Everything related to Computer Security - Security Audits, Security Vulnerabilities, Intrusion Detection, Incident Handling, Forensics and Investigation, Information Security Policies, and a whole lot more.
We are extremely excited about this upcoming full-length documentary on the genocide of the White race. And if the twenty minute preview which has been released is anything to go by, it is going to be epic.
This is going to have the opportunity to go viral, and demonstrate in the preferred method our arguments, which no one can actually even argue with once they are presented concisely.
As far as I am aware, there is no release date yet. It is being put together by the ThisisEuropa YouTube channel.
Not sorry for being White and American, not sorry for calling Moslems savages.
A group of American Moslems (wut?) are whining about Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper, claiming it is leading to an “increase in threats” against them.
No evidence was given, they just said it.
Also, no one has bothered to explain why there are Moslems in America and why they have a group which makes demands, though it is widely believed that Jews are 100% responsible for this situation.
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) has written to director Clint Eastwood and star Bradley Cooper.
Their film is based on US soldier Chris Kyle’s service in Iraq from 2003-09.
The ADC said a “majority of the violent threats we have seen over the past few days are result of how Arab and Muslims are depicted in American Sniper”.
The organisation, which describes itself as the largest Arab civil rights organisation in the US, said it had collected “hundreds of violent messages targeting Arab and Muslim Americans from movie-goers”, mainly from Facebook and Twitter.
The letter asked Eastwood and Cooper to speak out against such messages “in an effort to reduce the hateful rhetoric”.
“Your visibility, influence, and connection to the film would be a tremendous force in drawing attention to and lessening the serious dangers facing the respective communities,” ADC president Samer Khalaf wrote.
Hey you know where you wouldn’t be getting threats? Your own countries!
'The Hunting Ground,' a Film About Rape Culture at Colleges
By BROOKS BARNES JAN. 25, 2015
PARK CITY, Utah — "The Hunting Ground," set for release in theaters and broadcast on CNN, was billed by the Sundance Film Festival as a "piercing, monumental exposé of rape culture on campuses." Judging by viewer reaction at the film's premiere and the comments of two United States senators afterward, festival programmers might have undersold it.
Though the subject has been explored in depth by some publications, the response testified to the power of film. At the premiere here on Friday, audience members repeatedly gasped as student after student spoke on camera about being sexually assaulted — and being subsequently ignored or run through endless hoops by college administrators concerned about keeping rape statistics low.
"The power on that status quo side, you're going to see it in response to this film," said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, at a related panel discussion on Saturday.
Four-term United States Senator Barbara Boxer of California is of course not part of "the power on the status quo side," she's a plucky underdog battling against the rapey power structure.
She added, "Believe me, there will be fallout."
… Ms. Boxer was joined on the panel here on Saturday by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York. Both are backing legislation intended to curb the startling number of sexual assaults on college campuses. The measure would require schools to make public the result of anonymous surveys concerning assaults, and would impose significant financial burdens on universities that fail to comply with some of the law's requirements.
In the near term, severe public shaming will arrive via Mr. Dick's film, which mentions dozens of schools by name and focuses on six. "The Hunting Ground" will be released in theaters on March 20 by Radius-TWC, a division of the Weinstein Company, which is known for stirring controversy to support film releases. "The Hunting Ground" poster resembles an ad for a horror movie.
CNN could provide a global megaphone. …
"We're not afraid," Jeff Zucker, president of CNN Worldwide, said after the panel, when asked about a potentially forceful response from higher education officials to "The Hunting Ground." …
A spokeswoman for the United States Department of Education did not respond to a query on Sunday.
Mr. Dick and his producing partner, Amy Ziering, are known for their documentary "The Invisible War," which put a spotlight on rape in the United States military and was nominated for best documentary at the 2013 Academy Awards.
The Department of Education, according to Mr. Dick's film, is investigating 90 colleges for their handling of sexual assault complaints. Ms. Boxer, citing urgency created by "The Hunting Ground," vowed to meet with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan "immediately, next week" during her panel remarks. She said she planned to say, "You guys, get out ahead of this, because this is going to come back to your door after everyone sees this film."
Okay, now finally, a paragraph acknowledging that some readers will vaguely recall some kind of hitch in the narrative:
Underscoring the degree to which media scrutiny of campus rape can provoke swift and severe pushback, Rolling Stone in November was forced to step away from a provocative article focused on accusations of a gang rape at the University of Virginia. The magazine acknowledged that it had erred in relying solely on the word of the accuser, named only as Jackie, and did not try to contact the men she accused.
"Swift and severe pushback …" *
Oh, yeah, now I remember. It just proves that the insidious and all-powerful white male power structure is totally in control except for a few rebel desperados like Barbara Boxer, How else could the power structure so swiftly and severely push back against some perhaps technically erring journalistic methodology.?What deep reserves of indomitable character allow Senator Boxer to stand up to the swift and severe pushback of Richard Bradley and Steve Sailer?
* By the way, to put some perspective on just how "swift and severe" the pushback was, I sat on Richard Bradley's November 24, 2014 blog post "Is the Rolling Stone Story True?" for about four days until finally having the confidence to link to it on November 29 (which opened the doors to mainstream criticism beginning on December 1).
If the world population hits 11 billion, what then for climate change?
Overpopulation could thwart attempt to address climate change
Unsustainable human population growth is a potential disaster for efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions
Earlier this month, Pope Francis made news when he said that not only was climate change real, but it was mostly man-made. Then, last week, he said that couples do not need to breed "like rabbits" but rather should plan their families responsibly — albeit without the use of modern contraception.
Though the pope did not directly link the two issues, climate scientists and population experts sat up and took notice. That's because for years, they have quietly discussed the links between population growth and global warming, all too aware of the sensitive nature of the topic. Few of them can forget the backlash after then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in 2009 that it was strange to talk about climate change without mentioning population and family planning. Critics immediately suggested that she was calling for eugenics, thus shutting down the conversation and pushing the issue back into the shadows.
You know, it's almost as if the near-universal agreement that "eugenics" is the most evil concept ever, a truly Satanic plot against humanity by snotty old WASPs, is getting in the way of dealing with real world problems.
The pope's support of smaller families might help that discussion come back into the light, where it belongs.
Sensitive subject or not, the reality is that unsustainable human population growth is a potential disaster for efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. These days, the biggest population growth is occurring in developing nations, which is why any discussion must be sensitive to the perception that well-off, industrialized nations — the biggest climate polluters, often with majority-white populations — might be telling impoverished people of color to reduce their numbers. In fact, person for person, reducing birth rates in industrialized nations has a bigger impact on greenhouse gas emissions because affluent people use more of the Earth's resources and depend more heavily on fossil fuels.
Yeah, but you kind of already did that.
Anyway, the question of the expected lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of a child born in a third world country in 2016 depends upon whether you expect third world peoples to remain poor and unable to migrate to first world countries over the rest of the 21st century.
If you spelled out the assumptions behind the mainstream liberal conventional wisdom of why the soaring population of, say, Africa isn't much of a threat to increase carbon emissions in the long run, they'd be:
1. Those dumb third worlders will never be able to get their economic acts together enough to be able to afford air conditioning and cars.
2. Us smart white people will never be so dumb as to let the teeming masses of third worlders into our nice countries.
3. When those third worlders arrive in the first world, they never assimilate economically. Instead, they just stay as poor and non-carbon emitting as back home. They never climb the ladder to be able to afford first world amenities. When you stop and think about it, it's amazing they even come at all. They must be immigrating just to bring us the benefits of diversity rather than out of any self-interest.
4. When immigrants do prosper, they immediately turn into post-Puritan community garden recycler-types straight out of Portlandia. They never go through a phase of a few generations driving big pickup trucks and generally Living Large.
So … you don't usually see these assumptions spelled out … at all.
In other words, population is not just a Third World issue. More than a third of the births in the United States are the result of unintended pregnancies, and this month the United Nations raised its prediction of population growth by the year 2050 because of unforeseen, rising birth rates in industrialized nations.
Who exactly within the populations of industrialized nations is behind this unexpectedly higher fertility? Could it be … immigrants?
So even though the highest rates of population growth are in the poorest and least educated countries — Africa's population is expected to triple by the end of the century — any attempt to address the issue will have to target the industrialized world as well.
… Another 2010 report, by the nonprofit Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C, predicted that fast-growing developing countries will become the dominant emitters of greenhouse gases within a generation. That's partly because of their rising populations but also because of their poverty; they are less able to afford solar energy projects or other investments in non-fossil energy.
The report also notes that these countries and their people are far more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. A disproportionate number of impoverished countries are in low-lying areas where rising sea levels are expected to cause disastrous flooding. Agricultural productivity is expected to fall 40% in India and sub-Saharan Africa by the second half of this century.
The population issue is just beginning to get some of the public attention it deserves. The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations' board of climate experts, included concerns about population size, saying, "Globally, economic and population growth continued to be the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels." For the first time in its five years of producing such reports, the panel acknowledged that family-planning programs could make a real difference, both in slowing the rate of warming and in helping vulnerable nations adapt to its effects.
Isn't it bizarre that the concept of "family planning" is considered by mainstream minds to be far more controversial and borderline unmentionable in 2015 than family planning was in 1975?
And progress can be made without draconian or involuntary measures. According to Karen Hardee, director of the Evidence Project for the nonprofit Population Council, developing nations are already beginning to recognize the usefulness of family planning in preventing hunger and crowding and in combating climate change. She cites Rwanda, Ethiopia and Malawi as countries that are taking the first steps on their own.
In overcrowded Haiti, there are something like 10,000 Western NGO's active. But after the 2010 Haitian earthquake, I had a hard time finding any whose websites talked about promoting contraception. It's disreputable, it's … racist!
… The analysis by the Center for Global Development says that access to family planning and girls' education — even a little of it — are among the most cost-effective strategies for combating climate change.
The Israelis figured out how to halve the fertility rate of the Africans they imported as a PR gesture for American Jews: push, hard, in favor of use of long term contraceptives like Depo-Provera.
In other words, these problems are not insoluble, they just seem that way under the reigning prejudices.
Associated Press attributes the film's success to conservatives flocking to the see the movie ['Sniper' success reveals power of conservative audience, Washington Post, January 20, 2015]. But this is a simplistic assessment of American Sniper's appeal—it's an unapologetically pro-American movie with a white male hero at a time when white male Americans are constantly lectured to feel guilty about their race and nationality.
That would be bad enough in the eyes of the Left, but American Sniper also came out over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend. Worse, it's competing with the latest political hagiography dedicated to "Dr." King: Selma. As King is less a historical figure than a modern American god, a competing film about a heroic white man has been interpreted as nothing less than a form of blasphemy.
The response from the cultural commissars who govern the commanding heights of American entertainment: this is a kind of national moral failing.
Film critic Scott Mendelson moans:
The sad irony of a weekend dedicated to a black man who preached non violence and created great social change through pacifism being dominated by a movie about a white guy who (at least in the movie, final ten minutes notwithstanding) is most noteworthy for his record-breaking body count on a battlefield is not lost on me. \[Box Office: 'Selma' Grossed $5M On Martin Luther King Day, Forbes, January 21, 2015]
And of course, there's Lindy West, a kind of walking (or waddling) caricature of the "Social Justice Warriors" who busy themselves searching for and complaining about "racism,""sexism," and "homophobia" among normal people. West compares American Sniper to Chappelle's Show, a comedy show abandoned by its eponymous black creator because he found whites were laughing for the "wrong" reasons. West screeches:
If [Eastwood], intentionally or not, makes a hero out of Kyle—who, bare minimum, was a racist who took pleasure in dehumanising and killing brown people—is he responsible for validating racism, murder, and dehumanisation?
But in an age when schools ban the American flag, American Sniper seems like a subversive phenomenon. The audience's rejection of the official Narrative about evil traditional values and racist white males is eerily reminiscent of the public's reaction to The Passion of the Christ. The film is a reminder the historic Majority of America thirsts for the type of heroes Hollywood, academia, and the federal government are increasingly devoted to destroying.
The rarely-spoken rationale behind the System's hatred is that our cultural commissars link any expression of patriotism and pro-military sentiment to Nazism, a trope that Peter Brimelow calls "Hitler's Revenge."
Actor Seth Rogen made it explicit when he tweeted, "American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that's showing in the third act of Inglourious Basterds." He was referring to "Nation's Pride," a fake Nazi propaganda film shown during Quentin Tarantino's 2009 Inglourious Basterds,a movie that featured the gleeful torture and slaughter of German prisoners by a fictional unit of Jewish-Americans. There were few Main Stream Media complaints about that film.
Yet even with this artificial head start, Selma is a box office disappointment which will struggle to gross the $80 to $90 million it will need just to break even [As America Tires of Race Hoaxes, 'Selma' Disappoints At Box Office, by John Nolte, Breitbart, January 12, 2015].
The box office battle between Selma and American Sniper is just another chapter in our cultural Cold War. An official culture dedicated to multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and white guilt tries to impose itself on a historic American nation which is still showing signs of life. But, as the ticket sales show, racial fatigue is beginning to hit home. Even the cinematic equivalent of Affirmative Action can't force whites to sit through yet another movie designed to trash the country they once possessed.
The real question: will Hollywood executives—and politicians—will take a look at the money made by American Sniper? Change will come when elites decide, if only out of self-interest, that they can benefit from championing the people that the official culture ignores.
A 31-year-old woman who claims she was a teenage sex slave and forced to service high-profile clients such as Prince Andrew and attorney Alan Dershowitz has now repeated those claims under oath.
On Wednesday, the woman — referred to in court documents as Jane Doe No. 3 — made a declaration that was filed by her attorneys, including Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor and a former federal judge, in a Florida court.
For six years, Cassell and Florida attorney Brad Edwards have represented two women, known only as Jane Does Nos. 1 and 2, in a civil lawsuit against the U.S. government. The suit stems from a criminal investigation involving Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire Wall Street investor accused of prostituting underage girls. Epstein was convicted on relatively minor state charges and served just over a year in jail starting in 2008. He is now a registered sex offender.
The attorneys recently tried to have two more women, listed only as Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, added to the lawsuit.
When it was stated in court documents that Jane Doe No. 3 claimed she was forced to have sex with several high-profile people including Dershowitz — one of the country’s highest-profile attorneys — and the Duke of York, Britain’s Prince Andrew, Dershowitz blasted Cassell in nationally TV interviews and called for his disbarment. Cassell responded by filing a defamation suit against Dershowitz.
Dershowitz sternly denies all the allegations against him and challenged Jane Doe No. 3 to repeat them in public so he could sue her for defamation.
Wednesday, Cassell submitted a sworn 14-page declaration from the woman who talked about her former life as a child sex slave.
“My life took a very different turn when adults began to be interested in having sex with me,” she said, claiming she was 15 when she was recruited by Epstein.
In her declaration, the woman states, “I have recently seen a former Harvard law professor identified as Alan Dershowitz on television calling me a ‘liar.’ He is lying by denying that he had sex with me. That man is the same man that I had sex with at least six times,” she stated.
Likewise, Buckingham Palace took the unusual step of releasing multiple statements on behalf of Prince Andrew denying the claims. “I have seen Buckingham Palace's recent ‘emphatic’ denial that Prince Andrew had sexual contact with me. That denial is false and hurtful to me. I did have sexual contact with him as I have described here — under oath. Given what he knows and has seen, I was hoping that he would simply voluntarily tell the truth about everything. I hope my attorneys can interview Prince Andrew under oath about the contacts and that he will tell the truth,” she wrote in court documents.
The Jewish house of cards is verging on coming down in its entirety.
An anti-terrorism march in Paris honoring victims of the Charlie Hebdo attacks didn't register at the White House as something to scramble President Barack Obama's or Vice President Joe Biden's schedule to attend. This week's royal succession in Saudi Arabia got the opposite treatment: White House aides upended plans for both to show as much respect to the new Saudi king as they could.
The difference between the Riyadh and Paris decisions, White House aides explained Saturday, was that they knew in advance that the condolence call for King Abdullah would draw global leaders. By contrast, aides were taken by surprise when 44 heads of state turned up to lock arms amid "Je Suis Charlie" placards on just two days' notice—so surprised that they were forced to apologize.
It may seem unseemly to some that Obama is rushing to pay his respects to a feudal monarchy while failing to honor innocent victims of terrorism. But there's more at stake in this visit than appearances.
U.S. officials are eager to establish a working relationship with the new Saudi king as soon as possible amid unrest that threatens both countries: Islamic State of Syria in the Levant (ISIL) has beheaded Americans and controls large amounts of territory in neighboring Syria. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has resurged in another Saudi neighbor, Yemen, as rival militias have seized the country's capital and deposed the U.S.-friendly president. And with his administration deep in nuclear negotiations with Iran, Obama needs to reassure Saudi leaders uneasy over the United States' rapprochment with its geopolitical and religious rival.
The reverential reaction from western leaders to the news of King Abdullah's death and the expected procession of top dignitaries to pay condolences in Riyadh serve as a reminder that Saudi Arabia, with its abundant wealth and geopolitical influence, is a perpetual exception to the west's emphasis on human rights.
The outpouring of praise for the king focused on his status as a relative liberal within the Saudi context, especially on women's issues. But the recent public flogging of a liberal blogger and the video of the beheading of a woman with a sword have offered snapshots of one of the harsher human rights regimes in the world.
"King Abdullah's reign brought about marginal advances for women but failed to secure the fundamental rights of Saudi citizens to free expression, association, and assembly," Human Rights Watch said. The group said that since 2011, the regime has grown even harsher as it has attempted to stifle online criticism "through intimidation, arrests, prosecutions, and lengthy prison sentences".
Raif Badawi, the blogger sentenced to 1,000 lashes, to be meted out 50 at a time, was punished simply for running a liberal website dedicated to freedom of speech. The execution video, leaked last week by activists, was an example of a widespread practice. Over 80 people were executed in 2014, mostly by beheading, a practice that has triggered global revulsion when used in recent months by Islamic State extremists.
None of these issues has dampened western courtship of Riyadh, or the response to the king's passing. Flags were put at half-mast at official buildings across London on Friday, in a move the UK's Department for Culture said was in line with protocol following the death of a foreign monarch. And the British royal family will dispatch Prince Charles to pay respects in person.
A recent report showed that Saudi Arabia is on par with ISIS on these alleged “human rights” issues.
It’s unclear how even the Arabs tolerate these people.
The confused leftists who are noticing it are framing it as some sort of “exception which proves the rule,” but the actual fact of the matter here is that “human rights” gibberish is just a means of bullying nations that the Jews disprove of. A country that is as loved by the Jews as Saudi Arabia can execute all the faggots they like and still be a top honored state with everyone bowing to its king, but if Putin tells faggots not to harass kids, you have to steal The Ukraine from him and kill a bunch of his dudes.
Because Putin isn’t playing ball.
The Jew leadership of the West could not be any more corrupt, and this praise of the dead Arab demonstrates how ridiculous the sham of “Jews as international moral compass” actually is.
Anti-austerity Syriza party has won Greece’s general election, putting the country on a possible collision course with the EU over its massive bailout.
With nearly 75% of the votes counted, Syriza is projected to win 149 seats, just two short of an absolute majority, though that number could change.
Left-wing party leader Alexis Tsipras, who wants to renegotiate Greece’s debt, said “the Greeks wrote history”.
The governing centre-right New Democracy has come a distant second.
Outgoing Prime Minister Antonis Samaras has admitted defeat and phoned Mr Tsipras to congratulate him.
Syriza’s result will send shockwaves through Europe, the BBC’s Gavin Hewitt in Athens reports.
Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras: “Today the people of Greece wrote history”
A majority of voters in Greece have essentially rejected a core policy for dealing with the eurozone crisis as devised by Brussels and Berlin, our correspondent adds.
In Germany, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann said he hoped “the new Greek government will not make promises it cannot keep and the country cannot afford”.
The election result is expected to be one of the main issues during Monday’s meeting of 19 eurozone finance ministers.
Belgium’s representative Johan Van Overtveld was quoted by VRT network as saying that Greece “must respect the rules of monetary union”, although he added that there was room for some – but not much – flexibility.
British Prime Minister David Cameron – whose country is not a member of the eurozone – said the result of the Greek election would “increase economic uncertainty across Europe”.
Syriza has basically backed down from all of their initial positions, but they are in a situation where they are either going to have to do what they said they would do, or at least something similar, or incite riots.
Greeks, unlike most European countries, are pretty down to riot.
I believe this is the last stop on the road to a Golden Dawn victory. The people voted for Syriza not because they are actual Marxists but because they believe they are anti-austerity. When they find out they aren’t really, they will have no choice but to elect the one real anti-austerity party.
Also, if any Americans (or Australians or British) were considering a vacation in Europe, now would be a good time to go.
The euro hit an 11-year low versus the US dollar on Monday as Greece’s anti-austerity Syriza party swept to victory in a snap election, putting Athens on a collision course with international lenders.
The single currency dropped to $US1.1098, a level not seen since September 2003, as official projections showed Syriza was set to win 149 seats in the 300-seat parliament, taking 36.3 per cent of the vote.
The euro fell to as low as ¥130.16, its lowest level in more than 11 years. The euro also fell against sterling, hitting a seven-year low of 74.06 pence.
In the near term, traders are looking to whether Syriza will secure an outright majority, which would raise the risk of a standoff with Greece’s European lenders over austerity measures as well as the stance of Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras.
“Usually politicians say populistic things before an election. So now the question is how much they are going to stick to the promises made to the Troika,” said Ayako Sera, market strategist at Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank.
Market participants saw the risk that euro selling would pick up during the Asian session if Syriza secures an outright majority.
Such a scenario could trigger a test of $US1.10, where large options lay, according to several research notes.
The EU understands that if they let Greece out, other countries are going to be like “hey, we hate this also.” So you are going to see some serious moves from Merkel in the wake of this. They seem to be willing to let the Euro drop even further.
Golden Dawn New York Just Completed our translation of Nikos Michaloliakos' recorded speech today.
We request that you spread this video to everyone you know!
Here is the Greek Transcript:
Το μήνυμα του Γενικού Γραμματέα της Χρυσής Αυγής Νικολάου Μιχαλολιάκου μέσα από τα κελιά της Τιμής για την μεγάλη Νίκη του Εθνικιστικού Κινήματος στις εκλογές της 25ης Ιανουαρίου.
Συναγωνιστές και Συναγωνίστριες, Ελληνικέ Λαέ!
Από το κελί μου των Φυλακών Κορυδαλλού, χαιρετίζω τη μεγάλη νίκη του Εθνικιστικού Κινήματος. Σύμφωνα με το αποτέλεσμα των σημερινών εκλογών, η Χρυσή Αυγή αναδεικνύεται στην Τρίτη πολιτική δύναμη της χώρας, για δεύτερη κατά σειρά εκλογική αναμέτρηση μετά τις Ευρωεκλογές του Μαΐου του 2014. Και αυτό ενώ ευρίσκομαι, τόσο εγώ όσο και οι Συναγωνιστές – Βουλευτές και άλλα στελέχη της Χρυσής Αυγής, παράνομα και άδικα στη φυλακή επί ενάμιση έτος.
Αυτή τη μεγάλη νίκη την πετύχαμε την ίδια στιγμή που δεν μπορέσαμε να έχουμε μία ισότιμη και δημοκρατική, όπως θέλουν να λένε από το καθεστώς, εκλογική αναμέτρηση. Αποκλεισμένοι απ' όλους. Με έναν πόλεμο λάσπης και συκοφαντιών απ' όλους. Επιπλέον όταν όλοι γνωρίζουν ότι είμαστε στη φυλακή αθώοι και η μεγαλύτερη απόδειξη γι' αυτό είναι το περίφημο βίντεο Μπαλτάκου, όπου κάποιοι φρόντισαν να εξαφανίσουν από την δημοσιότητα, όπου κάποιοι φρόντισαν να μη γίνει καμία έρευνα σχετικά μ' αυτό.
Τρίτη πολιτική της χώρας η Χρυσή Αυγή με την ηγεσία της στην φυλακή, με παράνομο αποκλεισμό από τα ΜΜΕ, με προεκλογική εκστρατεία από ένα καρτοτηλέφωνο. Έχουμε νωπή τη λαϊκή εντολή να είμαστε στη Βουλή, να εκπροσωπήσουμε τον Ελληνικό Λαό, και όχι στη φυλακή. Ελπίζουμε ότι δεν θα βρεθούν κι αυτή τη φορά κάποιοι διεφθαρμένοι πολιτικοί, οι οποίοι θα κάνουν παρεμβάσεις στους δημόσιους λειτουργούς, ώστε να παραμείνουμε στην φυλακή.
Ασφαλώς και θα λάβουμε, αν και εφόσον δεν ευδοκιμήσει η πρώτη και η δεύτερη διερευνητική εντολή, την εντολή σχηματισμού κυβερνήσεως γιατί έτσι επιβάλλει ο νόμος. Και για όσους δεν το ξέρουν, είμαστε ακόμη υπόδικοι, δεν έχουμε καταδίκη, είμαστε αθώοι, αλλά αυτό το ένοχο και αμαρτωλό πολιτικό σύστημα μας αμφισβητεί ακόμα και το τεκμήριο της αθωότητας.
Θέλω να ευχαριστήσω τις χιλιάδες των Αγωνιστών και Αγωνιστριών της Χρυσής Αυγής, που έδωσαν τον ωραίο αγώνα, εναντίον όλων κυριολεκτικά σε αυτή την προεκλογική περίοδο. Χωρίς υλικά μέσα. Αποκλεισμένοι από τα κανάλια των «νταβατζήδων», έχοντας να αντιμετωπίσουν όλους κυριολεκτικά εναντίον μας. Όλοι πολέμησαν, όλοι αγωνίστηκαν για να μη βγει η Χρυσή Αυγή τρίτο πολιτικό κόμμα και τελικά ηττήθηκαν. Η Χρυσή Αυγή νίκησε.
Θέλω να χαιρετήσω και να ευχαριστήσω από βάθους της καρδίας μου τις εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες των Ελλήνων και των Ελληνίδων που ψήφισαν Χρυσή Αυγή για να μπούνε οι κλέφτες στη φυλακή, για να έρθουν οι Έλληνες στην εξουσία. Που ψήφισαν την Χρυσή Αυγή για τις θέσεις της. Θέσεις για πολιτική κάθαρση, για καταγγελία του Μνημονίου, για τη διαγραφή του χρέους, για μία επανεκκίνηση της πρωτογενούς παραγωγής, για την εκμετάλλευση του ορυκτού πλούτου της χώρας, για να αντιμετωπιστεί το μεγάλο εθνικό και κοινωνικό πρόβλημα που είναι οι λαθρομετανάστες. Μας ψήφισαν γιατί αντιστεκόμαστε, γιατί δεν συμβιβαστήκαμε σε τόσο δύσκολους καιρούς. Μας ψήφισαν γιατί παραμένουμε όρθιοι σε έναν κόσμο ερειπίων. Χαιρετίζω όλους και αναφωνώ μαζί τους: Ζήτω η Νίκη της Χρυσής Αυγής!
Wikipedia has a massive influence on society at this point, as it is really the only encyclopedia the majority of people use. Young people have been brought up to believe this site is somehow objective, when in actual reality any topic which is in any way controversial sides with Marxist Jews.
Case in point: the above screenshots shot a Marxist Jew manipulating information for the purpose of serving the Jew agenda.
The issue also recently came up with Gamergate and feminist articles.
Wikipedia's arbitration committee, the highest user-run body on the site, has banned five editors from making corrections to articles about feminism, in an attempt to stop a long-running edit war over the entry on the "Gamergate controversy".
The editors, who were all actively attempting to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant, were sanctioned by "arbcom" in its preliminary decision. While that may change as it is finalised, the body, known as Wikipedia's supreme court, rarely reverses its decisions.
The sanction bars the five editors from having anything to do with any articles covering Gamergate, but also from any other article about "gender or sexuality, broadly construed".
Editors who had been pushing for the Wikipedia article to be fairer to Gamergate have also been sanctioned by the committee, but one observer warns that those sanctions have only hit "throwaway" accounts.
"No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate's warriors, save for a few disposable accounts created specifically for the purpose of being sanctioned," said Mark Bernstein, a writer and Wikipedia editor.
![[Click to Enlarge]](http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/marxist-wiki.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment