Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-06-24

24 June 2017

Audio: Will resume Mason tomorrow and finish it in coming week.

Roundup:  Uncool Depp went Madonna re Trump. When your life is based on coolness and lying and your cool fades, you're the male equivalent of a middle-aged woman dressing like a young teen. Here's to Israel - the cause of  - but not the solution to - all of the world's problems. That shooting up in Minnesota, you can almost feel bad for a nigger. I mean, of course it's good the nigger is dead. We all know that. But the fucking pig who killed him - what a pussy. Cops are scarcely better than niggers. They should NEVER be called heroes. Never. That pumps them even fuller of their basic attitude, which is: doan give no fux, i'm going home alive tonight. That is the most basic cop attitude of all. "Protect and serve" is bullshit political sloganeering, like everything that comes from government. Cops serve themselves. When you call them heroes, you increase the chance they'll shoot citizens just like you. For no reason, justified by, well, any old excuse. Police create Safe Spaces for Donut Heroes by shooting anyone who makes them the slightest bit uncomfortable. In the end, the correct attitude toward cops is this: FUCK THA POLICE. And that goes for Security Guards too.

Media Front
Certainly interested in alt-right. PDF of actual paper here. Interview with Paul Fromm. A video on the Frankfurt School. Alt-right discussion of Southern Baptist Convention and race. Government is theft and indoctrination. The broad is probably right that eventually these 'public schools' are going to be whole-life dormitory-schools. Right now they just give them breakfast, lunch, etc, but there's no stopping point until the government directly manages the alleged hominid through its entire life-cycle. It takes care of everything except paying for it. That's up to white you. Son-of-commie (no jewmo) Hamilton Nolan, a good fighter writer, at least, on why most columnists suck. Here CODOH on censorship by proxy, think Germany/Facebook. This Holocaust scholarship (admittedly of a minority persuasion) is now tracelessly missing from Amazon for the entire Anglosphere that includes the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States... 

Organizing Front
Brad Griffin gropes his way toward what I've called the White Paradox. The things that make us worth defending make it hard to defend, our race. Our individualism, our competition, our fractiousness. Then you throw in jews working against us behind the scenes and supplying social pressure through authority in public. . . . It's why I've said we need a White Liberation Army. That's ARMY. What do armies do? They kill people. Disloyal people, not just enemies. People who backslide, who tattle, etc. We can't perceive or keep pretending this 'thing' is a matter of degree rather than a divide around a giant gap. Our struggle is vital, life and death, not democratic. But we only seem to think in terms of Republican and Democratic politics. Then there's the point that advocates of big-tentism aka The Impuritans don't seem to grasp or accept that, yeah, as some of us have explained to you for many, many years, the cost of that position. When you say loyalty doesnt matter, which is a fair alt-definition of big-tentism, then you can't not expect people to be disloyal, nor can you blame them for it. You approved it going in! This is why white nationalism is the solution: it doesn't PRETEND that we agree on anything other than the absolute essentials: we are white, our enemy is the jew. We demand a WHITE RACIAL STATE, and we will kill anyone who denies it to us. Or tries to subvert it after we've established it. THAT is our cause. Mixing our thing with 'mere' economics and lower-level political matters doesn't help, it just confuses people. See...that's what the WHITE means - it's a PROXY for all those other good things we all want. And if we don't believe that it is, that those things truly aren't racially correlated or caused, then white nationalism isn't the tent for us, and we should go eat pickled eels with the jesus cult, or celebrate diversity under the System teepee, You can pretend to define the 'alt-right' as sixteen (christ!) different points, and translate them into Tocharian and Finno-Ugaric, but that doesn't do anything. What about the principle of KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID (KISS)? We re WHITE. We demand our own NATION. Cut and dried. So simple a public-school educated special needs retard can grasp it. But not clever enough for the purblind intellectuals who must have intricacy and pseudo-sophistication at all costs. And I'll tell you people again, though you refuse to perceive how pollyannish you are, that hating niggers and jews is a much firmer basis for opposition than loving whites. Much. Firmer. DEFENDING our people (like an old woman in a nasty neighborhood) is a much stronger feeling to people than love of generations past and future whom they never even knew. Of course the people at the top need to grasp the biggest picture, but all the average and lower people need to understand is COME WITH US IF YOU WANT TO LIVE, and "getting" that THEY are part of the racial defense, the new thing in town, the turned table, and THEY MATTER. Because they do. And not for any theoretical reason, their help is needed to win the victory. Another thing people on our side don't understand is that whiteskins are NOT a traditional race. They are interested in history the same way they are interested in everything but keeping to the old ways is for Hottentots, not White men. In a phrase, a Guns N' Roses phrase, "Yesterday...got nothing for me." Whites quest, whites dare, whites conquer. They don't cry about what was, just drink beers and get nostalgic now and then. Anything more is a disease. Traditionalism is as bad an idea as tenure. Justify yourself, white nigger. Prove it every single fucking time, like an athlete.

John Wilkes Booth, a Spintro Inspired by Johnny "Step Right Up" Depp
Having already assassinated a well loved figure, Esquire William Wonka, chocolatier extraordinaire, a certain Johnsy Deep turned his ambitions to the political sphere... On road much of Friday, my car radio played me jew Medved talking about Depp talking about assassinating Trump. He compared Depp, a sort of Flatucky carny by way of background, jes so you know what we're dealing with here, with the good-looking John Wilkes Booth. Both are small men. Booth, he said, is one assassin in US history who was successful, indeed famous: the actor of his times. Booth also had some oddish jewiness in his background, which of course Medved did not mention. I only learned that a few years ago, and found it hard to believe until I researched it. Certainly doesn't sound jewish, the name. Forward, a jew source, says the father, Junius Brutus Booth, hung out in synagogues, read Talmud and spoke Hebrew - at least two of his ten kids considered him jewish.

Asia Booth Clarke, the sister of acclaimed actor John Wilkes Booth who shot Lincoln, stated in her 1882 memoir that their father, Junius Brutus Booth, attended synagogues along with other houses of worship: “In the synagogue, he was known as a Jew, because he conversed with rabbis and learned doctors, and joined their worship in the Hebraic tongue. He read the Talmud, also, and strictly adhered to many of its laws." Asia Booth Clarke is not the only source for this; her other brother Edwin Booth, also an actor, reportedly told Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise that his father was Jewish. It’s not at all clear how accurate the Booths’ statements are, but it’s certainly interesting that Junius Brutus Booth wanted it to be thought that he descended from Jews, and that two of his children believed him. 

Still, he didn't raise his children that way. Overall, no certain conclusion can be drawn. There's not a lot of evidence, at least that I know of. Here on his sister, the main source of info about all this stuff and JWB in particular. The Booths had raised their children to be spiritual without directing them to any one church... The sister, closest to JWB, converted to catholicism and moved to London. Where she said “I hate fat, greasy-voiced, fair-whiskered Britons with all my heart," which is totally understandable.

a very groovy image

Lenin: Jew or Not a Jew?
Says the site Jew or Not Jew:

Here's what we know: Lenin's great-grandfather was a Jew. Therefore, his maternal grandfather, Israel Blank, was a Jew — a Jew who got baptized in his teens and was renamed Alexander. So there was Jewish blood in Lenin, at least a quarter; and that quarter was large enough for his successors to adamantly try to conceal it. However, if you look at the list of Old Bolsheviks pseudonyms aside, it reads like the guest list for a bar mitzvah: Rosenfeld, Bronstein, Kaganovich. So Lenin was actually a minority! There is even evidence that he was definitely more proud of his Jewish roots than future generations of communists would ever let on. So much for trying to hide it.

So Lenin was at least 1/4 jew. Jew enough to get an ear cookie stepping off the plane in Haifa. Yeah, Lenin and Stalin weren't jews in the sense Eminem isn't a nigger. They were both extremely jewlike. Stalin was even more paranoid than most jews, that's how he got to the top. Whites are the best at everything - the jewiest jews, the niggiest niggers. It's a racial thing. Still, it's best to call jews only those who are 1/4 or more blooded. So Lenin, yes, it's fair. But should include he wasn't raised jewish.

Invasion Front
They don't pay their bills but they're going to pay your pension. The statement has only one meaning: we, your rulers, have a bottomless contempt for you little whiteskin people. You're too stupid to see what we're doing to you let alone do anything about it. As someone, I think Joseph Tomassi said, "Violence is the only thing they understand." Kill 'em all and let lubricus terrestris sort 'em out. Here on changing demographics of USA.

Responses

I don't find Wikipedia that dishonest. It's more what they chose to leave out or emphasise that is the problem. It's obviously pro Jew but then again so is Day. 

Oh no, Wikipedia is extremely dishonest in that it is 100% slanted while pretending to be neutral and objective. Lying by omission, or Catholic lying, is just as vile and dishonest as lying by commission, or jewish lying. The general rule, which should be treated as an absolute rule (I defy you to find an exception): Any matter that touches ever so slightly on politics (or where there is any leftist political advantage to be gained) will be handled with great judeo-leftist bias by Wikipedia. I have seen, as I repeat, no exceptions to this rule. Feel free to test this 'theory' lol: For example - I know that, without having looked it up, if I go to the page for Michael Brown, it will call him an "unarmed" black teen. If you don't understand why his being without a gun has literally no relevance to anything in question, since he was attacking a cop, who did have a gun, then you're not well equipped mentally to make judgments about bias. The entry won't mention how tall he is, or how much he weighs. It won't mention that he attacked the cop, that he had shortly before robbed a convenience store before that,  and strongarmed the clerk. It won't mention that hands up don't shoot was revealed to be a lie...when the report came out...long after the fact, after the seven-figure rioting. And if it does mention any of these, it will be in the usual oblique way. They may emerge in the words, but they are not the focus of them. The proper facts, even if eventually seeping out, are shorn of context - you the researcher are denied the proper context. The article will be slanted so that the impression is made on the unwary that Brown was a victim rather than the criminal responsible for his own demise. That's an objective fact, not an opinion, but it won't be presented that way at Wikipedia. Leftists cant put facts in the proper framework. They admit them only when forced to, and never without trying to hide them or spin them. Thus, in an ordinary crime story, you don't get the race if the perp is a nigger. Not till days later, or way down the page. As I have said, many years ago, before cabin boys Ann Coulter or Steve Sailer steal it, the second-to-last paragraph is the traditional place for the jewsmedia to stick something that hints at the ACTUAL story. Ie, they admit a few things the intelligent consumer of leftist jewshit could guess from the top. They let a little of the stink come through, before going back to the parfum de Nigro in the last paragraph. To them, SHEEEITMAN will always be Rosenberg's special dark chocolate. The man who can analyze things would notice that wiki links are usually at the very top or certainly in the top few of page 1 of Google results. Knowing that Google is jewed, he would also know that there's no way Google would put anything anti-leftist or pro-white OR EVEN NEUTRAL in the dominant position. No way. Not to understand this is not to grasp the jewish MO that obtains literally everywhere it matters in the online world and off-. For a theory, like mine, to have real value, it must be able to predict, not just explain after the fact. So I will say that if InfoGalactic ever gets anywhere near Wikipedia in popularity, as it well may, since it's neutral rather than leftist, Google will refuse to place its links above Wikipedia links. See? That's how men do it. I've given you something falsifiable, something that can be tested (granted, it will take a few years for IG to grow). Even in my own case: Alex Linder: objectively, I am writer and an activist. But my Wikipedia page said nothing about my writing, or me being a writer, it said or says I am an "anti-Semite" and I operate a forum. What gave me a name to make me worth making a page about was my writing, but an "objective" jew-leftist source doesn't even grant the most basic thing: that I'm a writer. That's what made whatever public name I have. If I were a nigger or some other elevated, privileged class, they'd say I was being "marginalized." And in that case, they'd actually be right - be accurate. Which is why they would never say it. In their world, the only thing of significance about me is that I'm opposed to Them and (((Them))) and Their Agenda. Wikipedia is not a neutral source, and if you aren't able to figure that out on your own, you'd better stick to the jacuzzi and stay out of the ocean. Is the claim one is "neutral" useful to an honest man or a liar? How about the term "science"? Well, this is why leftists gravitate toward these things - anything 'neutral,' 'scientific' or 'authoritative' (ie, coming from authority, lends the faker, the liar, the jew, the leftist a credibility he cannot earn on his own by honest arguments.