority of us will never be in a deadly scenario. Being victimized in your home, in particular, is extremely rare and unusual. An active shooter in public or a terrorist attack is more likely, but also rare. Something inside of us—something primal—wants to know how to defend the nest. Prepare yourself, research and familiarize yourself with your weapons and surroundings, and work out a plan with people in the house. Check with your local law enforcement about your local laws concerning firearms and self-defense. Many states have strict and unreasonable self defense laws, if you live in one of these places contact your representation at HOUSE.GOV and ask, “Why?” A man’s home is his castle—and you have an obligation it keep it safe.

    Follow Pawl on Twitter @PawLBAZiLe  

  • in

    What Getting Your Face Slashed Feels Like

    Our pal, Jovi Val, got his face slashed for partying with a red MAGA hat at a launch for Milo Yiannopoulos’ new book “Dangerous.”

    On July 7, around 3:30 a.m at the Bulgarian bar Mehanata on NYC’s Lower East Side, Jovanni Valle, aka “Jovi Val,” an uninsured 26-year-old, apparently dropped his hat while dancing and a woman identified as Emma Rodriguez proceeded to stomp on it. After trying to retrieve the hat her boyfriend, Leonardo Heinert, allegedly slashed his face wide open with a beer bottle and Rodriguez struck his head with another bottle.

    We spoke with him to see what it feels like to have your face severely lacerated.

    Cellphone shot immediately following the attack.

    Proud Boy Magazine: What was going though your mind as you were getting attacked?

    Jovi Val: Pain and confusion. I was being pummeled and I couldn’t help but think this might be my last day on earth. After being cut with a bottle and hit in the back of my head with another one I felt like someone grabbed me from my shoulders and threw me to the ground. I’d endured more than I could handle at that point. My body just shutdown. And they kept stomping on me repeatedly.

    What happened after that?

    I was rushed to a hospital where some lib quack doctor gave me a botched stitching. He had asked me what year it was and who was president of the U.S. I was bleeding all over the place. I said proudly “Donald Trump!” I guess politics proceed professionalism for Democrats. There was negligence with my care from most of these doctors. It wasn’t until the story received a little spark that it caught the attention of a great facial and cosmetic surgeon in the Upper East Side of Manhattan. When he spoke to me and saw how polite and outspoken I was, I guess it gave him the heart to help me. He found us through a scope Laura Loomer put out of me showing the damage done, reaching out for any doctors willing to help someone without healthcare.

    What kind of procedures did they put you through?

    The surgeon redid my stitching and I haven’t even felt anything but pain since that dreadful day. I received 15 stitches on my left cheek. I had been sliced through two facial arteries and received a nasal fracture. I will need to go back for two more surgeries, as my nose and face heal. I will have a procedure done on my nose in three months and in about six months to a year I’ll have my cheek sliced and restricted.

    Valle’s face will likely undergo over a year’s worth of medical treatment.

    Chicks dig scars. Will this help your game?

    Regardless of chicks digging scars, no one is getting slashed on purpose. But women do like to know there’s a man out there fighting for their country. So dig me—not the scars. Although it’s a rugged look, it’s not my look.

    How have people around you reacted?

    Many of my friends know me as this outspoken guy. So when they saw one whole side of my face nearly paralyzed they were in disbelief. As for my family, most of them remember seeing me before that night and how different my face was from before this disfigurement. I can care less what they did to me but seeing my mother cry was really upsetting. Right now I’ve been raising funds any way I can so I don’t have to pay out-of-pocket what I shouldn’t have to be wasting money on in the first place. But for some people, it’s in their best interest to try and expose the fake no matter how real someone may be. So random people are questioning all I’ve been through since they’re not as fortunate to have their nose broken and face sliced open to receive some funding. But they can question me all they want. They know deep down this is an unfortunate thing to happen for anybody.

    What would you say or do to your assailants if they walked into the room right now?

    I’d stare at them and say, “I don’t hate you but I am disappointed in our generation for not having the strength to overcome liberal indoctrination, which many of us broke through with ‘redpills.'” But what you did is the reason why we need to work even harder to Make America Great Again. So, thank you for that! Just next time make sure you know who someone is before you assume and decide that they’re a racist, bigot, white supremacist and sexist.”

    You can show your support for Jovi Val tomorrow, July 30, in New York City at 725 5th Avenue, Trump Tower, from 11AM-4PM. UHURU!

    Follow Greg on Twitter @realGregPike

  • in

    Explaining the Era of Labels; Right, Left, and Alt-Right

    This above all, to thine own self be true


    Do you have an interest in the truth?  Or do you just want your own ideas validated?  Let’s take a step to untangle the cheap weave of political classification as applied in 2017.

    • Liberal
    • Conservative
    • Alt-Right

    …are the 3 main classifications we’ll focus on.  This is the era of the “Label”, but many people on all sides of the argument are lazy debaters and don’t look too far into the basic ideas of their opponents (yet alone their own principles) so they can hang a label on the “Liberal” “Conservative” “Alt-Right” and the discussion is over.  I have been labeled all 3 of these in the last week.  How can someone possibly be accused of be “Liberal”, “Conservative”, and “Alt-Right” at the same time?

    The first issue we need to sort out is defining what we’re talking about.  Commonly, the labelers are working with different definitions.  The beef is everyone is working with their own set of criteria without understanding a common definition; “Racist” is a good example.  What’s a racist?  Who decides what’s a racist?   Here’s my personal definition of a racist:

    A person who judges someone by their race rather than their individuality.

    “Judges” not “hates,” so by my definition someone can be racist even if they are trying to paint that person as positive “because of” their race.  I see that as racist because they need to know what color someone is before deciding what to think of them. (Note: you’re still allowed to notice patterns, as long that’s not all you notice)

    Let’s define what the difference between “liberal” and “conservative” or “left” and “right” even is.  A liberal can’t simply be a vegan with purple hair and a conservative seems like more than just a rich guy in a polo.  How the hell does the “Alt-Right” fit into this?  If it’s just a checklist of issues, who decided on the list?  Here’s an example question:

    “Is the pope conservative or liberal?”

    • Pro- Religion Christian
    • Anti-War Advocate
    • Pro-Life
    • Anti-Death Penitently
    • Rich
    • Advocate for the poor

    The answer is that you can’t answer that question by looking at a check list of someone’s opinions.  You’re opinions alone can’t define you as “left” or “right” but how you arrived at those opinions is what puts you in one column or another.  “Conservative” and “Liberal” are the framework of how we see the world.  While being as objective and simple as possible:

    A LIBERAL is someone who who puts collectivism first.

    “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

    A CONSERVATIVE is someone who puts the individual first.

    “Each should be judged on his own merits.”

    Boiled down, that what we’re arguing about.  Until further notice every time I’m talking about “left” and “right” or “liberal” and “conservative,” those are the definitions I’m using.  No matter which side the the argument you’re on, it’ll be helpful if you used them too so we can all begin to understand what the other is talking about and maybe find a conclusion.

    Arguing left vs. right is really trying to answer the question “what is the role of government?”.  Collective vs. Individual. That’s something that we seem to lose sight of in all the rants on Facebook and heated workplace debates. If you’re reading this I charge you with the RESPONSIBILITY to bring it back to that.

    The next issue I’ve noticed is we seem to see history differently. This is a problem, especially cause no one actually reads up on what the other side thinks, and everyone thinks they are an expert. The four eras people seem to be utterly obsessed with are:

    1. Christopher Columbus
    2. the Civil War
    3. World War II
    4. Civil Rights into the “Big Switch”

    Note: You know there’s been a lot more shit that’s gone on in the past 200,000 years, right?! The Persian Empire? The Mongols?  Do you have any idea how many times Sicily has been invaded? Not one heated debate! But bring up World War II and everyone turns into Ken-fucking-Burns. Not to mention there are people who have decided to take those four things in history very personally (not Rutherford B. Hayes, but those four events they feel).

    We can’t come to conclusions cause we are all looking at the same history differently.  The left undeniably dominates the narrative and the way they seem to see these events are:

    1. Christopher Columbus was history’s greatest monster. He didn’t “discover” anything cause people were already here. He raped, robbed, and enslaved everyone he met browner than him for the fame and glory of the white man. That’s what America is built on and we should be ashamed. Stupid idiot thought he was in India and called the loving hippies he met “Indians”.
    2. The Civil War wasn’t really about slavery. The war was a bunch of racist white men fighting and somehow as a bargaining chip the slaves were freed. Too little too late. It didn’t really even end: White people then started the Klan, Jim Crow, and Segregation cause they didn’t want to live near these cool black guys.
    3. World War II was because the extreme right wing in Germany came to power. They were well organized conservative  nationalists. They put the white race first and hated the Jews. Good progressive countries like the United States felt bad for the Jews and defeated the Nazis.  Giving them Israel is a bit unfair nonetheless.
    4. Civil Rights was black people finally catching a break after centuries of torment. They could finally get food stamps and welfare and housing they deserved after building the entire country with stolen labor. LBJ lead the way. The Republicans authored the civil rights act and voted it in, but that was right before “the Big Switch”. After Civil Rights, all racist Democrats became racist Republicans and all liberal Republicans became liberal Democrats.

    . . . Somehow all these events seem to blend into each other on their timeline despite the fact that there is more time between Christopher Columbus and the founding of the United States than the founding of the United States and YOU. Yet the four points above comprise the story of “us” that most liberals believe and it’s the version they get to teach us in school. The right thinks it’s more nuanced than that.

    There seems to be more context in the history Conservatives see:

    1. Christopher Columbus was an explorer sent from Spain to find a western route to the West Indies. He landed in the New World in 1492. We call this “discovering America” cause in 1492 word traveled slow, most people were illiterate, and record keeping was spotty at best so they were unaware of obscure Chinese & Viking voyages that may have happened generations earlier but Columbus now confirmed land on the other side of the ocean previously unknown.  This was the age of conquest, so Columbus treated the American Indians as he would have treated any European nation and went to war, dominating them with better technology. Germ theory wasn’t discover until 1861, so disease was unknowingly spread (and could have just as easily been spread to the Spanish). Columbus did not think he was in India because in 1492 India was called Hindustan. “Indian” comes from the words “En Dos” which means “in God” in Spanish after Columbus called the Natives “a people in god.”

    2. The Civil War was a proud moment when America tested our constitution by declaring equality for all under the law. The United States inherited slavery from past nations, we didn’t start it but we ended it. It was also the beginning of the Republican party which was founded as an abolitionist party lead by Lincoln. The war was between Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans.  Text books were changed in the 50s to say the war was between “Northern Liberals” and “Southern Conservatives” which were not expressions of that time. The Southern Democrat point of view was that North were “rich industrialists” that were out of touch with the working man. They also felt the Union didn’t understand that slaves couldn’t make it in the world without whites. Southern Democrats felt they were showing blacks kindness by keeping them in chains. Once freed, in the 1800s there were several black elected officials, all Republicans. (There wasn’t a black Democrat in the senate until 1999). Democrats founded the Klan, Democrats lobbied for the 1st gun control and marriage laws (to stop freed blacks), Democrats insisted on segregation.

    3. Word War II was the case of stopping countries hell bent of taking over the world. The Nazis (which stands for National Socialist German Workers Party) were an extreme leftists (Hitler was very clear about that), Marxist party that also added eugenics which came out the the American Progressive movement at the turn of the century. (These were the people who took Darwin’s work and went awry. They believed in “survival of the fittest” and some races being more “fit” than others.  They were all considered “progressive liberals” for the time and the conservatives trying to stop them were “old fashion” and “religious zealots”). After the war was over and we saw the people walking out of the camps, the world knew where progressive eugenics lead and was sickened. The progressives in academia scrubbed the blood off their hands and suddenly the Nazis somehow became “conservative” in their classrooms. The Jews got Israel cause they were so devastated after the holocaust.

    4. Civil Rights was an amazing milestone. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was authored by Republicans and ended segregation. LBJ didn’t so much turn the Democrats “un-racist” as he convinced them to stop filibustering the bill so he can heap government entitlements on the black community, keeping them voting Democrat and convincing them if the Republicans gave them individual freedom they could never make it in this cruel, racist country. These programs effectively destroyed the black family replacing the father with the state. “The Big Switch” is clearly bullshit. Republicans and Democrats didn’t get so mad at each other one day they switched places. Blacks started voting democrat in the 30s to get FDR’s entitlements (which it what inspired LBJ). The south was already voting Republican before the civil rights act (racism was on a downward trend). Very few members of each party “switched.” Strohm Thurman is the only prominent one who did. Robert Byrd was a leader in the Klan and Democrat who stayed a Democrat till his death (and even mentored Hillary Clinton). There is no measurable evidence of a “switch.”

    I’m biased cause that is the version of history I understand to be true.  I read enough, listened to enough, and argued enough to hear the same things time and time again (especially from the left).  I was curious enough to want to read more and found out for myself.  I recommend the books Guns, Germs, and Steel, War before Civilization, MarxismBlack Rednecks & White Liberals, the Big Lie, American LionI also recommend the podcast Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History.

    Wait… where’s the Alt-Right in all of this? From what I’ve seen, this is the basic gist of how the Alt-Right sees the same points in history:

    1. Columbus came to the New World, took it over, slaughter, raped and stole from anyone browner than him… good.  Fuck them.  Way of the world.  We were stronger, we won.  Sucks to be Indian.  That’s how awesomely ruthless white Europeans are.  That’s what America was build on and we should be proud.
    2. The Civil War wasn’t really about slavery.  The war was about fighting against tyranny and somehow the slaves were freed.  The north were monsters.  The south was totally justified in everything they did.  Lincoln himself was a racist white supremacist, but freeing the slaves was him imposing his will on the South.  He was a tyrant and John Wilkes Booth was a hero patriot.  Conservatives today would be the racist dixie-crats, and the progressive liberals would be the tyrannical north.  White people then started the Klan, Jim Crow, Segregation cause they didn’t want to live near these dangerous black guys.  Plus slavery wasn’t that bad.
    3. World War II was the extreme right Nazi party standing up for themselves to the extreme left commie Soviet Union.  Nazis had some good points.  Germany was being taxed to death after WWI.  Jews were at the center of it all.  Treacherous Jews.  Evil Jews.  Jews, Jews Jews.  Those holocaust numbers may be inflated.  People died, but it was likely the fault of allies bombing supply lines and not gassing.  Stalin was worse.  If we have to pick a side, the Nazis were better than the Commies.  The reason the Nazis look so bad is cause the Jews control everything.  They unfairly got everyone to sign off on Israel and shouldn’t have it.
    4. Civil Rights was given to black people by liberal republicans.  Blacks couldn’t make it on their own and begged for handouts.  LBJ lead the way.  This prompted “the big switch”  the racist democrats became republicans and the liberal republicans became democrats.  That’s why the conservatives are the true inheritors of the confederacy, slavery, genocide, Jim Crow, segregation, eugenics, and we should be proud of it!!  It’s our heritage.


    Don’t re-read that, or blood will shoot out of your nose, but I talked to alt-right people so you don’t have to. Anyone denying the holocaust is a great litmus test to see if you’re talking to a fucking boring ‘tard. For better or worse, that’s what they seem to believe. I’ve had this conversation all over social media, and have been cornered in bars and given ear beatings by some of the most insufferable people you can imagine, who get so bummed out when I’m not buying what they’re selling. The Alt-Right believes the narrative put out by the left… they just don’t see it as bad.  All the easily debunked bullshit about “the big switch” that liberals have shoved down our throats, they like it.

    Basically, they’re the alternate evil reality in Back to the Future II if liberals really got to change the past to fit their narrative.

    Liberals and the Alt-Right both seem to agree that to make something conservative “just add racism”.  When the left demonizes the right and misdirects and casts shade, the Alt-Right embrace it and say “Yeah, that’s exactly who we are”.

    • Problem with Jews?  You must be a conservative.  (Never mind all the liberals who hates Israel).
    • Don’t want blacks in your neighborhood?  You must be a conservative.  (Never mind all the white progressive beta males and feminists who shake with fear about living in the hood)
    • Can’t stand gays?  Definitely a conservative. (Never mind if you’re black or Muslim)

    The Alt-Right and the Right seem to have a bit of a different relationship…

    • The Right loves the free market.  The Alt-Right will praise the free market, but usually in a way that says “the free market says I don’t need to associate with black people”.
    • The Right loves free speech.  The Alt-Right loves free speech, usually so they can say the word “Jew” 5,000 in a 3 minute conversation.
    • The right loves the individual.  The Alt Right loves the individual cause there are so few of them.

    Conservatives who disagree with what the Alt-Right have to say but will defend their right to say it, are the only ones protecting them and their almost non-existent but loud numbers.  Even the attempts to “Unite the Right” always strike me as the Alt-Right’s ham handed attempt to get regular, free speech conservatives to come to their rally’s so they can bore a new set of people to tears talking about the “Jewish Question” instead if the same five guys they’re used to talking at.  You’ll also notice the “don’t punch right” rule never seems to apply to them.

    The man who coined the term Alt-Right is Richard Spencer.  He’s a self described “white nationalist”.  He has stated that when socialism is used correctly it is very good.  He likes the E.U. because it’s a white ethno-state.  He has defended policies that would prop up Al Gore’s “climate change” myths.  Spencer has bragged about having a lot in common with Bernie.  By any measure, he seems to really enjoy the social engineering the left is famous for… just more talk about race.  Does that automatically make someone “right wing” cause that sounds like a leftists narrative to me.  Today’s issue is the left has been so effective at demonizing the right, it’s making regular people on the right believe they’re “Alt-Right”.  They say “fuck it”, whatever you want to call me.

    The key word to remember is “principles”.  What is at the core of your beliefs?  I don’t believe anything because I’m trying to be “the most” conservative.

    • I believe in the individual.  I say fuck the collective… fuck the group.  If something is the right thing to do, being outnumbered doesn’t make it wrong.
    • I believe in free speech… not just when I agree with you.  If I’m wrong I want to be convinced, if you’re wrong I don’t need to burn your books because I’ll read them and light you up in a debate.
    • I don’t need to go down a checklist of “what” someone is before I decide what I think of them.  Someones race doesn’t make me pity them, nor does it make me hate them.
    • I believe in the free market. Taxation is theft.

    Those are things I believe in.  I’m not saying you have to believe them too.  You can be a principled liberal as well, or a principled “Alt-Righter”… you can be principled wrong.  Before you want to debate on a podcast, please decide how you feel about the role of government, where you fit into the idea of collectivism, and how you look at history.  “Know thyself” before picking a side and know why that’s the side you picked.


  • in ,


    prouder; proudest
    [or more proud; most proud]
    a : very happy and pleased because of something you have done, something you own, someone you know or are related to, etc. : feeling pride

Load More
Congratulations. You've reached the end of the internet.