How to deport eleven million people

First, the Australian experience tells us that regular judges and government employees will not cooperate with the merely elected government. So the merely elected government has to rely on the military and on “civilian contractors” (mercenaries). The merely elected government has to give the “civilian contractors” sovereign immunity against the courts, which makes them not very civilian at all. Without sovereign immunity, any time a “civilian contractor” forcibly prevents an “asylum seeker” from going wherever he wills, it will be deemed a war crime, like the Israeli wall.

Secondly you have to find the illegals. What countries that actually have control of their borders do is that local forms of ID are only issued to people with a right to reside there indefinitely. Everyone else either cannot get that ID, or gets a special form of that ID that requires a passport or photocopy of the passport to also be presented. And the foreign passport always shows entry permission which expires after a certain time. And you cannot rent a room, or get a regular job, or open a bank account, or drive a vehicle, etc, without ID. If you are a foreigner, need your passport to rent a room, get a most types of job, or drive a vehicle. Further, if you come to the attention of police, some types of rentacop, or the military guard, they can demand your id, as for example, bad driving, reasonable suspicion of an offense, drunk and disorderly, homeless and no visible means of support, or being obnoxious in a shop or a bar. If the rentacop at the mall detects you are illegally resident, and he does not like you much, he puts you in the mall pen, and calls border control to collect you. The control on renting rooms or buying homes catches far more people more effectively than the control on jobs, since the landlord does not particularly want to rent to illegals, while the employer may well want to hire illegals. And your landlord very much wants your ID so that he can go after you if you trash his stuff, while your employer likely has you under supervision, so does not really want your ID except the government tries, usually not very successfully, to make him. And if a landlord does illegally rent to an illegal, that illegal better be on time with the rent.

Will this catch all eleven million?

No, but it will catch a lot of them, and it will catch the most obnoxious ones, the ones that are causing problems.

138 Responses to “How to deport eleven million people”

  1. Irving says:

    Where things can get tricky with a policy like this is when the home countries of those people that are to be deported refuse to take them back, which is what often happens in these situations. Europe recently tried to bribe certain Western/Central African countries to take their people back with increased aid, but they refused. Israel has had a similar problem with their Eritrean illegal immigrants in that Eritrea is stubbornly refusing to take them back. I’m sure there are other examples as well. Anyway, it turns out that its against “international law” to deport people to a country, even if it is their home country, if the receiving country refuses to take them.

    Of course there’s an obvious solution to all of this, which is to force their home countries to take them. But I doubt Western countries will need to adopt your otherwise well-conceived plan to actually execute these deportations if and when they finally work up the nerve to ignore such things as “international law” or “human rights” and to deport these people irrespective of their or their home countries’ protestations.

    • pdimov says:

      “International law” does not apply to the US.

    • jim says:

      Where things can get tricky with a policy like this is when the home countries of those people that are to be deported refuse to take them back,

      Australia has three solutions to this problem:

      1. Indefinite imprisonment on a distant island.

      2. Ignore the politicians, get friendly military to military and deliver the illegals to their home military.

      3. Reverse smuggling: Ignore the foreign politicians and the foreign military and dump the illegals on the beach in their home country or country of last refuge below the high tide mark without telling anyone.

      Reverse smuggling works, and people tend to ignore it. It does not make waves, because the smuggled people quietly vanish. In the event you get caught, piously announce a map reading error. No one is going to arrest a navy ship.

      • Ron says:

        It seems that we also need to replace our politicians and judges.

        But we cannot do that because in our arrogance we in the West have extended suffrage to people who by nature cannot use the vote properly.

        And so we are forced to abandon our laws and do what our laws should have permitted us to do in the first place.

        This is ugly. It’s like making a necessary hack on some project whose code was badly written because the last project lead was insane, and now you are stuck and the only way to meet the deadline is to write more bad code.

        • Corvinus says:

          “But we cannot do that because in our arrogance we in the West have extended suffrage to people who by nature cannot use the vote properly.”

          We, as in “white people”? How dare they ensure liberties to citizens. Praytell, what makes you the expert regarding who and who cannot vote “properly”?

          • jim says:

            By their fruits, you shall know them.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Really, very few white men can vote properly, but 99% of blacks are completely incapable of ‘voting properly’. Blacks belong under black autocracy. I would never wish democracy on any black nation.

          • Corvinus says:

            One need not to be taught how to “vote properly”, as a white man has free will is able to make decisions for themselves. When you make the assumption that white men lack this capacity, you are actually denigrating them as a race.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Hardly, I’m denigrating the entirety of fallen humanity, who in the end are selfish, cruel, short-sighted, and immoral. The only thing capable of stopping man from voting for his own suicide is a class of the best, those cognitively and spiritually gifted enough to steer a nation in the interests of those involved. Thankfully for us, we are designed with this as our default operating system, it is second-nature, organic, contra Hobbes. Free from the delusions of the dark age we are currently situated in, you will be surprised how quickly men get comfortable in autocratic, hierarchical society. Our organizational units are meant to mirror the heavens above, and as I’m sure you know, there is no equality among angels. Even Michael does not presume to rebuke Lucifer, since he knows that order is divine, and in the end victory belongs to God.

          • ron says:

            @Corvinus

            no, we as in “men”.

            Women should never have been given the vote, and i believe the original intent of only allowing men of property the right to vote was also correct.

            It stands to reason, if you have land, you have a greater stake in what happens.

            As for white men vs. black men, I think if you have enough sense to own property and keep it, that’s enough.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            L.O.L…. Anyhow, if you are proposing changing the law against woman’s voting and limiting it to property-owning men, then you might as well do away with this constitutional clause while you are at it. Called the “Title of Nobility Clause” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause

            “Jim” had mentioned that the line from the Declaration of Independence that bothered him was “All men are created equal”, but it’s actual laws like the one I’ve linked that underpin the notion. A constitutional amendment would be needed.

            A.J.P.

          • ron says:

            @Jim

            Sure, there are plenty of black men who can’t manage that. But those men who can should get the vote.

            And having a system and culture which demonstrates that power resides in individuality would encourage the best in all men.

            But the real problem is, given that men had the vote and they did pretty well with it, what went wrong that we handed the vote to women?

          • ron says:

            @AJP

            Given that what I described existed at the same time the clause you brought up existed, it clearly was not the intention of the writers of the constitution to exclude that principle of limiting the vote to men of property.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

            “The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only free male adult property owners (of any ethnicity) to vote. ..The Constitution leaves the determination of voters’ qualifications to be decided by the individual states.”

    • ivvenalis says:

      Just dump them on the shore of wherever you want to send them. What the fuck is Eritrea going to do about it, open fire on a navy vessel? Let’s see how that works out. All that free human capital is a form of aid anyway.

      • A.B Prosper says:

        Absolutely. If we built a proper border fence we could also drop people off in Mexico.

        I’m not in favor of 11 million deportations though, I’d prefer as many as we can find the flimsiest legal reason to deport. This might be as many as 50 which is fine. A US with 275 million people is going to be healthier and more prosperous by far.

    • Shitlord Johnson (@rine_attcks) says:

      Tie foreign aid to taking back their citizens. In other words, if the African countries dont take them back, no gibsmedat.

      • jim says:

        Australian method better. If negotiation fails, dump the illegals on the beach below the high tide mark.

  2. Dave says:

    Also, welfare offices should become deportation offices. You only go there if you cannot find a job, and no friends, family, church, or private charity is willing to help you. You’ll get a tent inside a razor-wire fence, boring but adequate meals, and a free trip back to your home country if it’s willing to take you.

    Of course all the landlords making buku bucks off Section 8 housing would lobby hard against this plan.

  3. Orthodox says:

    Illegals fled the states that passed anti-immigrant laws. Alabama was one, Arizona another. It’s pretty clear the numbers will fall by themselves. Give people an easy out at first, such as govt paid flight, bus, train home. Then after a certain date, you pay. Then later jail. Tighten the noose and keep tightening it, in the end most will self-deport.

    Trump is also exactly the type to take retaliatory action against a city like San Francisco or a state like California and the options are quite abundant thanks to blue states being of the gibsmedat mentality. They cannot afford to say FU to Uncle Sam the way a state like Texas might.

    • BobbyBrigs says:

      Alabama aproach was intresting, the local cops continued enforcing the law after the courts struck it down. Given the insane amount of power the US police can wield that might be very effective at the federal level.

  4. Joe says:

    The way to get them to self-deport is to remove the financial incentives that attracted them here in the first place.

    You do that by making it impossible for them to find a job.
    You do that by removing the financial incentive to hire illegals. Institute a very large fine for hiring an illegal, a fine so large that no employer would take the risk of being hit with it if they believed there was a serious chance of being caught in the act of employing an illegal. Say, $10,000 per day per illegal employed.

    Provide a large financial incentive for reporting employers who hire illegals: say half the money collected from the employer in fines. And allow the illegals themselves to report their own employers for hiring them. So if some illegal is planning to go back to Mexico anyway, they can report that their employer is employing a six-man crew of illegal roofers, for example, and even though the illegal will be deported, they will leave with a $30,000 bonus for reporting the six-man crew.

    And provide a large financial incentive to the immigration enforcement personnel for catching the employers in the act: say, the other half of the fine money collected. Now you have motivated enforcers who will spring into action at any report received from informers who want the reward money for reporting the employer.

    If the employer knows there is a huge penalty for hiring illegals, and knows they will be reported to immigration enforcement for a reward, and knows immigration enforcement will come quickly to the scene for the reward they will get for catching the employer in the act, no one will hire an illegal. Not as a maid, nanny, roofer, meat packer, or anything else. Not worth the financial risk.

    With no financial incentive to come here or remain here, the illegals will go home on their own. All it takes is to reverse the current strong financial incentives for coming here, and all that takes is to put in place strong financial incentives for reporting employers and enforcing the law.

    • Ron says:

      My understanding that none of this was an issue in the US until minimum wage was enacted. Before that, college students, teenagers, and rootless men would do the jobs that the Mexicans are doing. But once minimum wage was passed, there was an economic incentive to hire an illegal so as to bypass that law.

      If that is the case, then the first thing needed is to abolish the minimum wage laws. After that, penalties can be enacted on illegal hires. Because otherwise, too many businesses will simply go under without being legally allowed to hire cheap labor.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        It’s more than just minimum wage laws. There are a number of regulations, notably OSHA, that are quite expensive to comply with.

        And in certain industries, it’s cheaper to ignore the regulations, and hire someone under-the-table. Especially small businesses that need manual laborers. My Dad’s friend used to hire illegals at $10/hr to remodel houses with him.

        • A.B Prosper says:

          yes it is however regulations are the price we pay for not being Mexico. I’m in favor of simplification or streamlining them. its essential to do this but civilization, clean air, land and water and safe construction is not cheap. Its must be paid for and the incentives are such that without boots on necks, everyone cheats

          • peppermint says:

            No you faggot cuck, regulation is the only way for niggers, spics, kikes, and other subhuman garbage to pretend to be us. Regulation can lower transaction costs from infinity to something more reasonable, but only White social capital can reduce transaction costs to something sustainable.

            That’s why we need to withdraw police protection from mud “people”.

        • ron says:

          Maybe OSHA should be scrapped in favor of State level versions?

          This way, those States which can afford more rigorous safety laws can do so, and those States which simply can’t afford it can do otherwise.

  5. Thomas says:

    Actually, EU can bribe all of them to go away. Give him 100 000 Euros to go back to Africa or Middle East and newer come back. If he does, he will be imprisoned for many years and then deported.

    It would cost trillion (10^12) of Euros, three times as much as the Greece debt costs, but that’s nothing to solve this problem.

    Perhaps 100 000 Euros per family and than the costs are not very big, after all.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      That is not going to work. Dumping honey on the ground will send ants back to their next after they’ve filled their gullets, but…

      I would be on a plane to Europe in a heartbeat to get my 100 grand if they started offering it. I could NEET for decades on that kind of money.

      • Thomas says:

        Only those already embedded here (including second ant third generation) – those 10 millions or so – get 100 grands to go back to Africa.

        Of course, only after the borders will be secured against newcomers.

  6. Alan J. Perrick says:

    In the same way that anti-whites yell “Nazi” at pro-whites while they them fine them into compliance with the program of White Genocide, so would the tables being turned against those same vociferous anti-whites stop the eradication of the white genotype.

    A.J.P.

    • Corvinus says:

      How do you define “white”? What are the metrics involved?

      Must all whites at all times agree with one another when it comes to “white” issues?

      Can not a “white” decide for themselves, i.e. have the personal liberty, to date, marry, and/or sire offspring with “non-whites”?

      How do you propose to sanction or punish those “whites” who are “anti-white”?

      What are “anti-white” behaviors?

      Is there some sort of handy dandy guide “whites” are able to follow?

      Please advise.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Corvinus”,

        You are justifying genocide.

      • peppermint says:

        As an intersectional feminist, you know what White and man mean.

        Not all Whites need to agree, and it is not necessary to abort all mixed abominations or execute men for miscegenation. It is a simple fact that children who are less White will have less SMV. This is evidenced by the fact that despite intersectional feminists being in charge and making it difficult for White men to get jobs, people who are less White have less SMV, as evidenced bu OKCupid statistics.

        White anti-Whites will be punished by a total loss of social status when it becomes clear that they put signaling over the continued existence of their people and the civilization that enabled their signaling.

        The things that Whites need to do is uphold and extend the genetic, social, and material capital of their respective nations and families, so that the beauty of the White Aryan female shall not vanish from this Earth.

        Any failure to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children is as much a personal failure as a loss to the nation, since the individual is an evanescent finger of the nation and the interest of the individual is his own family is the interest of the nation.

        • Corvinus says:

          ““Corvinus”, you are justifying genocide.”

          I’m not doing anything of the sort.

          Are you that intellectually stunted AJP to respond to my inquiries?

          “It is a simple fact that children who are less White will have less SMV.”

          There is no “simple fact” here. For starters, social market value is decidedly more complicated than citing “OKCupid” statistics as the sole basis for your argument regarding less white = less SMV. You’re going to have to do more than offer your own biased interpretation to the forefront. Because what you are stating is clearly outlining that race is a social construct.

          “White anti-Whites will be punished by a total loss of social status…”

          Where do you come up with these outlandish claims, a Cracker Jack box? Social status entails a myriad of things–looks, dress, job, family name, intelligence, Again, you are indicating that race is a social construct.

          “The things that Whites need to do is uphold…”

          What “whites”? All you are doing is offering vague generalities. Be specific.

          Do “whites” have the liberty to freely associate with whomever they chose?

          See, white/non-white depends on context. In Nazi Germany, Jews and Slavs were not “white”. Among populations considered as white, some were deemed “higher grade” and “lower-grade”. Northern Europeans viewed Southern Europeans as less pure. Poles have a disdain for Russians with their Tartar-Mongol blood. Among blacks, there were light-skinned ones who also had an ambivalent relation to both white community and black community. As lighter-skinned and perceived as more intelligent, they sought greater accessibility into white community. But there were limits to how far they could advance in society. The Lebanese who pass for whites, but are not considered white.

          Italians and Jews had their own prejudices not only against WASPS, but other kinds of “whites”.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfuQWqouaBY

          These distinctions are Old World that filtered into the New World. But as everyone had to start anew in America, the white ethnic blended together. Italians, Irish, and Poles may not have liked one another initially, but there was a lot of intermarrying and a kind of new whiteness that developed in America. And, of course, with da Joos, there is jealousy and bitterness by whites toward them because of their money and smarts. So, the politics of whiteness was never simple in America, nor is its classification.

          • pdimov says:

            “See, white/non-white depends on context.”

            Only whites pretend not to know who is white. (They are also the only race that pretends to not see race.)

            If you can’t tell who is white, ask the nearest non-white person, he’ll have no problems at all setting you straight.

          • peppermint says:

            yeah, watch how much of a social construct it is when people are allowed to openly talk about it. Currently, with talking about it banned and every media outlet and advertising agency devoted to shoving black male / white female pairings in your face, that’s not showing up on OKCupid statistics.

            What is showing up is White supremacy.

            You want to take that social construct line to its logical conclusion and allow Rachel Dolezals to sign up for affirmative action based on a socially constructed identity?

            Well guess what, Caitlyn Jenner is a brave woman.

            White means the particular race that evolved in this particular place under these particular conditions. You know this as well as anyone else does, I know you know, everyone reading here knows you know.

            By the way, biotech startup idea. Chromosomes get scrambled as part of creating gametes. It should be possible to take any non-gamete cell and identify which parent each chromosome came from. There are a lot of half-human abominations in the world who would pay a lot of money to have children with only their human parent’s DNA.

            Your punishment for being an anti-White will be that everyone in the future will know that you were an anti-White. I don’t know why you would disagree with this or argue that anti-Whites can somehow maintain their social status in the face of everyone knowing that they wanted to make life difficult for White families. But delusional signaling comes naturally to you.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Only whites pretend not to know who is white. (They are also the only race that pretends to not see race.)”

            When “whites” are also screeching about “whites” being “anti-white”, without actually offering specifics regarding what constitutes “white” and what constitutes “anti-white”, there is no pretending, just confusion.

            “If you can’t tell who is white, ask the nearest non-white person, he’ll have no problems at all setting you straight.”

            

Irrelevant to the topic. I am asking for clarification from whites, assuming y’all are whites, what is and what is not “white” and what is “anti-white” behavior.

            “yeah, watch how much of a social construct it is when people are allowed to openly talk about it.”

            You are able to talk openly about it, you are doing that right now. Should you choose to go down to the grocery market or a ballgame or a tavern, feel free to ask people “Are you white” and “Are you anti-white?” You have the liberty to discuss that topic.

            “Currently, with talking about it banned and every media outlet”

            Nothing is being banned at all.

            “White means the particular race that evolved in this particular place under these particular conditions. You know this as well as anyone else does, I know you know, everyone reading here knows you know.”

            Again, more vagueness. The fact is you don’t even know yourself, so it’s easier just to make these general statements rather than actually say “White only means white Anglo-Saxon Protestants” or “White does not include Eastern or Southern Europeans” because in the past those statements were made by nativists as to what constituted “white”. You are engaging in the same behavior as SJW’s.

            “There are a lot of half-human abominations in the world who would pay a lot of money to have children with only their human parent’s DNA.”

            A lot, huh? I’m sure you can come up with a couple of individuals who have expressed this exact sentiment, right? RIGHT?

            “Your punishment for being an anti-White will be that everyone in the future will know that you were an anti-White.”

            Everyone, huh? Even my wife and children? Relatives and friends? Colleagues? Again, please tell me what is “anti-white” so I can spare myself this indignity.

            “I don’t know why you would disagree with this or argue that anti-Whites can somehow maintain their social status in the face of everyone knowing that they wanted to make life difficult for White families.”

            As I clearly outlined, and you conveniently ignored, social status is not derived solely from one’s race. Are you able to read properly? Do you have a comprehension issue? It’s ok, you can get help for your condition.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        ‘white’ is a poor shorthand for ‘Occidental’, that is those people of a particular ethnic lineage with origins in the Occident, which is everything from Lisbon to the Ural Mountains, north Gibraltar and Anatolia. If you are denying this exists, you are indeed endorsing genocide, for a racial group unrecognized is one that is condemned to disappear.

        • Mark Citadel says:

          *north of Gibraltar and Anatolia

        • Corvinus says:

          You are offering a self-defined social construct to race. Congratulations.

          “If you are denying this exists, you are indeed endorsing genocide, for a racial group unrecognized is one that is condemned to disappear.”

          You are a contortionist to logic. In essence, “white” people have no free will. Either they are completely on board with your philosophy, or they are deemed “anti-white” for mere questioning the principles of that philosophy. Your rationalization is on par with SJW ideology.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            how is geography a social construct? are you INSANE? I am denoting a spiritual type which has its roots in a section of geography (though possibly these extend further north: read Evola).

            History is a dichotomy between Tradition and Modernity. Those not in favor of Tradition are de facto enemies of “white” people since they favor their destruction. What is my evidence for this? The present world, multiculturalism, faggotry, materialism, adultery, feminism, etc. You may question aspects of the thinking of any particular Reactionary, but not the principles upon which it is based which are self-evident. To deny this is to deny truth. But then, you don’t think the poor Syrian refugees are raping white women, so what’s new?

          • Corvinus says:

            Human beings put markers on the landscape to denote their physical features. Mountain ranges, bodies of water, deserts, and countries were assigned with names by human beings to describe their physical characteristics. Geography is clearly a social construct.

            You are designating that only people within a particular area are “white”. No other definition from your perspective matters. You proceed to qualify it further by stating that if anyone dares question this “truth”, then they are promoting the deliberate killing of a large group of people. Now that is insane.

            “The present world, multiculturalism, faggotry, materialism, adultery, feminism, etc. You may question aspects of the thinking of any particular Reactionary, but not the principles upon which it is based which are self-evident.”

            You are running the gamut of rhetological fallacies, from appeal to tradition to sweeping generalizations, when claiming these principles are “self-evident”.

            “But then, you don’t think the poor Syrian refugees are raping white women, so what’s new?”


            Corrected for accuracy–> Some Syrian refugee males are raping white women. No more common than when a white man, or a black man, or a Joo man, or an Asian man, rapes a white woman. But, then again, rape in Jim’s world doesn’t exist.

            By the way, how is your friend Bryce Laliberte doing? Still dealing with his own issues of modernity?

            • jim says:

              You are designating that only people within a particular area are “white”. No other definition from your perspective matters.

              This is the standard procedure for biological types: Example “California spotted owl.

              The white race evolved in certain lands, and not others. Since then, of course, it has traveled a bit.

            • jim says:

              You are running the gamut of rhetological fallacies, from appeal to tradition to sweeping generalizations, when claiming these principles are “self-evident”.

              That tradition has survived is evidence of its validity.

              Stereotypes are true, that is why they are stereotypes

              And lots of stuff really is self evident – for example that all men are not created equal. That many people disingenuously claim self evidence for obviously false stuff does not make real self evidence any the less self evident.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            “Geography is clearly a social construct.”

            From this point on, everything you say will be even less valid than before. I’m beginning to wonder if your brain is a social construct.

          • Yvjrolu says:

            Saying race is a social construct has started to be labeled as a microagression by universities.

            They say that the phrase signals that a white person is unwilling to engage with uncomfortable racial issues, and is using sophistry to avoid having tough conversations.

            In Corvinus’ case, they’re obviously right, so maybe there’s something to this whole “safe space” thing after all.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Yvjrolu” – Couldn’t help but notice that you are awfully fluent in the Cathedral dialect…

            A.J.P.

          • Corvinus says:

            “This is the standard procedure for biological types: Example “California spotted owl.”

            The California spotted owl is an animal, i.e. biological construct. The name of the creature is a human designation—strix occidentalis, i.e. human construct. That is, binomial nomenclature refers to a formal system, developed by people, to name species. The California owl was not a “California owl” until someone actually and specifically labeled it.

            “Stereotypes are true, that is why they are stereotypes”

            
Except the fundamental flaw with stereotypes and empirical generalizations is that they are not always true for all individual cases. They are generalizations, not invariant laws. There are always exceptions.

            “And lots of stuff really is self evident – for example that all men are not created equal.”

            Corrected for accuracy —> Individual human beings are not equal when it comes to certain talents and abilities, but collectively they are equal under the law when it comes to political rights, as specified by a social contract.

            “From this point on, everything you say will be even less valid than before.”

            Natural science consists of mental constructs, created with the objective of explaining sensory experience of our world. Human beings affix labels to make sense of our environment.

            It was so elementary to destroy your argument, you are resorting to rhetoric. That is your standard operating procedure.

            “Saying race is a social construct…”

            Race is BOTH a biological and social construct.

          • peppermint says:

            congratulations, race is both social and biological. Literally everyone knows this.

            Now, what exactly is your argument that sand niggers should be allowed to rape English women in England with relative impunity?

            Since race is biological, do the English deserve some consideration, or, in the words of ((Susan Sontag)),

            » “Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.” — Susan Sontag, feminist icon

            This is your choice, you niggerloving genocidal maniac. Either support the systematic rapes of young White women by sand niggers, in which things like this happen

            » …Police went to a house outside which a father was demanding the release of his daughter, who was inside with a group of British Pakistani adults. Officers found the girl, 14, who had been drugged, under a bed. The father and his daughter were arrested for racial harassment and assault respectively…

            This isn’t just an academic debate anymore. While you seek status by pretending not to know things, White women are being raped. So if we succeed in making it possible to talk about race in public again, people will remember that you lied while White women were being raped. That will affect your social status.

            Furthermore, liberal democracy had the following two arguments against fascism, fascism wasn’t free and fascism was uncivilized as seen in organized spontaneous protests like Kristallnacht and organized spontaneous vigilantism like Emmett Till. But liberal democracy supports the organized rapes of White women. So it has no legitimacy.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Corvinus, you are attempting to dismiss racial differences because they are ‘social constructs’ like you’re some kind of obese black studies professor who doesn’t know the different between denotations of words and actual social constructs, thus justify your black-loving conservatism by claiming everything that has been given a name is a ‘social construct’.

            How is this hard for you to understand. You think black people should have a say over the government of white people, and this is by proxy a justification of genocide. You yourself have said there isn’t a problem with masses of third world brown people raping white women, because “white people do it at the same rate!” which we all know is BS. The races are not the same.

            The fact is, rights don’t exist. Black people have no rights, and the US constitution is toilet paper. There are only two laws which matter, the law of revelation and the law of nature as it can be understood by looking at data and learning from experience. The Constitution violates the first in its secularism and the second in its declaration that men are ‘equal’, something so demonstrably false a child knows it.

            Peppermint is right to say that your future status will be affected by the fact that you facilitate the rape of white women in America by invaders. Behind your amateur sophistry, all that can be found are the usual apologetics of the cucks in the Republican Party. This is essentially why democracy must be annihilated.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Now, what exactly is your argument that sand niggers should be allowed to rape English women in England with relative impunity?”

            
Yet again, you’re yelling like a little school girl on the rag when she doesn’t get her way. Take some Midol. I never made this argument.

            Remember, it was Jim who said this about rape.—“Rape” is not in itself a bad thing, and it is difficult to say what is rape and what is not rape. Rape is a bad thing to the extent that, like female adultery, it undermines the family. Rape is not in itself harmful to women. It is harmful to husbands as a particular case of cuckoldry. We are very severe against rape because we wish we could be severe against cuckoldry, but forbidding cuckoldry is a thought crime, so we displace our rage against cuckoldry to rage against rape.—

            And why on earth would anyone, including liberals, even give Susan Sontag any consideration? She is the Mark Citadel of her generation. WAY out there in Neverland.

            “Police went to a house outside which a father was demanding the release of his daughter, who was inside with a group of British Pakistani adults. Officers found the girl, 14, who had been drugged, under a bed…”

            [Yawn] Take several stories about Muzzies raping, and make a generalization that all Muzzie men rape.

            “So if we succeed in making it possible to talk about race in public again, people will remember that you lied while White women were being raped.”

            Patently false. You are able to talk about anything in public.

            “That will affect your social status.”

            Not that tired argument. Try some new material.

            “But liberal democracy supports the organized rapes of White women.”

            Likewise did absolute monarchy, which advocated the organized rapes of non-White women. So the score is even.

            “who doesn’t know the different between denotations of words and actual social constructs”

            
The “actual social constructs” are in reality your subjective interpretations about human phenomenon, rife with conformation bias.

            “You think black people should have a say over the government of white people, and this is by proxy a justification of genocide.”

            No, I think that black, white, da Joos, Hispanics, Asians, and Native American extremists are all cuckoo.

            “The fact is, rights don’t exist.”

            That is observably false. People of a designated area agreed to be governed and outlined what are the liberties for that designated area.

            “There are only two laws which matter, the law of revelation and the law of nature as it can be understood by looking at data and learning from experience.”

            From your point of view, certainly.

            “Peppermint is right to say that your future status will be affected by the fact that you facilitate the rape of white women in America by invaders.”

            Not that tired argument. Try some new material.

            “This is essentially why democracy must be annihilated.”

            Your impotence is showing again.

            • jim says:

              [Yawn] Take several stories about Muzzies raping, and make a generalization that all Muzzie men rape.

              When we examine particular incidents we find that these rapes are collective and targeted against non Muslims – it is not individual Muslims deciding to rape an individual woman, it is Muslims as a group collectively deciding to rape Christians. Muslims as a group think that raping Christians is good, and stick together collectively in support of those particular individual Muslims who individually rape particular individual women in the service of collective community goals with the support of family and society.

          • peppermint says:

            Corvinus, I like you. You convinced me that cuckstainty was utterly useless when you started tearing people apart by quoting the text. But the only text to quote here are the Koran and the Hadiths, which directly order mudslimes to rape.

            Quibbling about whether it’s rape, whether it’s bad according to Jim, or whether it’s pedophilia are retarded. According to the ancient customs of the English, it is pedophile rape. The English used to execute individuals for less.

            It is the entire Paki community doing this. Not just the groomers and the traffickers, who are different people of different ages who need to work together. Also the people who own or rent the houses the girls are taken to, and all those Paki sows who know these men, know what they’re doing, and don’t say anything, because they are sand niggers and sand niggers are not human.

            Corvinus, you, like many others, refuse to recognize that

            (1) a large portion of the English girls between 9 and 16, but make that early to mid 20s because this has been going on for a long time, have been raped

            (2) correspondingly, a large portion of the English boys of military age or soon to be of military age have sisters and girlfriends who have been raped

            (3) they hate YOU and want to tear YOU apart

            (4) and I will give them your home address when the time comes

  7. viking says:

    the 11 million number has been used since 2001 its estimated its actually 30-40 million. while im all in favor of your suggestions theres a couple problems where to send them, what about their anchor children, and if you read about the nazis final solution it came about because the logistics of deporting that many overwhelmed them, air travel may solve this but the nazis realized if the deportees were to die en route or in refugee camps before or after they would be held responsible by the international community.all in all i think the us could do it but wont which will one day lead to an ethnic war in which millions die, and liberals will blame that on the new nazis not on their stupid idea to import tens of millions of stone age people

    • B says:

      Mexicans are by and large not stone age when imported. They can operate motor vehicles and use power tools, have intact families and more or less are law abiding. By the second or third generation, a lot lose that.

      When it comes to living with Mexicans or American blacks, it’s not even a close call. And Trump is playing the side of the latter.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        There’s no “call” to be made between Mexicans or Blacks, and there never was. It was Blacks or Mexicans AND Blacks.

        There’s an outside chance Trump could do something about Mexicans. There is zero chance anyone can do anything about Blacks.

        • B says:

          When Mexicans show up to a place, pretty soon the blacks leave, and then the place becomes inhabitable by whites, more or less.

          • jim says:

            Reflecting the fact that Mexicans and Jews are allowed collective defense, but whites are not allowed collective defense.

          • B says:

            Mexicans are not “allowed” collective defense. They’re willing to pay the personal price for collective offense, or at least some of them are.

            • jim says:

              Yes they are allowed collective defense. Whenever whites engage in collective defense we see total hysteria about racism, lynching, and neo nazis, but Jews and Mestizos engage in collective defense quite routinely, and no one seems to notice.

          • B says:

            Your poster boy for Jews engaging in collective defense involved two neighborhood watch guys stopping a negro scoping out the place for a robbery, banging him in the head with a radio when he resisted (without doing any damage,) and then being drug through the courts, even as the negro dropped charges and announced that he never wanted to bring the matter to the cops. Not much of a poster boy.

            When Mexicans attack blacks, they’re typically underclass Mexicans who are in gangs anyway. Nobody particularly gives a shit about underclass gangmember whites doing the same thing-see the Italian and Irish neighborhoods of NYC, for instance.

            The hysteria about racism happens when there’s a middle class person who kills/hurts a black. When it’s white trash, nobody cares-there’s no drama. If some white drug dealers with teardrop tattoos kill some black gangbangers, that’s not news.

            • jim says:

              The hysteria about racism happens when there’s a middle class person who kills/hurts a black.

              Maybe they genuinely thought that Zimmerman was white, because of his name, but they surely did not think he was middle class white.

          • B says:

            It was obvious that Zimmerman was (lower)middle class. He lived in a gated community and volunteered as official neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman had been some ex-con white/Mestizo meth dealer who had confronted The President’s Son and shot him in the face with an illegal weapon, which is what the standard Mexican-black confrontation looks like, Z would have (maybe) gone to jail for 20 years and no news coverage would have occurred, because that is dog bites man.

            • jim says:

              You are conforming to stereotype by talking Jew talk.

              It is perfectly obvious that if “white hispanic” George Zimmerman had been named José Sanchez he would have been fine.

              Recall Sailer’s hilarious photo montage comparing “white hispanic” George Zimmerman with all those hispanic hispanics.

              They did not go after him because he was community watch, licensed to carry a gun, and knew how to hit his target. They went after him because he was named George Zimmerman.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            “When Mexicans show up to a place, pretty soon the blacks leave,”

            Where do those Blacks go, though? Africa? Shallow unmarked graves in the woods? The enlightened kingdoms of the Inner Earth? No, they move to other American communities, namely White communities, starting a new cycle of White flight. I know what you’re going to say: that’s what the Whites deserve for being weak and cowardly and not fighting for their communities. You’re a big tough sabra, and I’m very impressed, and you’re right about that. But, if American Whites were capable of defending their communities against Blacks displaced by Mexicans, then they’d be capable of keeping the Mexicans out in the first place and it wouldn’t be a problem.

          • B says:

            I’m not a sabra.

            Many of those blacks do go in the ground-the military aged male ones, specifically.

            As for the ones who flee, if USG did not finance their relocation and their entire predatory lifestyle, they would not be a problem. Did Trump say anything to this effect? Nope. Everything he says so far is along the lines of “boo hoo, here’s a sad black person whose kid was killed by an illegal immigrant.”

          • B says:

            Back in the day when Americans were quite capable of defending their communities, by the way, there was no shortage of blacks or Mexicans (the original Mountain Men counted quite a few Mexicans among their number.)

          • B says:

            Goyische kopf, you’re missing the point:

            Had he been the same exact Zimmerman but named Sanchez, they might have gone after him, or not.

            But had he been an actual white guy named Zimmerman but fitting the profile of the typical Mexican who kills a black dude in the states, they would have not made a stink about it. T

            • jim says:

              You concede that if George Zimmerman had been named Jose Sanchez, but had been the exact same person who did the exact same things, neighborhood watch, legal carry, and had shot a black thuglet through the heart, and looked exactly the same (which is to say looked like he should be called Jose Sanchez not George Zimmerman) he would have not had problems.

              When you concede that, you implicitly admit that whites are forbidden to engage in collective self defense, while Mexicans and Jews are allowed to engage in collective self defense. All the rest is stereotypical Jew talk.

          • B says:

            No. I’m saying that law-abiding citizens in America (white, Mexican or black) get punished for self-defense. James LaFond writes about a black middle-aged former boxer friend of his who was attacked by three thuglets in Baltimore and beat them all down, for which he was arrested and jailed. Naturally, the one whose ass he kicked the most became the aggrieved innocent victim, and the other two became witnesses to his act of unprovoked aggression.

            Meanwhile, if you’re in the criminal underclass, you have more impunity, since people don’t want to snitch on you. And since the Mexican criminal underclass has a solidarity that the white criminal underclass doesn’t have, they get away with collective offense against blacks.

            And as I’ve pointed out at least three times, which is not sinking into your goyische kopf, Italian and Irish neighborhoods benefit from the exact same phenomenon.

            • jim says:

              No. I’m saying that law-abiding citizens in America (white, Mexican or black) get punished for self-defense

              If that is what you are saying it is obviously not true. Recollect all the drama first about George Zimmerman being white, and then, “white hispanic”. It is perfectly obvious that had his name been José Sanchez, he would have had no problems. Zimmerman’s incorrectly attributed race was absolutely central to the story.

              Indeed it is so obviously untrue that at first you could not bring yourself to quite say it until I pinned you into a corner.

              Self defense, and particularly collective self defense, gets suppressed as “racism”. If his name was José Sanchez, he could not possibly be racist.

          • B says:

            Not so.

            If a law-abiding black or Mexican dude defends himself against attacking thuglets and ends up killing one, he will go to jail without any noise or ado. Then there might be a trial and a prison sentence. Nobody gives a shit.

            Zimmerman fit the narrative they were looking for, so they made a big stink. Actually, the stink was probably the reason he was able to get off. Had he been Jose Sanchez, with no money or pro bono rep, he probably would have pled to a lesser charge and taken probation or a couple of years.

            It’s not that Mexicans don’t get charged for killing blacks when the cops have enough evidence. It’s that nobody gives a shit if they get charged. They do their time and come back out.

            • jim says:

              If a law-abiding black or Mexican dude defends himself against attacking thuglets and ends up killing one, he will go to jail without any noise or ado.

              Self defense is racism. How can it be racism when a black or Mexican does it?

          • pdimov says:

            “I’m saying that law-abiding citizens in America (white, Mexican or black) get punished for self-defense.”

            IIRC, during the LA riots Koreans were allowed collective and organized self-defense, whites were not – the National Guard was called to protect the rioters from them.

            In Europe, whites apparently exist in a quantum superposition, simultaneously pussies that can’t do a thing, and _this close_ to becoming mass murdering Nazis again. We’ll see what happens when someone finally opens the box and the wave function collapses.

          • B says:

            First, the way that Mexicans engage in what you are referring to as “self-defense” is radically different from the way that whites do. The latter is typified by Zimmerman, a soft nice guy who trusted in the cops and justice system to do the right thing, volunteered for neighborhood watch with his legally owned and carried handgun. When he saw a suspicious black skulking around, he called the cops and reported it, approached him to inquire and did not initiate aggression. Results: ass=kicked, life=ruined. Z certainly did not see that one coming, living in a tv fairyland.

            Now, what does the typical case of Mexican “self defence” look like? Very different. It looks like hard street thugs with records-juvenile ones, at least-launching a massed attack on outnumbered black males who are in their neighborhood. If firearms are used, they are not legal or registered. Upon completion of the attack, they scatter. Nobody calls the cops-not the attackers, not witnesses and not the attacked, should he survive. Everybody involved is criminally minded, assumes the cops and justice system are the enemy, and is prepared to get arrested and go to jail if caught.

            This is exactly how Irish and Italian white neighborhoods operated in New York as well.

            Which model shows a better grasp with the reality of 2015 America?

            And by the way, Z WAS a white Hispanic, as shown by the above scenario.

            • jim says:

              First, the way that Mexicans engage in what you are referring to as “self-defense” is radically different from the way that whites do

              Sometimes, quite often, Mexicans engage in collective self defense white style, and get away with it. It is perfectly obvious that George Zimmerman would have had no problems had his name been Jose Sanchez. Koreans pretty much always engage in collective self defense white style, and they famously got away with it. Jews get away with it.

              When whites engage in collective self defense, people scream racism and nazism. The LA riots and the Katrina aftermath show communities protecting themselves in the exact same manner, and the wrath of God descending only on whites protecting themselves.

          • B says:

            >Sometimes, quite often, Mexicans engage in collective self defense white style, and get away with it.

            Sources?

          • A.B Prosper says:

            The collective defense issue is a flaw in the American character as much as a form of oppression. Europeans can be pressed down by the State and are being so but they see the benefits in collectivism and collective action. They even have political parties for it that are growing fast.

            We Americans a people are so fixated on “individuality” and “freedom” or maybe I should say “free dumb” that the very idea of collective interests is foreign to us.

            The fact is without an “us in the US” you can’t have a “them” or any ideology of any note. Liberty isn’t an ideology, its a byproduct of a certain type of state and more importantly a certain type of people.

            Also were Americans to learnt the benefits of a little collectivism and collective action and dare I say collective punishment they’d have measurably better institutions, when everyone in an institution suffers for bad conduct and it can be made to stick and really hurt, the institution improves,

            Giving our colleges and media the equivalent of a sock party (or blanket party in the old parlance) every time they vomited cathedral propaganda would have a salutatory effect on the propaganda.

            The last time we did this with the Comics Code it was subverted but it is perfectly possible for conservative people to learn the art of subversion and to shut it down.

            We should do this, ideally till we are done cleaning house and our interregnum is done. After that, a somewhat more moral people can handle a freer society .

            And yes technology complicates things but only if you fail to remember, your problem is people not stuff.

        • jim says:

          There’s an outside chance Trump could do something about Mexicans. There is zero chance anyone can do anything about Blacks.

          Until Trump happened, people thought there was zero chance anyone can do anything about Mexicans.

          Blacks were not a big problem when they stayed in their own areas, but progressives, under the evil soil theory, suppose that the reason for black poor performance is that certain locations somehow mysteriously cause poor performance, and keep moving them into locations occupied by whites, whereupon for mysterious and completely unrelated reasons, “crime” rises in those formerly white areas, driving whites out.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Jim”,

            I like the theory where racial intermarriage rises in those areas, driving whites out even better, but you are still pointing out very salient points.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

      • Irving says:

        “By the second of third generation, a lot lose that”.

        Its either this or, what I suspect is more likely, the better Mexicans assimilate and start identifying as white, and even take white spouses, while the ones who haven’t done so well keep to their Mexican identity, become welfare dependents and commit crimes.

        • B says:

          No, some more or less assimilate, but don’t intermarry too much and maintain their Hispanic identity for the bennies (and also because it’s fun-hanging out with Mexicans is more or less like hanging out with rednecks.)

          The ones whose dad came from Michoacan to hang drywall for 30 years until his back gave out typically do not assimilate, but they don’t want to hang drywall until their back gives out. They often don’t know how to do very much else though, being typical products of the American tv, society and educational system. Lots of the guys in the military come from this kind of background, and usually they’re decent dudes.

    • peppermint says:

      Crematoria do not produce black smoke. In many countries, it is illegal to say that crematoria do not produce flames of different colors depending on which country a Jew was born in or that the mass graves of Jews, which were never found, can not produce geysers of blood. That and mandatory firings in countries where you are not jailed for saying words about historical events it keeps the hoax alive.

      The way to kill millions of people is to force them to march across Europe and refuse to feed them, as happened to German refugees from Eastern Europe where they had lived for a thousand years. The way to inter enemy civilians is to put them in camps and feed them, as was done to the Japanese in the US. The way to kill a few kikes for photo ops to be blown into the greatest hoax in all of history is to lose a war and not be able to feed your prisoners.

      • A Pint Thereof says:

        It was developing a higher level understanding of the Holocaust (that in fact it didn’t actually happen) which turned me from a certain kind of liberal to whatever I am now. It is an abhorrence that some people still go to jail for trying to point out the reality of this artifact of history.

        Some small cracks in the edifice are beginning to show. Netanyahu’s recent comments about Hitler are, I believe, highly significant.

        • Dan Kurt says:

          re: ” Netanyahu’s recent comments about Hitler ” A Pint Thereof

          Why not give a reference as to what Netanyahu said.

          Dan Kurt

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            Direct quote made to the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, a couple of weeks ago, prior to his visit to Germany:

            Netanyahu: “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews.”

            According to Jewish media this makes Bibi a revisionist. I’m kinda surprised he wasn’t summarily arrested upon touchdown in Germany and sent to share a cell with Ursula Haverbeck.

            • jim says:

              It is clear that Hitler was unclear as to what he planned to do with the Jews. He kind of drifted into mass murder without thinking about it, without wanting to think about it, without quite intending it. You see that sort of thing a lot when enormous crimes go down. It is doublethink and doubletalk all the way down.

              I, however, am perfectly clear on what we should do with illegals. Imitate Australia, only on a much larger scale. Use military and “civilian contractors” with sovereign immunity. Children go with custodial parent. If home country or country of last refuge will not take illegals back, dump them on a beach of their home country below the high tide mark.

          • B says:

            A Pint of Bullshit:

            Why don’t you quote the context?

            Bibi said that and then proceeded to explain that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Husseini, then convinced Hitler to kill the Jews instead of expelling them.

            Now, this is obviously Bibi talking crap. The Einsatzgruppen were murdering Jews en masse before Husseini showed up in Germany.

            But you are dishonestly misrepresenting Bibi.

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            @ B

            Were you at all surprised by Bibi’s comments? His remarks make him a Holocaust revisionist – at least according to Jewish media – which in turn would make him potentially an anti-semitic criminal, deserving of arrest and subsequent trial in many, many countries.

            And when the Prime Minister of Israel’s views on the Holocaust make him a common criminal no better than David Irving or Ursula Haverbeck, you’ve really got to wonder what’s going on…

          • pdimov says:

            Bibi is a master class troll. Of course, having immunity helps with that.

            “Now, this is obviously Bibi talking crap. The Einsatzgruppen were murdering Jews en masse before Husseini showed up in Germany.”

            Not German Jews, though, if I’m not mistaken.

            From the reaction to Bibi’s words, I was left with the impression that he’s not making things up, but referencing something. Of course we were immediately lectured that this something is wrong and he is mistaken. I couldn’t be bothered to dig up what he was referencing though.

          • BobbyBrigs says:

            >It is clear that Hitler was unclear as to what he planned to do with the Jews. He kind of drifted into mass murder without thinking about it, without wanting to think about it, without quite intending it. You see that sort of thing a lot when enormous crimes go down. It is doublethink and doubletalk all the way down.

            Which is odd considering his open genocide against the slavs.

          • B says:

            >His remarks make him a Holocaust revisionist – at least according to Jewish media

            Which Jewish media is that?

            >Not German Jews, though, if I’m not mistaken.

            You’re mistaken.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Fort_massacres_of_November_1941

            >From the reaction to Bibi’s words, I was left with the impression that he’s not making things up, but referencing something.

            He’s not making things up. He’s referencing Haj Amin Hussein’s actual visit and conversation with Hitler, but he’s exaggerating its significance in terms of the fate of the European Jews.

            >He kind of drifted into mass murder without thinking about it, without wanting to think about it, without quite intending it

            He talked about gassing masses of Jews in Mein Kampf.

            Of course when you do this kind of thing, generally you don’t talk about it explicitly. You create a group of the right people with the right powers, and speak euphemistically. For instance, the Einsatzgruppen’s job was to fight partisans and other hostile elements. So they’d send back detailed reports-10,000 partisans eliminated in two days, 30 rifles captured, that sort of thing.

          • pdimov says:

            “You’re mistaken.”

            Technically, you’re correct, al-Husseini met Hitler on Nov 28 (but he “showed up” on Nov 6), the first Ninth Fort mass killing was on Nov 25. Still,

            “However, until the November massacres at the Ninth Fort, no Reich Jews had been killed in such massacres.”

            It can’t be said that killing Reich Jews was already a well-established practice at the time of the meeting. The timeline alone does not disprove Netanyahu with any certainty, and I suspect he is well aware of that.

          • pdimov says:

            “For instance, the Einsatzgruppen’s job was to fight partisans and other hostile elements.”

            It’s not like they didn’t. Non-Jewish hostile elements (add quotes according to taste) were as well eliminated as the Jewish ones.

          • pdimov says:

            “He’s not making things up. He’s referencing Haj Amin Hussein’s actual visit and conversation with Hitler…”

            I meant that it looked like he was referencing a pre-existing narrative about the visit. And I see on al-Husseini’s Wikipedia page that indeed a number of Jewish scholars have argued a similar theory.

          • B says:

            >Non-Jewish hostile elements (add quotes according to taste) were as well eliminated as the Jewish ones.

            Yes. Also, most victims of black crime are blacks. Did you have a point?

          • pdimov says:

            “Did you have a point?”

            Yes. Theory A is that the Einsatzgruppen were formed with the goal to kill Jews, and they killed others as cover, plausible deniability. Theory B is that they were formed with the goal to eliminate hostile elements regardless of ethnicity. What evidence is there to prefer A over B?

          • B says:

            They were formed to kill unarmed civilians en masse, of which the major part were Jews.

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            @ B

            “Which Jewish media is that?”

            Haaretz, who claim that his comments are “rejected by most accepted Holocaust scholars.”

          • B says:

            Haaretz doesn’t call him a revisionist. It says that his claim is untrue.

            I also think his claim was bullshit, by the way.

            I don’t know why you are attempting to equivocate his claim with Holocaust denialism.

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            @B

            “I also think his claim was bullshit, by the way.”

            Jews either lying or distorting the truth about the Shoah is hardly news, I’ll give you that.

            Just one more reason to doubt the Hebrews when they speak of the “Holocaust”.

          • peppermint says:

            The Einsatzgruppen was formed to deal with the German losses to irregular warfare in Soviet territory. But sure, the irregular warfare was ultimately due to Jews.

            Calling them simply an anti-Jew death squad is a distortion, intended to buoy the Lollercaust narrative by shifting he death further East.

            At first they were all death camps. Then the only death camps were in East Germany and Poland. Tomorrow the Einsatzgruppen. Next year, Hitler‘s agents in China killed six million Chinese Jews under Mao’s nose, so China has a responsibility to accept Jewish refugees and niggers.

            But the Talmud says Hadrian was Hitler times 7.

          • B says:

            >Jews either lying or distorting the truth about the Shoah is hardly news, I’ll give you that.

            Funny. Going to be even funnier when you go tell the cops about how Pakis robbed you and raped you daughter and sister, and they put your story in the “racist claims” drawer.

            >The Einsatzgruppen was formed to deal with the German losses to irregular warfare in Soviet territory.

            You are a moron. The Einsatzgruppen were formed in 1939. The Germans invaded the USSR in 1941. The Einsatzgruppen began carrying out mass murders immediately after the invasion. There was no irregular warfare to speak of until the late fall/winter of 1941, and German losses to partisans were insignificant until 42-43. Once it was formed, the partisan movement had a pronounced non-Jewish character. The guy responsible for the partisan movement in Belorussia, for instance, Ponomarenko, issued an official directive not to accept Jews into partisan groups. The Einsatzgruppen were from the very beginning formed to mass murder civilians, and had no capability to fight against irregulars.

      • B says:

        >In many countries, it is illegal to say that crematoria do not produce flames of different colors depending on which country a Jew was born

        I don’t know why I’m bothering, but I don’t know of any mainstream Jewish sources making such a claim. Do you have one, or just misquotes from Nazis?

        >or that the mass graves of Jews, which were never found,

        Did SS judge Konrad Morgen lie?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Konrad_Morgen

        >can not produce geysers of blood

        Who claimed this?

        • BobbyBrigs says:

          >Did SS judge Konrad Morgen lie?

          He did. Like many of the people who testified they were given a choice between reading the prepared script or being deported with his family to the Russian zone which was effectivelly a death sentence.

          While it’s quite evident that a mass killing or the jews into millions did occur thbut manner in how it was carried out is clearly allied and jewish propganda produced through a mix is media slant, touture, and the threat to murder entire families if they didn’t take part.

          • B says:

            Do you have a source for Morgen being threatened to get him to read a script?

            And after the war, he just kept lying? For decades? Come on. Morgen didn’t fear the Nazis-his refusal to keep his mouth shut got him demoted to corporal and sent to the Eastern Front in the Waffen SS, from where they brought him back and reinstated him. And you’re telling me that he was so scared of the Allies that he just lied and kept on lying for 20 years after the war?

            It’s not contested by anyone that the majority of Jews who were killed were killed by Einsatzgruppen and Hiwis by shooting, as well as starvation in the ghettoes. But a large amount were killed by gassing in the camps. For instance, the Jews of Hungary and Greece.

          • jim says:

            While it’s quite evident that a mass killing or the jews into millions did occur thbut manner in how it was carried out is clearly allied and jewish propganda produced through a mix is media slant, touture, and the threat to murder entire families if they didn’t take part.

            They wanted to make the Nazi mass murders as different as possible from those lovable nice guy communist mass murders.

            But if you imprison people, you should feed them, and if you cannot feed them, you should let them go.

          • B says:

            Nobody talked about those lovable Communist mass murders. Before the war, there were a few books printed by Soviet refugees in France and Germany (your local university should have some copies,) which got absolutely no press coverage.

            Most of the deaths under the Communists actually happened through people either being worked/starved to death in the camps or starving in their own villages due to grain confiscation or getting deported to some howling wilderness without adequate food or shelter to starve and freeze. I doubt that the Communist leadership actually intended these people to die, so much as they didn’t mind if they died. The Nazi parallel was what they did in 1941-42 with Soviet POWs-they put them in open air barbed wire enclosures and didn’t give them food or water, not having bothered to organize the logistics. The Soviet parallel to the Einsatzgruppen was the Polish Operation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD_(1937%E2%80%9338)) which got no press whatsoever in the West.

            • jim says:

              Nobody talked about those lovable Communist mass murders.

              Lots of people were thinking about them, even though it was impermissible to speak of them. See Chomsky denying them, with excessive vehemence and curious specificity. The guilty flee when none pursue. Much like Bart Simpson denying stuff he has done in excessively specific detail.

          • B says:

            >Lots of people were thinking about them, even though it was impermissible to speak of them.

            Only after the 1950s, Khruschev’s speech, and then the 1960s with the Ottepel’ and wave of Soviet Samizdat. Until then, nobody who was anybody was thinking about them.

            >See Chomsky denying them, with excessive vehemence and curious specificity.

            What year? Long after the 1940s and 50s.

          • B says:

            The original contention was that the hype over the unusual aspects of the Holocaust (the high degree of organization of the camps, the very technical methods of mass murder and body disposal, etc.) was designed by Western leftists to distract public attention from the Communist mass murders which did not have these aspects.

            Well, when was this hype designed? The Nuremberg Trials and the following decade saw the wide publicism of the German death camps and mass murder programs. During this time, very few in the West were aware of Communist mass murders (on the scale of millions.) There was no public attention to distract.

            Your links involve Chomsky throwing up squid ink over Communist atrocities committed in the 1970s. Not really relevant to the issue.

            • jim says:

              Well, when was this hype designed? The Nuremberg Trials and the following decade saw the wide publicism of the German death camps and mass murder programs. During this time, very few in the West were aware of Communist mass murders (on the scale of millions.) There was no public attention to distract.

              Liquidation of the kulaks. The great Purge. Lenin’s Terror. The Butcher of Kronstadt. The Great Terror. Then as now, everyone knew of them, and everyone denied them – well, rather fewer deny them now that communism has fallen, but the left still finds mention of them impolite and disturbing.

              That Trotsky personally administered torture and death was well known and unmentionable among intellectuals starting from the time that he first became known as “The Butcher”. If the intellectuals were not trying to distract public attention, they certainly needed to distract their own attention.

          • BobbyBrigs says:

            >But if you imprison people, you should feed them, and if you cannot feed them, you should let them go.

            Says who? If I had a choice between feeding my town and the local prison, I’d gladly let the prisoners starve.

          • B says:

            >That Trotsky personally administered torture and death was well known and unmentionable

            Do you have a source for this?

          • Mackus says:

            >>Says who? If I had a choice between feeding my town and the local prison, I’d gladly let the prisoners starve.
            Then let them go.

          • peppermint says:

            Haha, cuckstain. People are imprisoned because they are dangerous. If they weren’t, they would be punished with a whipping and released. If you can’t hold onto your prisoners, even the Popes of Rome admit that in that case it is legitimate to kill them.

            What’s ironic is that if Hitler had killed the Jews that the Jews said he killed, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

            Incidentally, Anne Frank was soaped in 1945. The European copyright on her diary is expiring unless the kikes who control it admit that major parts, including the masturbation and lesbian crush, were written by her father, which would make he copyright extend until 2050.

          • Mackus says:

            >>People are imprisoned because they are dangerous.
            If they were too dangerous, then why were they imprisoned instead of executed in the first place?
            Average modern country could relatively easily imprison large fraction of its population and be able to feed them, unless starvation is the goal and not side effect, in that case just hang them. Don’t be a monster, starvation is one of worst ways to go, other than maybe burned alive.
            BobbyBrigs gives specific example, town where there is no food, but there is a prison. Average prison in the west mostly consist mostly of petty criminals, not Muslim migrant rapists (but i repeat myself..), and safely afford them three meals a day, with desserts.
            >> If they weren’t, they would be punished with a whipping and released.
            No. If they weren’t dangerous AND lived in normal country, THEN they would be whipped and released. I am afraid neither of us lives in normal country, so being in prison is not perfect indicator if one is dangerous.
            All those pot smokers, hookers, fathers who didn’t pay child support…
            >> If you can’t hold onto your prisoners, even the Popes of Rome admit that in that case it is legitimate to kill them.
            I have no problem with expelling Muslim “refugees” from Europe. And killing them if they resisted expulsion. But Europe is fully capable to feed them while they are interned waiting for ships that will dump them on African coast. There is no dillemma “we starve them to death or we give them welfare and white women to rape”, its false dichotomy. We can feed them as we are expelling them. Or if we get desperate in future (because we waited too long to expel them) we just shoot them.

    • jim says:

      Very few countries worry about anchor children. Children should go with parents. General rule is that if the custodial parent is eligible for deportation, the child goes with the parent.

      Physically it is not hard to feed and transport eleven million, particularly if you only handle a few hundred thousand at a time. The Jews starved under the Nazis not because the Nazis could not feed and shelter them, but because the Nazis did not feed and shelter them.

      • Aristocles_Inv says:

        Any sources for this? My understanding is they couldn’t even feed and shelter Germans fleeing from the East towards the end of WWII.

        • jim says:

          Which is why six million fleeing Germans starved to death. 😉

          • pdimov says:

            More like ten million in Holocaust math. Officially,

            “The death toll attributable to the flight and expulsions is disputed, with estimates ranging from at least 473,000 confirmed deaths up to a demographic estimate from the 1950s of 2.2 million.”

        • Candide III says:

          Nobody bothered much about feeding and sheltering Germans after the war. Have you read about what happened in East Prussia when the Red Army got there in 1945?

      • BobbyBrigs says:

        No one is going to feed sworn enimies when thier own people are hungry. And the death toll on displaced Germans is in the 1 to 2m. The vast majority of jews were killed without deportation and the rest were worked the death or died when food supplies failed.

  8. Dan says:

    Confused grooming gang mistakes America for England, winds up in prison:

    http://wjla.com/news/crime/5-arrested-in-gang-rape-of-woman-in-haymarket

  9. peppermint says:

    How about this:

    (1) all non-Whites have their DNA registered in a database (Trump just proposed this, but only for mud slimes)

    (2) animal control officers empowered to spay and neuter unregistered pocs when they are caught. Spaying/neutering, vaccination, etc. are the normal conditions for pocs to have permanent residence, though rich pocs may be able to put up a bond to pay for abortions, or, in limited cases, may be permitted to have up to one child.

    (3) if an unregistered poc is found dead on the street, the police open an investigation into littering with biohazard aggravation, punishable by up to a 5000 dollar fine and/or five lashes.

    • Corvinus says:

      You may wake up and switch hands. Your proposals have absolutely no chance of materializing.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Because anti-white thugs are ready to beat up anyone who goes in public to talk about ideas and to build consensus for stopping White Genocide.

        And they say it isn’t genocide…Who are they kidding anymore?!

        A.J.P.

      • jim says:

        That which cannot continue, will stop. Leftism is in the process of self destructing. The only question remaining is how many people it will take with it in its death throes.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        And yet you keep coming back, which is a sign of some fear on your part.

  10. Wyrd says:

    Corvinus says the train is fine:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjuVVlSgYLc

  11. Fuck your "ID" says:

    Vox Day knows how to deport illegal immigrants without mandatory identification papers. You could learn from him.

  12. […] (relevant). Hispanicization and secession. Europe’s least-liked minority. The Australian solution. Eugenic […]

  13. […] describes How to deport eleven million people. If Australia’s modest successes along these lines form any sort of pattern, it’s not […]

Leave a Reply