Daily Stormer

---

• Looking at Feminists Realistically
• Black History Month Day 5: MLK, Ladies Man
• Germany: 400,000 Babies of Foreign Troops Born After the War
• Rotherham: Councillors May Have Taken Part in the Child-Sex They were Covering Up
• “Birth of a Nation” at 100 Years Old
• Jung’s Antisemitism
• Rotherham: Moslem Cop Allegedly Involved in Child-Trafficking Ring Dies After Being Hit by a Car
• Merkel and Hollande to Go to Russia, Attempt to Bully Putin into Surrendering Everything
• Andrew Neil vs Labour Rotherham MP Sarah Champion
• If Marvel’s Daredevil was a Real Guy, Fighting Crime on the Streets of New York…

Looking at Feminists Realistically Posted: 06 Feb 2015 03:25 PM PST Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer February 6, 2015 I just this evening discovered a YouTuber called “Sargon of Akkad,” and wanted to share a couple of his anti-feminist – or rather, feminist response videos. Nothing particularly new here, and the guy appears to be an anti-racist as well as an anti-feminist, but the videos are fun. They do contain quite a bit of profanity, for those sensitive to such things. Here’s one deconstructing the definitions of some YouTube celebrity feminist whose videos are generally used not for inspiration but for masturbation by men who get off on slow women. Then he broke down a video of feminist hero and #gamergate celebrity Anita Sarkeesian. As a man watching these, I almost want to defend the poor women. They really are completely incapable of engaging in logical discussions or presenting arguments that make sense, and on a deep level, I feel a need to defend them when I see a man using logic against them. It’s the same feeling I get when I read my own articles about Black people. Like, “man, go easy on these Negroes, their only capable of so much.” But alas. It is necessary.

Black History Month Day 5: MLK, Ladies Man Posted: 06 Feb 2015 03:01 PM PST Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer February 6, 2015 Martin Luther King, Jr. – Nigga had more hoes than Home Depot The White Supremacist government of America has continually tried to cover-up the existence of one of the greatest of all Black heroes – Martin Luther King, Jr.  Because the man was so absolutely incredibly fantastic, the White oppressor has been forced to acknowledge his existence – but when they do acknowledge him, they talk about him as if he was some square-ass Uncle Tom.  In fact, he was a hardcore player and street hustler. This niggas was literally going through hoes like lightening, riding on a roll-coaster of sweet, sweet lovin.  But the White man who runs the system won’t even mention the kind of bitches this dude was bangin, and instead say some nonsense no one cares about to do with lame speeches and thoughts. Word is, the crackers killed this nigga because they were jealous of the bitches he was getting.  This nigga was even stickin it to White women.

Germany: 400,000 Babies of Foreign Troops Born After the War Posted: 06 Feb 2015 02:29 PM PST Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer February 6, 2015 Though I absolutely disagree with the war itself, I refuse to believe that our boys were out there raping German women. Okay. I take that back. A new book alleges that at least 400,000 children were fathered by troops of foreign armies who impregnated German women. These were mostly from Soviets raping women, but also from love affairs German women engaged in with handsome American and British soldiers. DW: University historians in the German cities of Jena and Magdeburg conclude that only France helped children fathered by its occupying troops. Many of those born to German mothers in four occupation zones suffered ostracism their whole lives. The study to be published next Monday in a German-language book whose title translates as “Bastards, the children of occupation in Germany after 1945″ found that at least 300,000 children were fathered by occupying Soviet Red Army soldiers. Rapes perpetrated on German women occurred in all four zones, including forced sex by members of French and US units. Only a few cases by British troops were uncovered. The first of these children were born around Christmas 1945. The researchers deduced the Soviet zone child figure from a count of up to two million rapes allegedly committed by Red Army soldiers. Love affairs, ostracized Professors Silke Satjukow of the University of Magdeburg and Rainer Gries of the University of Jena said “numerous thousands” of children were also born to German women who had love affairs with foreign troops. “The ‘occupation children’ long remained unmentioned after the war,” said Gries. “The children were ostracized because in the eyes of society they born amid a burden of guilt,” Satjukow said. Those two million rapes are definitely a part of Soviet history Russia would rather forget – or rather, never remember in the first place. But it is also notable that it was Jews at the head of most or all of these rape units.

Rotherham: Councillors May Have Taken Part in the Child-Sex They were Covering Up Posted: 06 Feb 2015 02:14 PM PST Daily Stormer February 6, 2015 Ugh. It seems it is not only police officers being implicated as having partook in the underage sex slavery ring run by Pakistanis, but councillors as well. Breitbart: Two councillors and a police officer have been accused of taking part in the Rotherham child abuse scandal, in which 1,400 young girls were groomed and raped over the course of 16 years. The allegations have been revealed by the Times on the same day as an independent inquiry into failings and cover ups by the local council is due to be published. In 2012, documents leaked from Rotherham council revealed that police officers and council staff had known for over a decade that vulnerable girls in the town were being groomed, pimped, trafficked and raped. The council's extraordinary response to the publishing of the documents was to demand a criminal enquiry into the leaking of the documents, to apply for a High Court injunction barring the publication of further documents, and to hire a firm of solicitors to expose the security breach. Now it appears that councillors and police officers were not only aware of the abuse, but actively participated in it. Complaints against two councillors, one still serving, have been passed on to the National Crime Agency for investigation, whilst accusations levelled against a corrupt police officer that he shared information with child rapists has been passed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). A second officer accused of neglect in his duties for failing to act on intelligence about his colleague's conduct has also been referred to the IPCC. Local newspaper The Star has reported that one officer has been referred to the IPCC following four complaints from two people about that officer, although it is not clear whether it is the same officer in question. A spokesman for South Yorkshire Police told The Star: "South Yorkshire Police has received four public complaints relating to alleged misconduct of one of our officers. The complaints were made by two separate people about the officer, a PC based in the Rotherham area. The force has referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. "The PC continues to work for the force on restricted duties." The Commons home affairs select committee was also told by a charity worker that a South Yorkshire Police officer was on the payroll of the perpetrators of the abuse, and was paid to undermine the protection of vulnerable girls by sharing confidential information with abusers of Pakistani origin. Again, it is unclear whether this is the same officer in question. In total, South Yorkshire Police has confirmed that ten of their officers are currently under investigation by the IPCC in connection with the abuse. One is alleged to have argued that a young girl being abused by five men should not be classed as a sexual abuse victim as she had been "100 percent consensual". Two officers are accused of failing to properly investigate when a 12 year old was found drunk inside a car with a man who had indecent photos of her on his phone. A further three allegedly failed to properly investigate the rape of a 14 year old girl. Yet another is said to have lost evidence relating to a victim who was raped on four separate occasions. Following the release of the Casey Report, all councillors are apparently stepping down, but thus far, there has been no indication that any of them will be prosecuted, despite the now documented fact that they not only purposefully covered up the drugging, gang-raping and trafficking of White girls as young as eleven, but in fact actively made sure that the systematic exploitation continued. It is logical that if the councillors themselves were partaking in the sex the Pakis were selling, they would have an interest in covering it up.

“Birth of a Nation” at 100 Years Old Posted: 06 Feb 2015 11:12 AM PST Andrew Joyce Occidental Observer February 6, 2015   Liberals and multiculturalists hate it when confronted with works of obvious genius which don't fall into the pattern of their worldview. Along with angst-fuelled hand-wringing over certain works by Shakespeare and Wagner, a more modern manifestation of the problem is the cinematic landmark, The Birth of a Nation, which will quietly celebrate its centenary this week. Compelling, innovative, trend-setting, and epic in scale, D.W. Griffith's astonishing and unflinching vision of the Civil War and Reconstruction-era South remains powerful viewing even on its hundredth birthday. I was an impressionable eighteen-year-old college student when I first viewed it. Despite the admonitions and careful commentaries of my film and media professor, I remember seeing past the fact that it was silent and interspersed with grainy captions and being impressed by its 'modern' style and appearance, and the smoothness of the editorial process. But it was some years later before I came to truly appreciate the scale and meaning of what Griffith had committed to film. On this occasion I watched it in North Carolina, at the home of my wife's very elderly grandfather. This remarkable old man was every inch a Southerner, and a true gentleman at that. There one humid May evening, with the AC broken down and the windows wide open, the old man pulled out some Civil War relics that he had collected over the years. Presenting a series of antique rifles, medals, and pictures of Lee and Jackson, his eyes regained a youthful spark as he spoke of his own family memories and connections (real or imagined) to a host of Confederate heroes. Later in the evening, after we set down the relics of war in favor of cigars and Scotch, he pulled out a dusty VHS from an old bookcase. It was Birth of a Nation. It's a long movie, clocking in at over three hours, and the old man drifted off to sleep within the first half hour. But I kept watching. And it was that night, with the firebugs glowing and buzzing by the open windows, and with the fragrant Southern air drifting slowly inside, that I felt what Griffith had aimed to portray — pride of land, pride of culture, and pride of blood. This kind of pride, of course, and the connected desire to protect and preserve what one is proud of, is anathema to our enemies and those of our own race and culture who follow a different worldview. But they clearly have a hard time simply dismissing prideful cultural products which are so clearly manifestations of great genius and sublime art. Griffith sought out realism like no other previous director, using consultants from West Point Academy to make the battle scenes as realistic as possible. Most of the uniforms worn by the actors were authentic uniforms used in the actual Civil War. As an editor, Griffith broke free of the prevailing "filmed stage play" paradigm of static filmmaking and used flashbacks and parallel scenes to provide a sense of simultaneous action that made film (for the first time) completely different than live theater. The quick cuts of movies, television, and even advertising today owe their beginnings in many ways to Birth of a Nation. Similarly, the evocative, inspiring modern movie score has its roots in Birth of a Nation, which featured a full, three-hour score full of original music, contemporary standards such as (the unavoidable) "Dixie," and classical music such as Richard Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. The juxtaposition of technical brilliance and racialist subject matter, however, makes for uncomfortable viewing among liberals and opponents of White identity. Media site A.V. Club, one of the very few media outlets to even mention the centenary of Birth of a Nation, remarks: As far as problematic art in America is concerned, Birth of A Nation is the closest thing there is to a dictionary definition example, mostly because American culture has had a really hard time letting it go, or has turned not letting it go into a critical art in and of itself. Birth of A Nation is the movie where many of the values associated with ,American filmmaking—complex intercutting, massed crowds of extras contrasted with close-ups of actors, carefully edited suspense and chase scenes—get their first really clear, fully formed expression. It's also unquestionably white supremacist and racist. It represents a key point in the history of American art, and is animated by some of the ugliest rhetoric America ever produced. You can't write a history of American movies—or movies in general—without mentioning Birth of A Nation. That's not really what I want to talk about here, though. What I want to talk about instead is an idea that's also connected to Birth of A Nation, which is the idea that art or entertainment can be aesthetically good while being ideologically bad—an idea that's kind of intoxicating, because it suggests that it's possible to navigate a movie on form alone, and also deeply problematic, because it's founded on the notion that style and content are two different things, rather than different ways of looking at the same object. The movie premiered on February 8, 1915, in Los Angeles, and tickets were sold at the then-record $2 ($46.88 today). At that time, it was called The Clansman, and was based heavily on the best-selling 1905 novel of the same name by Thomas Dixon. In Griffith's own words, when his assistant Frank Woods brought him the The Clansman, he "skipped quickly through the book until I got to the bit about the Klansmen, who according to no less than Woodrow Wilson, ran to the rescue of the downtrodden South after the Civil War. I could just see these Klansmen in a movie with their white robes flying. …We had all sorts of runs-to-the-rescue in pictures and horse operas. … Now I could see the chance to do this ride to the rescue on a grand scale. Instead of saving one little Nell of the Plains, this ride would be to save a nation." And this, essentially, is what occurs. The movie climaxes, famously or infamously depending on your worldview, with two attempted rapes of White women by Black men and the subsequent reaction against Black political and sexual revolution by the white-robed Knights of Christ. The essence of the film was bound up to some extent with the inter-connected personal histories and experiences of the three major figures in its production and dissemination: President Woodrow Wilson, author Thomas Dixon, and film-maker D.W. Griffith. All three were Southerners who had moved north at the end of the nineteenth century. Dixon and Griffith had known each other as John Hopkins students. After Dixon became a minister, and Wilson a professor, Dixon nominated Wilson to receive an honorary degree at his own undergraduate alma mater, Wake Forest. "He is the type of man we need as President of the United States," Dixon wrote to the board of trustees. Dixon later resigned as a minister to become a writer; and Griffith (before he turned to movies) acted in some of Dixon's earliest plays. Griffith later used The Clansman, Wilson's History of the American People, and other materials provided by Dixon as sources for Birth of a Nation, and Griffith and Dixon worked equally hard to make and promote the movie. One of its first viewers was Wilson, who watched it at the White House shortly after the death of his wife. To Wilson, the movie was "like writing history with lightning … and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." Wilson later permitted his endorsement to be used to promote the film, until he succumbed to tremendous pressure from early multiculturalist organizations to distance himself from it. The movie was also a product and reaction against its times. The 1910s should really be remembered as the decade in which Whites first began to doubt the invulnerability of their position in America. Decades of mass immigration (including millions of Jews), and a rapid increase in political action on behalf of Blacks shook White confidence in the future. On July 4, 1910 Whites were stunned when Jim Jeffries, billed as 'The Hope of the White Race' was defeated by the first Black world heavyweight boxing champion, Jack Johnson — a vulgar individual notorious for his pompous affection for White women. Race riots and increasing cultural pessimism were rampant throughout the decade. Tellingly, a year after Birth premiered, the Manhattan patrician Madison Grant published his The Passing of the Great Race. Griffith's film was thus as much a call for a nation to be reborn as it was a historical recollection of the South being rescued by the Klan from the maw of a savage beast. And it was probably its contemporary resonance more than its historical interpretation which provoked the greatest of the efforts to prevent it from being shown. Of course the most controversial aspects of the movie is Dixon's (and by extension Griffith's) depiction of Blacks. Joel Williamson, in The Crucible of Race, argues that from 1880 to 1920 three competing "mentalities" existed in Southern thinking on Blacks. The 'liberal' believed in the Black's possibilities. The 'conservative' presumed inferiority but was willing to permit Black people in their 'place.' Finally, there was the 'radical conservative,' typified by Dixon, who believed that the 'new negro' would (and was) quickly regressing into savagery due to the breakdown of control offered by slavery and racial laws.[1] The descent of Blacks into savagery is carefully and slowly documented in Birth. In some of the early scenes, genteel walks among the plantations show Blacks contentedly going about their work under the regimentation offered by the 'peculiar institution.' They are shown as grovelling and glib, but generally cheerful and not very threatening. Later in the movie however, due to the political machinations of the evil abolitionist Austin Stoneman, and the actions of the psychopathic mulatto Silas Lynch, the camera lingers more on leering and increasingly menacing Black expressions, and the chaos of armed Black uprisings. Griffith's painful portrayal of a cultural idyll descending into utter filth and collapse is nothing short of remarkable. Modern opponents of the movie see things differently. AV Club comment that in the most basic terms, Birth Of A Nation is a melodrama and a fantasy of white Southern victimhood—which is to say, a fantasy of power, which made heroes out of the Ku Klux Klan. The Black characters are racist caricatures—"coal miner with back problems" is the most popular look—played by white people; plenty of Black people appear as extras, which makes the Blackface seem all the more racist, because one inevitably experiences the extras not just as actors, but as an on-screen audience. The villains are biracial schemers who've tricked or seduced Northern whites into believing that they are fit to run Southern society. ("I shall make this man, Silas Lynch, as a symbol of his race, the peer of any white man living!" declares Austin Stoneman, the movie's stand-in for Thaddeus Stevens, as though he were Dr. Frankenstein contemplating his monster.) The whole thing ends with a giant, translucent Jesus appearing to endorse the KKK. Griffith's original ending, now long lost, also either depicted or implied Blacks being deported to Africa. Although opposition to the film has assumed many guises over the last hundred years, it is far from new. The NAACP, which at the time was a Jewish puppet organization, had been in existence for six years when Griffith's film debuted. One month before it began showing in New York, the NAACP chose the strategy of a nationwide protest against the movie, arguing that showing it would represent "a threat to the peace." However, Birth's technical virtuosity had already gained it a significant reputation which hampered censorship attempts. The NAACP's success was thus limited to a few changes demanded by some film boards, and to a handful of delays to some showings. This wasn't due to a lack of effort. Janet Staiger notes that "between 1915 and 1973 the right to screen The Birth of a Nation was challenged at least 120 times. Indeed, the strategy of the NAACP was to continue its opposition to the film any time someone tried to revive it."[2] Most of the later protests were calculating in that they avoided confronting the movie's depictions of Blacks, in preference for challenging showings on their alleged threat to public peace or glorification of crime (lynching).[3] Jews were also aware of the need to use their already growing power in Hollywood to ensure the success of their own racial narrative in the hearts and minds of the White masses. Griffith may have won a battle, but Jews were determined to win the war. Indeed, many Jews "stood against Griffith's Birth of a Nation either by joining Rabbi Stephen Wise and the NAACP in the raucous demonstrations in the office of the Mayor of New York, or by joining (Jewish entrepreneur Julius) Rosenwald in backing some sort of cinematic challenge to Griffith such as The Birth of a Race."[4] The Birth of a Race (1918) was a movie designed to "discredit the negative stereotypes of Blacks" perpetuated by Griffith's film. Originally conceived by Emmett J. Scott, personal secretary to Booker T. Washington, all of the movie's funding came from Jewish sources like Rosenwald, William Selig's Polyscope company, Carl Laemmle's IMP firm, and also from German Jewish financier Jacob Schiff. All would later combine permanently to form Universal Pictures.[5] The moves of the Jewish moguls responded to wider Jewish opinion. Eric Goldstein writes in The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity that many Jews were outraged by the appearance of D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, in 1915. One Jewish woman suggested that Black leaders join forces with Jewish media moguls to produce an 'up-to-date story which would give the spirit of Uncle Tom's Cabin in a modern convincing representation of the progress and work of the negro race,' and 'offset the prejudicial influence' of Griffith's racist epic.[6] There's no doubt that this is precisely what the Jewish moguls set about doing, and continue to do today. But, during its heyday, there is also little doubt that Birth of a Nation had a powerful and galvanizing effect on Whites, and was highly conducive in encouraging Whites to see themselves as members of a threatened group. In some respects, it was a highly effective antidote to White pathology. In December of the same year that Birth of a Nation debuted, William J. Simmons resurrected the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia, thus riding the wave of popular support gained from the film to overcome federal suppression of the group that dated back to the 1870s. By 1928, more than forty thousand Klansmen were walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. On April 5, 1915, two months after Birth's premiere, Jack Johnson finally lost his title to the next "Great White Hope," Jess Willard. The work of Griffith and Dixon may have contributed at least something to the new White solidarity. Staiger notes that when one of the 1933 Payne Fund studies screened The Birth of a Nation to 434 middle and high school students in a predominantly white Illinois town, the researchers determined the "largest effect found in any of the experiments we conducted." The children's 'favorable' opinion of African Americans dropped from a mean of 7.46 on a scale of 11 to 0 to 5.93, down 1.48 points. Testing five months later suggested only a partial return to the original views."[7] Looking back and reflecting on the century that has passed, I couldn't helped but be struck by the fact that The Birth of a Nation was both a moment of White triumph and, in some respects, a moment of defeat. It was a point in which Whites, as in so many other cases, acted as pioneers, innovators, and creators, only to have those same techniques employed against them  by a movie industry that had become an ethnic monopoly hostile to the traditional American nation. The Birth of a Nation marked both the birth of modern cinema, and the last point in time in which a narrative of White fraternity and solidarity could be so openly displayed. Never again would the moguls let anything like Griffith's masterpiece reach the masses. And even now its anniversary passes by unheralded. But for tonight at least, I'll grab a Scotch and a cigar. The VHS will have to make way for a streaming on a Smart TV. And as the opening credits roll, I'd like to think that maybe somewhere, somehow, there's an old Southerner looking down on me.   [1] See R. Lang (ed), The Birth of a Nation: D.W. Griffith, Director (Rutgers University Press, 1994), p.197 [2] Ibid, p.199. [3] Ibid. [4] M. Adams (ed) Strangers & Neighbors: Relations Between Blacks and Jews in the United States (University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), p.460 [5] Ibid. [6] E. Goldstein, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity (Princeton University Press, 2006), p.74 [7] Ibid.

Jung’s Antisemitism Posted: 06 Feb 2015 11:02 AM PST Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer February 6, 2015 As a German psychotherapist in the 1930s, Jung would have definitely been speaking about Jews from personal experience. Richard Spencer’s Radix Journal continues to become more and more relevant.  I now find myself reading it several times a week. This week, they have a particularly poignant article by Alex Fontana up entitled “Jung’s Dangerous Theory” which deals with Carl Jung’s Antisemitism. I highly encourage everyone to check it out. It begins with a quote from Jung, which could just as easily have been said by any figure in history to have been directly exposed to Jews as a group: The Jew who is something of a nomad has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development. The Jews have this peculiarity with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary. The article goes on to touch on the manner in which the Jews fit into Jung’s metaphysical system, as well as the way modern Jews have attempted to skew Jung’s positions on the Jew Fontana writes of the way Jews interpreted Jung’s antisemitism: When you have the eyes to see these intellectual games, you begin to wonder whether every text written by a Jew should be required to undergo a scholastic inquisition. All contemporary Jewish texts seem to rotate around Auschwitz as some transcendent celestial law which verifies their every platitude. As Jung himself believed that the Jewish psyche inherently manifests itself in their works due to the weight of four thousand years, the Jew, even a self-hating, liberal, or reform Jew cannot but carry the hallmarks of their complexes, which impregnate even innocuous venues. He goes on to discuss the relationship between Jung and the Jew Freud, before closing thusly: It is beyond a doubt that Jung harbored feelings and opinions of Jews which are less than ambiguous; certainly, there are those like Drob, who try to downplay and legitimize Jung's anti-Semitism–revise it and pretend that it was a psychological technique. However, Jung's anti-Semitism was multifaceted–for personal reasons (his relationship with Freud and the Jews of the Vienna Circle), and for supra-personal, theoretical and historical reasons (not unlike Heidegger). The most dangerous aspect of Jung's views is that they may inevitably garner the question: How come so many notable gentiles are anti-Semitic? I encourage everyone to visit Radix, and show support for the general direction the site is moving in. I don’t think there was ever any question about Spencer’s understanding of the Jew, it just seemed for a time that he believed taking the Jared Taylor route would be more effective. However, someone already took the Jared Taylor route, and accomplished virtually nothing – his name was Jared Taylor. Though the Daily Stormer definitely has a different target audience than Spencer, we absolutely need people with Spencer’s orientation, and I am very happy to see that he is apparently beginning to realize that one can be both intellectual and Antisemitic. Featuring profiles of Antisemitic intellectuals in history is a good way of signalling this change of heart. I would remind the reader that after the “Hungary Like the Wolf: Budapest Shakedown 2014” debacle, Spencer has decided to host a conference in Washington, DC, where people still have freedom. The conference is on February 27, and at time of writing there are only 63 tickets left. Jared Taylor will be speaking at this conference. Unlike Peter Brimelow, who is also speaking at the conference, Taylor has not remained noncommittal on the Jew question, but has in fact been outspokenly pro-Jew, declaring that Jews are White people, and has often featured a majority Jewish speakers at his AmRen conferences. He eventually banned David Duke from speaking at his conferences, due to Duke’s Antisemitism. It will be interesting to see if there is a break between Spencer and Taylor over disagreement about whether or not we should be addressing the world’s foremost problem, or instead pretending it doesn’t exist and talking in circles forever about how stupid Blacks are.

Rotherham: Moslem Cop Allegedly Involved in Child-Trafficking Ring Dies After Being Hit by a Car Posted: 06 Feb 2015 10:17 AM PST Daily Stormer February 6, 2015 South Yorkshire PC Hassan Ali: Yes, apparently in England cops go around looking like this and no one suspects them of child-rape. Oh wow, how convenient. Thank Allahu for timely deaths! BBC: A police officer understood to be under investigation by a watchdog in relation to the Rotherham child abuse scandal has died following a car crash. South Yorkshire PC Hassan Ali, 44, died in hospital nine days after he was hit by a car in Sheffield on 28 January. Mr Ali was being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) over allegations made about him, the BBC understands. He was not on duty at the time of the crash in Staniforth Road, Darnall. A force spokeswoman said she could not confirm PC Ali’s involvement in the IPCC investigation. ‘Colleagues devastated’ However, in a statement she said: “South Yorkshire Police received four public complaints relating to alleged misconduct of an officer. “The force referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.” A report published in August said about 1,400 children were abused by gangs of men, mainly of Pakistani origin, from 1997 to 2013 in Rotherham. In September, the IPCC said it was investigating 10 South Yorkshire Police officers referred to the watchdog by the force over the handling of child sexual exploitation in the town. Mr Ali was a neighbourhood officer based in Rotherham who had 18 years’ service with the force. No one has been arrested in connection with the crash LOL. Police are calling it “a tragic accident” LOL. Still, taking this poor child-raping Paki bastard out is a bit too little too late.  She has already come undone.  Though I suppose with all of the people out protesting in support of child-rape and trafficking, it might not even matter either way.

Merkel and Hollande to Go to Russia, Attempt to Bully Putin into Surrendering Everything Posted: 06 Feb 2015 10:06 AM PST Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer February 6, 2015 In Merkel’s younger years, she got along well with Putin. Things have since soured. French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (yes, Germany is ruled by a woman, and no, no one seems to be able to explain why), are going on a field-trip to Russia to meet with the King of the Slavs, Vladimir Putin, and attempt to bully him into allowing everyone in the East of the Ukraine to be slaughtered by Jews. BBC: Mr Hollande and Mrs Merkel are taking to Moscow a peace proposal crafted in the Ukrainian capital Kiev on Thursday, but details have not been released. Meanwhile a truce has allowed civilians to leave Debaltseve, at the heart of the latest fighting in eastern Ukraine. Russia is accused of arming pro-Russian separatists – a claim it denies. The Kremlin also rejects claims by Ukraine and the West that its regular troops are fighting alongside the rebels in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Clashes have left nearly 5,400 people dead since April, the UN says. A September ceasefire, signed in Minsk in Belarus, has failed to stop the violence. Since then the rebels have seized more ground, raising alarm in Kiev and among Ukraine’s backers. Russia’s economy has collapsed and they don’t currently have anything to lose.  And Merkel and Hollande are offering nothing.  So this whole thing is incredibly stupid and pointless.  What are we even paying these people for?  Just to fly around and whine? Meanwhile, the Kenyan Occupation Chief of America, Barack Obama, is apparently considering directly arming the Jew coup government of the Ukraine that the American taxpayer paid to have installed through violent revolution. Probably, that would lead to some type of serious world war situation, but Obama seems to think that type of thing is “MEGA LOLZ” and “TOP KEK.”

Andrew Neil vs Labour Rotherham MP Sarah Champion Posted: 06 Feb 2015 09:30 AM PST Daily Stormer February 6, 2015 Here is a feminist Labour MP Sarah Champion getting slaughtered by Andrew Neil. The silly bitch attempts to shift blame for this entire situation onto Nigel Farage, who she says is wrong for going to Rotherham and speaking out against child gang-rape. She continually claims “it is not a political issue,” but it is an obvious fact that politicians brought these rape-monkeys into the country – and that was a political decision, which some politicians were and are against.  The people who defend the presence of any non-Whites in Britain are responsible for these rapes. She also claims that the goal should be to ensure this doesn’t happen again – but the only way to ensure such a thing is to either a) send all the filthy stinking Pakis out of the country, or b) come up with some type of technological Big Brother system to watch the every move of all Paki males in the UK. Drugging, gang-raping and trafficking children into prostitution is part of the unique cultural heritage of Pakistani people. If you want their unique culture in the country, you are either going to have to just accept the child-rape – this is the current policy – or come up with some way of stopping them from engaging in their normal behaviors.

If Marvel’s Daredevil was a Real Guy, Fighting Crime on the Streets of New York… Posted: 06 Feb 2015 09:10 AM PST Stuff Black People Don’t Like February 6, 2015 So Netflix will release the series “Daredevil” in its entirety on April 10. One of the Marvel Universe’s gritty heroes, the show will detail how a blind lawyer – gifted with some enhanced powers – fights crime in Hell’s Kitchen in New York City. Undoubtedly, the character of Daredevil will encounter an assortment of white villains engaging in the types of crime that depress property values in the Big Apple, driving away decent citizens for fear of their lives in the process. The criminals in Netflix’s new Marvel Comics show, Daredevil, will obviously be all-white, engaging in the type of petty crime all real New Yorkers know is the primary vocation of non-whites. By chance, the New York CityPolice Department's Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City for 2013 was recently released, providing the type of unfortunate reality of the racial element behind crime in the city “Daredevil” will be sure to cinematically stereotype against. As Matthew Murdock aka Daredevil (played by Charlie Cox) faces off against a primarily white roster of criminals in the show, the real-world counterpart to the fictionalized New York City is one where white suspects for major crimes are rarer than white guys hitting on Shoshana Roberts. Of 8.3 million people, New York City is 33.3 percent white, 28.6 percent Hispanic, and 25.5 percent black; consulting New York City Police Department's Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City for 2013, we find: Our friends at the New York City Police Department yearly guide (Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City) is one the writers and producers of “Daredevil” would never consult for casting decisions of those criminals Murdock disposes of “just trying to make my city a better place to live.” In 2013, the record indicates 2.3 percent of those arrested for shooting incidents (gun crime) were white; that same year, 72.5 percent of arrested suspects were black, with 24 percent of the suspects arrested classified as Hispanic. A staggering 96.5 percent of those arrested for shootings in New York City in 2013 were black or Hispanic.  The record shows that 1.3 percent (2008), 1.4 percent (2009), 1.4 (2010), 2.5 (2011), and 2.4 (2012) of the arrested suspects in shootings (defined as any crime where the victim is struck with a bullet) in New York City were white. During that same time, 78.3 percent (2008), 79.8 percent (2009), 74.2 (2010), 72.5 (2011), and 78.2 (2012), of the arrested suspects in shootings were black. And during that same time, 18.3 percent (2008), 19.9 percent (2009), 23.3 (2010), 23.9 (2011), and 18.9 (2012) of the arrested suspects in shootings were Hispanic.  For the rest of the major crimes, why not just add 2013’s information with the data from the New York City Police Department's Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City compiled for 2008-2012? How about murder victims/suspects? Between 2008-2013: Blacks were 61.9 percent of murder victims and 57.5 percent of murder suspects. Hispanics were 26.3 percent of murder victims and 33.4 percent of murder suspects. Whites were 7.73 percent of murder victims and 6.15 percent of murder suspects. In short: between 2008-2013, blacks and Hispanics were 90.9 percent of murder suspects in New York City. How about rape victims/suspects over the same period? Blacks were 39.58 percent of rape victims and 50.51 percent of rape suspects. Hispanics were 37.7 percent of rape victims and 36.1 percent of rape suspects. Whites were 16.8 percent of rape victims and 8.7 percent of rape suspects. In short: Between 2008-2013, blacks and Hispanics were 86.61 percent of rape suspects in New York City. Robbery victims/suspects? Blacks were 31.7 percent of robbery victims and 69.5 percent of robbery suspects. Hispanics were 37.3 percent of robbery victims and 24.4 percent of robbery suspects. Whites were 17.8 percent of robbery victims and 4.45 percent of robbery suspects. In short: between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 93.9 percent of robbery suspects in New York City. There’s a simple way to make the real New York City a better place, one free of the type of crime requiring a massive police force to combat: go back to the racial demographics of 1940 (New York City was 91.9 percent white just before the USA got involved in World War II). What’s funny: the world of the new “Daredevil” series on Netflix will showcase the eponymous hero combatting primarily white criminals as if the racial demographics of New York City never changed from 1940…

You are subscribed to email updates from Daily Stormer To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States