Thursday, September 13, 2012


Website for this image Cartoon by darkblack

Reportedly, the Neocon faction (Romney, Netanyahu) gains from the attack on the US consulate in Libya.

Reportedly, the Trilateral faction (Rockefeller, Brzezinski, Obama) loses.

Or does it?

1. "From the very execution of this false flag in this particular manner we can lean that the Neocon faction seems to be gaining the upper hand from the trilaterals in the power struggle over who controls the rogue network - deep state apparatus...

Neocon False Flag in North Africa – Part of Election Strategy ...

The 1979 hostage crisis in Iran helped Reagan (Neocon) beat Carter (Trilateral).

"The pictures of Muslim lynch mob ravaging the American embassy in Cairo and murdering the American ambassador in Libya were meant to touch the raw nerves of American public opinion on the 'conservative' side of the false paradigm by triggering ‘flashbacks’ to Carter’s hostages crisis in Tehran circa 1979-1980 when Iranian terrorists ravaged the American embassy in Tehran and took the staff workers as hostages.

"One of those terrorists was a young student called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - the current president of the Fascist Mullah regime so dearly cherished by so many 'alternative bloggers' .

Neocon False Flag in North Africa – Part of Election Strategy ...

"The hostages crisis brought down the racist redneck Jimmy Carter - a Trilateral puppet just like Obama - who was made to look like a weak, pathetic failure whose policy of “appeasement of Muslims” has brought this malign upon the American foreign policy.

"Actually Carter was duped into putting MI6 asset Khomeini in power in Tehran by his “adviser” (i.e. controller) Zbigniew Brzezinsky who was in turn duped by British imperial strategist Bernard Lewis."

Neocon False Flag in North Africa – Part of Election Strategy ...

It appears that the consulate was not guarded by American Marines

The US ambassador Christopher Stevens' body was dragged through Benghazi streets

Website for this image

Of course, there will be suspicions about this event. (aangirfan: GADDAFI IS ALIVE; NOT DEAD)

Was he lynched? Was he killed by pro-Gaddafi forces? Is he really dead?

Who gains?

Was the attack designed to help Romney?

“Innocence of Muslims” Psyop is About Crushing Libya’s Growing Green Revolution - by willyloman

Various photos claiming to be of 'the ambassador' have emerged.

US ambassador killed in Benghazi, Libya at Libya S.O.S.


Did the USA deliberately not protect its embassy in Cairo?

"No less than 2000 protesters ... are at the American embassy in Cairo... the once fortress embassy had a complete absence of security..."

9/11 in Cairo : The Conquest of the Flag at Egyptian Chronicles

Too easy attack on the US embassy in Cairo, 11 September 2012

"I do not understand how it was so easy for those protesters who stormed the embassy;  the embassy is more of a military base with tons of marines inside it;  it is very suspicious by all measures.

"For two weeks Security forces beat the crap out of the protesters at the Syrian embassy literaly and some of them are facing trial now."

9/11 in Cairo : The Conquest of the Flag at Egyptian Chronicles

"There was no single policeman , not even army units, used to protect the embassy."

USembassy : Important questions we have to answer

Stevens.  'We came, we saw, he died'

"Rocket-propelled grenades were fired at the consulate from a nearby farm" and "an armed mob attacked and set fire to the building".

"A Libyan official said" the ambassador and three other staff were killed "when gunmen fired rockets at the ambassador's car" as he tried to escape.

False Flag? September Surprise?

2. The Benghazi attack gives Obama an excuse to put more troops into Africa.

Retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons has suggested the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi  was the result of a bungled kidnapping attempt.
Admiral James Lyons suggests the Obama administration deliberately lessened the levels of security at the consulate.

In October 2012, the Western Center for Journalism suggested the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens was the result of a failed kidnapping attempt by terrorists working for the US government.

What went wrong with the Obama plan was that, according to information obtained by Fox News, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both former U.S. Navy Seals, ignored orders to "stand down" and fought vigorously for hours in their attempt to defend the compound.


On October 20, Kris Zane published the center's initial article Muslim Brotherhood Behind Benghazi Attack with Link to Obama.

Within 24 hours of the event, ground intelligence linked the Benghazi attack to Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, who was put into power by the CIA. 

Zane cites an anonymous source inside the White House who says that Obama planned to win the release of a kidnapped Stevens, just in time for Election Day.

The work of Ansar al-Sharia. who-are-ansar-al-sharia. On September 11, 2012, the United States Department of State Operations Center advised the White House Situation Room and other U.S. security units that Ansar al-Sharia was claiming responsibility for the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that had just occurred.[11] 

On October 25, Kris Zane published his second article on the incident “Obama Linked to Benghazi Attack.”

On 24 September 2012, the Wall Street Journal had published an article from Judge Michael Mukasey entitled “Will Obama Free the Blind Sheik and send him back to Egypt?

Omar Abdel Rahman was jailed for his part in the CIA's 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and for conspiring to assassinate Hosni Mubarak, who had become an enemy of the CIA.

3. A film made by an Israeli filmmaker, Sam Bacile, has led to the death of the US ambassador to Libya, according to Al Jazeera.

A group calling themselves the 'Islamic law supporters' carried out the attack in response to the release of an amateur film seen as offensive to Prophet Muhammad, Al Jazeera reported.

The film is promoted by Morris Sadek, an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner who lives in California.

"Speaking by phone to the Associated Press from an undisclosed location, writer and director Bacile remained defiant, maintaining his stance on Islam as 'a cancer' and that he intended his film to be a provocative political statement."

Al-Jazeera has some more details.

Who wants a clash of civilisations?

On 11 September 2012, Egyptian protesters climbed the walls of the US embassy in Cairo, tore down the American flag and burnt it.

They were protesting against an anti-Islamic film.

"Although it was not clear which film prompted the protests, Egypt’s al-Azhar mosque, a seat of Sunni learning, condemned on Tuesday a symbolic 'trial' of the Prophet organised by a US group including Terry Jones, a Christian pastor who triggered riots in Afghanistan in 2010 by threatening to burn the Koran.

"According to the Standupamericanow website, Mr Jones and others were due to take part in an event on Tuesday called 'International judge Mohammed day' in Florida. It was to be carried live on the internet."

  • Why do People suddenly remember that offensive home made film now when it was produced several months ago ?
  • Why was the first one to air the video publicly rude Khaled Abdullah on Salafist (CIA) TV channel Al Nas ?

Protest in Cairo, 11 September 2012 - CIA masks.

"Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri on 11 September 2012 confirmed the death of his deputy Abu Yahya al-Libi in a drone strike in Pakistan’s tribal region of Waziristan on June 4", U.S. monitoring agency SITE and IntelCenter said.

It used to be the rogue state of Israel that was involved in a clash with liberals and democrats in the West.

Why was there a clash?

1. The Israelis had used terror to drive the Arabs off their land.

2. Some of the Israelis were religious fundamentalists with 'weird, outdated beliefs'.

But, certain clever people in the USA have managed to change the story.

Now the clash is supposed to be between the 'mad Moslems' on the one side and the western liberals and democrats on the other.

Israel has managed to stir a clash between Moslems and the West.

The 'Clash of Civilisations' seems to be a project linked to various recent events - attacks in Nigeria, attacks in Norway, attacks in India, attacks in Belgium, attacks in Indonesia...

The project seems to be the work of a pro-Zionist faction within the CIA-Mossad-NATO.

'CIA assets' wearing Guy Fawkes masks pose for a photo during the protest in Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 11, 2012. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)

There has been speculation Israel wants to make the Moslem world look bad, so that it can be more easily controlled and exploited.

Much of the world's oil lies in Moslem lands.

How do you make Moslems look bad?

You can finance the extremists and help them into power.

You can carry out false flag operations.

    2 days ago – The CIA and its friends are said to be the planners of the Arab Spring and the attempt to bring about a Clash of Civilisations. Tunisians on the ...
    10 Jan 2012 – The 'Clash of Civilisations' seems to be a project linked to various recent events - attacks in Nigeria, attacks in Norway, attacks in India, attacks ...
    5 days ago – In this essay Lewis invented the phrase "clash of civilizations", which got mentioned in the book by Samuel Huntington.[13] The phrase "clash of ...
    29 Aug 2011 – CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS IN INDONESIA. Indonesians. One after another, the moderate Moslem countries are being attacked. If you believe a ...


Noor al Haqiqa said...

You nailed it. The prefabricated "clash of civilizations" ... get them there radical moozlims in place and provide the fuel to set the people aflame with misplaced ardour.

Then get the media to make sure that the word gets out so both sides are ready to perform appropriately for the puppet masters.

I fear we are just beginning here.... there will be much more to come.

Zoompad said...

Good post. It makes my heart sore to read it though. Every time I look at the television news I just see through all the lies, at one time if it was on the news I believed it, as if it were Gospel truth, those were the days I was so naive, and I know I wasn't the only one. The tricks and treachary are getting more and more sophisticated, they always lied, but now they have to be more inventive, because they have been caught out too often.

What a sad planet this is, civilisation? It's a joke, a suit and nice house and dinner manners doesn't make a man civilised.

Now I know why God gave Moses the 8th Commandment for the people, the laws were for to help the people live in peace and harmony. What a horrible thing lying is, it twists everything up and causes chaos.

Anonymous said...

I tend to believe he's not dead and the deceit goes on and on....

Anonymous said...

Diplomats? Not quite!! They were put there by US/NATO criminals. They were obviously in agreement with the overthrow of Gaddafi/Libya, therefore co-criminals. They just thought they were securely installed. They did not even consider that they would be useful for propaganda by being murdered. Useful idiots in the game for greedy opportunities?

felix said...

"A small contingent of Libyan security protecting the facility fired in the air, trying to intimidate the mob" (Herald Mail) Really!

The ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, was missing almost immediately after the start of an intense, four-hour firefight for control of the mission, and his body was not located until Wednesday morning at dawn, when he was found dead at a Benghazi hospital, American and Libyan officials said(NY Times). Really!

Smells very not right...

Anonymous said...

Penny said...


regarding your comment

Which incident?
The Libyan
The Egyptian
Or both

The Egyptian film reeks of false flag
The Libyan one , I am not so sure of that? It could have been to make Obama look bad, there is precedent for that type of activity between American political parties, but, I simply can't see that there is that much at stake in the US election.

Felix: as near as I can figure using the Guardian and Telegraph timelines he was missing nearly 8 hours and his body was brought to Benghazi airport.

Attack taking place at 10:00 pm, body returned at dawn approximately 6:00am
so that is about 8 hours unaccounted for

From the post I did yesterday

"Early morning - Stevens's body is returned to US officials at Benghazi airport.

US officials did not discover what happened to Stevens until his body was returned to them at Benghazi airport at about dawn. "

In between it was reported that the Ambassador was taken to hospital by Libyans and treated for smoke inhalation..
Is that true? I don't know.
But if true, what happened in all those hours, when the Ambassador was alleged to have been treated and alive, to when his body was brought to the airport??

I must say Hillary looks pissed
and more ugly then usual

Anon said...

Which incident?


- Aangirfan

Abu-Suleyman said...

Excellent stuff !!!

Penny said...

Thanks Aangirfan!

I put up something today.
"Could the embassy be an election game changer"

The writer is implying if Obama plays this right he stands to gain
IMO Obama is the winner anyway
It's already a done deal
Or why would anyone put those two dorks in for the repubs- it's a loosing team

Anyway, quoting from the article

" The impact of the embassy attacks on the election may also depend on who really is responsible. There are reports that the attacks may have been a co-ordinated strike by al-Qaeda groups. If that is the case, Obama could respond militarily, which would boost his support as the country rallies behind him.

"If it turns out that they can trace the targeted attack on [U.S. Ambassador] Chris Stevens to a jihadi camp or an organization, (or a country?) they will respond, probably with airstrikes,"

I question

Which country (Israel) want airstrikes launched against another nation (Iran)

If Israel was behind the embassy attack in a message to the US....and this can be portrayed as originating in Iran....
Resulting in airstrikes on Iran wanted by Israel

It's possible
And Israel is as much behind these Islamic mercs as is the US.

Therefore both false flags or psyops, yes.

Egypt and Libya and nothing to do with some bogus movie either

notice also- who is speculating on airstrikes??

Anonymous said...

So many lies, false flags, psy ops and theories.
Could be that this ambassador was starting to talk or go off script so they whacked him.
Could be a convenient way to demonize all Arabs and show how "ungrateful" they are for being liberated by NATO angels and heros.
Could be an actual attack by extremists, but not likely for the reasons you point out.

The one thing it can NOT be is a sign of some clash between two opposing factions in the USA.
The false two party paradigm of D vs. R and the left vs. right and country vs. rock n roll and occupy vs. tea party is ALL a construct of the establishment to divide and conquer.
This Neocon vs. Trilateral crap is pure garbage and probably the only ridiculous insane thing I have ever read here.

Whatever happened in Libya, the Romnybama victory will happen as planned, and there will be no infighting.

Anon said...

There are factions within the elite.

Think of the Catholic and Protestant factions in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

Think of Prabowo versus Wiranto in Jakarta in May 1998.

Think of Hitler falling out with the Zionists.

Think of the October Surprise, which helped Neocon Reagan.

Think of the Churchill faction against the faction supported by the Duke of Kent.

Anonymous said...

With due respect, Ronald Reagan was not a neocon.

Ronald Reagan never went to an AIPAC conference.

Reagan was a nationalist.

Neocons always schemed to take over Reagan's policies and partially did.

Reagan in some ways was naive and because of that naiveti others partially did take over his policy, also due to his tendency to delegate.

This process started as soon as Bush, Sr. was named Reagan's vice presidential running mate.

Some evidence exists that Bush, Sr. was involved with the Hinkley assassination attempt through mind-control of Hinkley, whose family were close friends of Bush, Sr.

More likely Reagan was coopted by the trilateralists via Bush, Sr.

Reagan attacked trilateralists, globalists, and those who would sacrifice American sovereignty during the primary contest between him and Bush, Sr., but, then, once Bush, Sr. was nominated vice president candidate by the Republican convention, Reagan went silent.

A lot to defend Reagan, but Reagan was the last nationalist president of the United States of America.

(Yes, he had many faults, he was not perfect, but he was a nationalist, not a neocon, globalist, or secret government guy.)

j said...

"There are factions within the elite."

Stalin - Trotsky
Hitler - Röhm
Mao - Lin Biao

Anonymous said...

The cold war was featuring such "factions" for the deadly but distracting stage play.

This was obviously a setup just like 911.

When will the shills understand they are digging their own graves ?

Anon said...

On September 1, 1982, Reagan announced that he opposed the creation of a Palestinian state.

Reagan created very close ties between the Pentagon and IDF and greatly strengthened Israel’s military capability.

Under Reagan, Israel began to receive $3 billion annually in foreign aid.

Reagan was a Neocon.

Anonymous said...

Ang, good analysis, as usual, but...

shouldn't we be more careful with this post you are citing:
"Neocon False Flag in North Africa – Part of Election Strategy ... "

It comes from Israel (
Neocon False Flag in North Africa - Part of Election Strategy
and is "promoting" attack on Iran...

From this website:
"30 Years later the same Ahmadinejad and the same Fascist Mullah regime have come back to haunt the trilateral puppet of the day - Barack Obama - who also faces the deliberate failure to prevent the nuclear program of the regime, as per Langley's strategy of Pakistanization with regards to the Middle-East, and the brutal attempts to push the Israelis to the corner in order to force them to strike Iran unilaterally on the one hand while going to great lengths to disrupt their preparations to that strike on the other hand".

"Globalists activate trilateral plan for Islamist coup in Egypt following Salafist proxy attack on Egypt-Israel-Hamastan border triangle. Muslim Brotherhood stooge and former USC Proffesor Mohamed Morsi sacks the Military Junta, undermines Sinai demilitarization on behalf of Langley, in an effort to disrupt Israeli preparations for preemptive strike on Genocidal Mullahs in Iran".

But, strangely enough, the hypothesis on Benghazi events appears to be
very probable...

Anonymous said...

The Racist anti-Islamic movie financed by Israelis talmudists is designed to attack the US in retaliation of Dempsey and the Obama administration refusal to obey Netanyahu orders and to give Romney a 'presidential agenda' which is 'Protect, Serve and Die for Israel'

Netanyahu's commandos killed the US ambassador Christopher Stevens, a specialist in secret military diplomacy operations, in Benghazi

UPDATE FROM LIBYA; 13 September 2012-11H18 GMT: Special forces which stroke the US embassy in Benghazi are definitively from the UAE and were dressed as NATO special forces. These are trained and supervised by the french DGSE, like the qataris special forces in Libya, the head of the DGSE is Erard Corbin de Mangoux, he was put in place in France by mossadnik Sarkozy. Mangoux is a Gladio-mossad member like his master Charles Pasqua

Different witnesses in Benghazi confirmed that the commandos which attacked the US convoy had night-vision helmets, laser-guided weapons, highly sophisticated, and GPS trackers, they were dressed as NATO special forces units, like the ones operating in Benghazi up to the Egyptian border. These witnesses confirm that none of the attackers speak any Arabic or Berberian dialect use in the area, they flew the scene very quickly. The different factions in Benghazi are trained and supervised by the pentagone. Only French and British are dressed this way in the area. None of any groups in Benghazi have the ability to trace so easily any target, otherwise they would have killed Gaddafi without NATO help. Prime suspects are the israelis, as Obama is still refusing to meet with Netanyahu. Like in 2007, Zionist cartoons provocation, Israel is fueling the West with Islamophobia because Israel lost the intelligence battle over the Middle East, as the US had been able to know exactly what Netanyahu was doing, something entirely new in Washington. This new wave of provocations is designed to fuel the hatred against Muslims in the US, and put the israeli agenda on the table, 7 weeks before the presidential elections, to give Romney 'an agenda', as his defeat is now sure, unless Israel is able to trigger serious attacks against the US military in the Middle East. This has all the trademarks of a false flag, Israel does not need the US anymore meddling in Libya, like in Lebanon in 1982, they will strike and kill a maximum of US and NATO military forces to signify that they are in charge now.


Anonymous said...

This incident has also been covered at Veterans Today:

.... The actual killings are said to have been done by a team of newly trained Special Forces from the United Arab Emirates working directly in conjunction with the Mossad.

Crowds were being managed by French DGSE agents, seen by the dozen, and British security service personnel were present but their role was not clear.

Anonymous said...

Originally, I suspected the Israelis and Americans instigated the attack on the American embassy in Libya as an excuse to bring warships into the region for suppression operations and to further discredit muslims.

Now having seen the trailer for "The Innocence of Muslims", I have to admit the protests must be genuine.

It is the most execrable, ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Looks like it was produced by five year olds learning how to use 60s blue screen technology. The actors were chosen specifically because of their lack of any acting talent whatsoever. I mean they had to have talent to have so little talent.

It's like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", but instead of being so bad it becomes good again, it spins around a dozen times and goes back to just awful.

The only redeeming feature is a couple of attractive women; no doubt starving actresses having little idea of the idiocy they are involved in.

So it was pretty much a toss-up whether people would laugh so hard they would die or be so engaged as to attack all things slack-jawed and American.

I thought initially the film must be some sort of new sophisticated DARPA-developed weapon: like a neutron bomb powered by pure hilarity. (Neologism of the day: gelatotoxin.)

One thing is clear. The Evil Empire of the West is coming to an end. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, then as ROTFLMAO.

At least christians should be happy that "Life of Brian" had some artistic merit.

"Always look on the bright side of life."

Anonymous said...

Much of the substantial part of that e-i-n / israel blog stuff seems to have come from
That's what's wrong with his 'Caliphate' analysis - he hadn't factored in 'Gladio'
Willyloman asks -
Curious not knowing what the Brits role was. Also some were apparently on extended coffee-breaks - embassy security, Dempsey, Panetta.
Is anyone else wondering if there is also a connect to the Alps shooting?

Anonymous said...

No. Reagan was not a neocon.

Reagan had a back and forth relationship with Israel.

Reagan never visited Israel.

“The policy of publicly humiliating our traditional ally has made us no new friends in the Arab world and removed the trust needed to encourage Israel to take risks for peace,”... “You’d think the heaviest cross [the President] had to bear was the Star of David.” -- William Safire, criticizing Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Under Reagan, the United States had withheld promised warplanes from Israel to punish it for destroying Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981 and voted to condemn the action in the United Nations Security Council.

Would a neocon have done that?

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin summoned the American Ambassador Samuel Lewis to read him a prepared statement. Begin did not mince words. “What kind of expression is this—‘punishing Israel’? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don’t behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?”

Would a neocon have done that?

“Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with ‘punishments.’ He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats.” -- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin

Would a neocon punish Israel?

Reagan treated Israel as an independent country.

Reagan's relationship with Israel was complicated, not what a neocon do.

But here are two links, each with a different take.

Read the two pieces, which come to opposite conclusions.

Reagan supported Israel, but he was no neocon.

Reagan was a nationalist.

But nice try with the smear.

Anonymous said...

BUt, how to explain the fact, that
was promoting bloody NATO attack on Libya?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote:
"BUt, how to explain the fact, that
was promoting bloody NATO attack on Libya?"

That is an excellent question.

My sense is that Gordon Duff knows Libya has blown up in his face -- the truth has come out.

But Duff will never admit the truth when it comes to Libya.

One rule of thumb for intelligence operatives: Never admit the truth if that truth contradicts your goals, if necessary engage in limited-hangouts, but not the deep truth.

If your purpose is disinformation, credibility is your most important asset.

So, he blames Israel which maybe the truth in this instant, I don't know, but notice his take protects the BIG TRUTH: The Obama administration and the West have created this 'Strategy of Tension' (Bush also employed a 'Strategy of Tension -- it's a bi-partison strategy) where the Arab Spring was a covert operation of the West to make the Arabs look bad and reduce the governments to low-functioning states that have a hard time standing up to transnational corporations and the governments who back them (and that Israel maybe able to seize territory in wars that eventually come out of the Arab Spring (order out of chaos).

I'll admit Duff is crafty and shrewd, but I've seen too much from him which was B. S. i.e., Libya, silence on Syria for many months (with disparaging comments on reports of terrorist being supported by outside forces), other items, and the split-up in Veterans Today, where a major contingent of writers set-up as Veterans News Now (these writers consisted of those that disagreed with his Libya position and his silence and disparagement of those calling out Syria as a foreign operation).

Duff is an interesting study: Seperating the false disinformation from the nuggets of truth which keep up his credibility is an excellent exercise in analysis.

Don't kid yourself, Duff took a serious hit to the number of his readers and his credibility on the Libyan NATO invasion.

My suspicion: The Libyan NATO operation was bedrock for the trilateralists. Duff had no choice, Libya was the operation his faction had to have.

All his built-up credibility was designed for situations like Libya. And he spent his credibility on Libya and Syria, big time.

There may have also been a personal animus against Gaddafi (perhaps, a personal friend(s) was eliminated by Gaddafi in years past).

Duff has been trying to build his credibility since, so may have been giving more nuggets of truth recently.

Duff acts as a honey trap, but he supports world governance in the Trilateral faction as opposed to the neocon faction.

Trilateralists see Israel as an obstacle to world governance, while the neocon faction see Israel as central to their world governance schemes, if not its leader with a Greater Israel at the pinnicle, yes, top neocons see a Greater Israel as the most powerful country in the world in 50 years time (and they know it can't be achieved without a Greater Israel).

Not that trilateralists want Israel destroyed, they just see it as being an obstacle that must take a back seat to their larger plans.

Yes, there are factions in the Elite.

Anonymous said...

False flag? Sure.
White genocide? Sure.

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Site Meter