The ops know we out here 🥷🏻

It seems PDX isn’t owned by Antifa after all? Northwest Patriots at it again. #IANCRANSTON westlinntidings.com/2026/10/…

Seeing all these RW's lured back into the GOP is arguably worse than decades of Boomer control, because at least the boomers would have died out, but now we have to deal with a whole new generation of people that want to defend the system.

Massa ZOG please I know we’re being disenfranchised and reduced to second class citizens but can we please atleast have an all white reservation where we can live in destitute poverty like the Indians and in exchange we’ll be a good field hand fo massa

straight from the smiling friends universe:

France has over 1k people in its AC scene and they did nothing when civil conflict broke out. Active clubs and 3.0 exists to bolster liberal democracy. Gladio 2

RFN - March 10th 2011 HAC explains why you should be reading Marxist praxis literature, even if you're not a Marxist. t.me/rfngems/13

𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 & 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐄𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍.𝐎𝐑𝐆 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐑 𝐃𝐄𝐅𝐄𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐅𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐅𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐒 The following article is in response to the "Ethnic American" who goes by the alias James Sewell and his article titled: 𝘼𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖 𝙒𝙖𝙨 𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙎𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚 𝙅𝙚𝙬𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙤𝙧 𝙁𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙘 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙨 which was published on June 24, 2026. If you would like to read the article yourself i am linking it here: ethnicamerican.org/america-w… The above article is a conglomeration of 𝙄𝙉𝘿𝙄𝙍𝙀𝘾𝙏 responses to my threads and posts over the months which have extensively exposed the American Founding Fathers and their connections/communications with Jews, as well it is also an 𝙄𝙉𝘿𝙄𝙍𝙀𝘾𝙏 response to the Christian Identitarian Jake Espocito. You can find his account here x.com/JakeE2200 and many other accounts on X which the article responds to indirectly. Without mincing words i want to make clear that this article is a response to the whole Ethnic American organization 𝑭𝒐𝒄𝒖𝒔 & 𝑰𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔 ❝They fought for independence to secure self-governance for themselves and their posterity. The Founders were focused on British policy, state rivalries, debt, Indians, foreign powers, and the character of a republican citizenry rooted in English common law and Protestant moral traditions. Jews were a tiny, visible but marginal presence—not a political “entity to contend with. ❞ Already off the bat the Ethnic Americans are defaulting to the base curriculum of the K-12 education system which espouses and teaches that the foundation of the American Republic was rooted in a moral good and proceeds to hand wave and dismiss opposite evidence as "conspiracy theories". This is very interesting wording from James Sewell as his worldview/perspective would also be hand waved and dismissed by the very Liberal & Conservative institutions that he and other Ethnic Americans are "against". You will find quite often in this article that there are constant concessions to truths while barking that the context is cherry picked and presented in a nefarious light. This makes most of the article. You will notice that James Sewell responds to letters of the Founding Fathers and does not provide letters of the Founding Fathers of his own, James Sewell responds to historical books about the Founding Fathers and does not provide historical books of the Founding Fathers of his own. Nevertheless, lets take this examination at face value. ❝ the character of a republican citizenry rooted in English common law and Protestant moral traditions ❞ The government of England at this time was already well transitioning into a Republic and had been doing so since the end of the English Civil War in the late 1640's and early 1650's. Charles I was the last English monarch that refused to answer to the established parliament of 1615. This very parliament emerged from the King's nobles to clergy and jumped off of Simon de Montfort's of 1265. To deconstruct absolutism and the divine right of kings the succession of order followed in the history of England: Absolute Monarchy ↓ Constitutional Monarchy ↓ Constitutional Republic If the true purpose of the American Revolution was to upkeep English Common Law and Protestant moral traditions, why secede from English Common Law and proceed over a course of time to find your own common law? If the true purpose of the American Revolution was to upkeep Protestant moral traditions, why create your own moral traditions rooted in Freemasonry and Secularism as established in Article 1 of the American Constitution? The alleged Christian denomination of a large majority of the American Founding Fathers was Episcopalian/Anglican and the various Protestant denominations that were in colonial America such as the ⚪️ Baptists ⚪️ Quakers ⚪️ Methodists ⚪️ Presbyterians ⚪️ Calvinists all had legal status of worship and tolerance under English Common Law, under King George the 3rd and specifically under the Toleration Act of 1689, although very minor legal restrictions that did not really effect the so called posterity of the Christians in question. The alleged premise of Article 1 of the Constitution and the "Freedom of Religion" issue amongst Protestant denominations had already been solved in the very English Common Law that the Ethnic Americans say the Founders were upholding in the American Revolution. Which completely deflates the need for America to justly secede from England and establish it's own "freedom of religion" on a religious basis. Two premises which Americans in general cite to justify the American Revolution, the first one being the Colonists did not have taxation with representation and the second being the Colonists did not have religious freedom is complete horseshit and an Enlightenment ruse crafted by Thomas Paine and others to distract from the real motive of America seceding from England. Every single mainstream Protestant denomination that dwelled in Colonial America had protection under the Church of England and the English kings that had already established it in 1689. The religious persecution argument falls on its face based on those two facts alone. The American Revolution was thus NOT about upholding English Common Law or Protestant Moral Traditions when England was upholding English Common Law and Protestant Moral Traditions by that time. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑱𝒆𝒘𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 No one said that they were, in fact that is the whole point, the fact that the Founding Fathers did not contend with them when they began to get major social influence in the landscape of colonial America during and right after the Revolutionary War. First off, Jews do not need to be a political entity to be dangerous or subversive towads a nation, the numerous cases of Jews in money lending and banking all throughout Europe in the middle ages proves this, the fact that Jews poisoned the water wells of Europe and killed off the felines in local towns and cities as exposed by the Chillon Confession of October 1348 which provoked the Basel Massacre of January 9 1349. The Jews at this time were not a political entity to contend with either, yet they caused a massive amount of turmoil, bloodletting, usury and genocide of Europeans at this time which then provoked pogroms against them. Jews like to make it seem that Europeans expel, mame and kill them for no good reason, a funny, pedantic, reductionist and feminine view of history. The premise that Jews need to be a political entity to subvert or coerce the American Founding Fathers is disingenuous, dismissive and ridiculous. When it comes to America, the reason Jews in colonial America pursued collusion with the American Founding Fathers despite being the very small minority that they were, was to establish FURTHER emancipation and equality, whether religious or racial, or both, in a newly established nation that they helped fund to revolt against Europe. Jews have historically wanted to establish two things: 1. International Power 2. A national homeland for Jews. As everyone knows, they ended up definitively succeeding in 1948 after centuries of being nomads and vagabonds. They tried this in Europe before Zionism was a concept, for centuries they were met with a unilateral bipolar back and forth from city state to city state, from European state to European state whose attitude towards the Jews depended on the King or Pope who had control at the time. This became an infamous cycle, a cycle which America has never once repeated or continued in its history. If the American Revolution was not about Liberality towards the Jews and their emancipation, the Ethnic Americans need to explain why the United States of America from its very first day has never managed to conjure universal expulsion, racial laws, edicts, revocation of rights and even segregation of them in American history. Two piss-poor examples have been attempted as evidence. 1. Maryland having bans on Jews becoming politicans 2. General Order 11 of Ulysses S Grant These are both horrible attempts, rather laughable actually. General Order 11 was immediately revoked by the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of the United States right after the whispers of its existence came to the steps of Washington. It DID NOT result in even a single jew getting expelled from a single American state or military sector of an American state in a nation that had 23 other states at the time. General Order 11 was issued on December 17 1862 and was revoked by Lincoln on January 4 1863, certainly not enough time to expel Jews or make a significant impact, although i will admit the attempt was noble, the whole reason it did not pan out is because....guess what? The order got revoked by the very Constitutional authority of the Executive office the Ethnic Americans swear up and down is noble and highly principled. Maryland's State ban on Jews becoming politicans in office did not ban them from money lending, their speech, their usury and their status as citizens of Maryland itself which is the modern criteria National Socialism expects of its ideological opponents, especially the Ethnic Americans and American Constitutionalists. They present the American Founding Fathers as sophisticated, cultured, highly principled and intelligent men who somehow in their mind did not have the foresight to see that Jews would become a problem as they had in the past all over the world for centuries and even millenia. Expulsions of Jews go as far back in recorded history to 1200 BC and right smack dab in the Age of Reason and Enlightenment its curious that the American Founding Fathers ignored or didn't care about this extremity that popped up in all nations, especially when America was at its weakest when it was founded. For Jews, America would be fresh virgin pussy right for the taking of a Jew's sexual and subversive gratification. You will recall in social studies class that we were taught that George Washington never told a lie, at least i was. Does this reign true today in our abrogation of Jewish morals and philosophy oh dear antisemitic America? 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏 𝑳𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝑳𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔, 𝑵𝒐𝒕 𝑬𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 The Ethnic Americans resort to the pitiful tactic of hand waving and dismissing the letters that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Jay wrote to synagogues on the American continent as nothing but cordiality and niceness to the Jews. The Ethnic Americans cannot deny the existence of the letters (they desperately want to) nor did they present counter-evidence that the Founding Fathers were ACTUALLY anti-jewish with exhibit a or b and so on and nor do they deny that there was religious freedom or tolerance to the Jews. The only thing they contest is that the founding fathers colluded with them and abhore the idea as a "conspiracy" which is essentially just hand waving again. The EA's appeal to the "insignificant minority" canard but notice earlier they also appealed to Christian morals and virtue as the prerequisite for America. Have the Ethnic Americans forgotten that Christianity is an anti-Jewish religion? That Christ himself in the gospels condemned them? That the Apostle Paul (A jew himself) said the Jews were the murderers of the Lord? Oh and let's not forget about Protestant moral traditions. Lets look no further than Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant reformation who said in his book 𝙊𝙣 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙅𝙚𝙬𝙨 𝙄𝙣 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙇𝙞𝙚𝙨 that Christians 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒔𝒆𝒕 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒔𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒐𝒍𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒚𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒐𝒈𝒖𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒖𝒓𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒅𝒊𝒓𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒖𝒓𝒏. 𝑺𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒏𝒐 𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒔𝒆𝒆 𝒂 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒓 𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎. 𝑻𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒅𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒉𝒐𝒏𝒐𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑳𝒐𝒓𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒐𝒎. 𝑺𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑮𝒐𝒅 𝒎𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒔𝒆𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒔. This is the TRUE Protestant moral tradition that Martin Luther instructed the followers of Christ to do. How can one appeal to Protestant moral tradition and neither listen, acknowledge or follow the words from the very FOUNDER of the Protestant moral tradition and orator of the Protestant Reformation. Did George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or John Jay follow that Protestant moral tradition? No. They did not set a single synagogue ablaze or demolish a single Jewish school, nor did they bury and cover them. As the Ethnic Americans said, the Founders were cordial and statesmen like to the Jews, yet, Christians are not supposed to be cordial or statesmen like to the Jews. The EA's say the English crown was going against Protestant Moral Tradition. That accusation seems to be a projection. The Americans in their debased, hebraic and watered down Christianity have tolerated and emancipated the Jews, given them freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to vote and own land, not expelled them, not burnt them and not bury them. This is of course assuming that the Founding Fathers were even Christian, Protestant or had a Protestant moral ethic, which is false and cannot be true when their biggest political influence was John Locke and Thomas Paine, Paine in both his works of Age of Reason and Common Sense crapped all over Christianity and its history and classed it as barbarism. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Gothic Christianity of Europe and its INTOLERANCE of Jews as a barbaric vice that needed to be overturned by "liberal science". John Locke also had the same tolerance and respect for Jews and he is the sole philosophical founder of America that gave the English the idea of "separation of powers" which Locke got from the Jew Baruch Spinoza, to which then the English who got it from Locke handed it to the colonial Americans, or at least 3% of them. The American Revolution was not a desire for the majority of colonial America and those who wished to stay with the crown got tarred and feathered and hot oil poured down their throat which is totally something Jesus Christ would bless and approve of (sarcasm) The letters which the founding fathers of America wrote to the synagogues, masonic lodges and Jews themselves were not presidential letters of cordiality or statemenship, they were deliberate efforts to correspond with a minority that at the time of 1790 only amounted to 1,500 people max of a total population of around 4 million. That is a disproportionate gap. Jews today make up 6 or 7 million people in the United States, that is on paper and it very well could be a lot more. In 1790 they made up a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the American population and according to the EA article 150 of those 1,500 had voting power. This assumes a falsehood: Jews need voting power in a nation to be subversive, they do not. A Republic and a Democracy always assumes that the power of the state and its yeild lies within the election and popular consensus. When we look at the many letters of George Washington we can very clearly see that he did not operate off of a populist framework and publicly warned against it in his farewell address. After all, Washington went against the popular consensus of 97% of America by participating in a revolt against England, something which colonial America en masse did not ask for. At this time in history where communication is conducted on parchment paper and written in ink and delivered by a horse and buggy or a ship internationally, there was no danger in Washington's letters or anyone else's getting found by the common citizen whether they were privy to Jewry and Masonry or not. George Washington could write a letter to this synagogue or that mosque and the citizen wouldn't be the wiser until much later in American history where the National Archives, Library of Congress and other national institutions chose to disclose for the goyim to see. My past articles cannot be called a conspiracy theory because they come from the very Constitutional Republic the EA's advocate for, our evidence does not come from an anonymous image board or forum. It comes from the very words of the Founders. We have the fortunate advantage of hindsight, what have the Jews done to America since, what are they doing with it and what are they going to use it for next? And in the last 250 years what have they used it for? Opposite to an American persepective, The National Socialist perspective is written quite clear by Heinrich Himmler's Americanism: A World Danger, The Oberkommando's The Jew As A World Parasite, Das Schwarze Korp's The Danger of Americanism and Adolf Hitler's comments about America on May 1st 1933 and later on January 7, 1942, and additionally The Jews Discover America by Othmar Krainz in 1938 along with Franz Xavier Schwarz's comments on America its Freemasonry in his book Freemasonry: Worldview, Organization, and Politic. These letters which the founders wrote were not statements of impartiality, statesmenship or congratulations. They are statements of tolerance, philosemitism, judeo-christianity and promised emancipation. These letters that promise and reassure the Jews freedom of religion, freedom of business and freedom of naturalization, who promised the same life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness laid out in the Declaration of Independence, signed by so called Episcopalian Christians whose denomination itself no longer saw Jews as vagabonds, leeches, usurpers and enemies of Christ, but a persecuted minority who did no wrong and who were just like any other continental European. Notice in that article above, the EA's do not even attempt to make the American Founding Fathers antisemitic because they know they cannot. That is over with. That is unfeasible in today's political climate. The documents disprove it, the letters contest it and the words and actions speak against it. Which ultimately brings my last question to the Ethnic Americans in the first place Why do you not have a problem with the Founding Fathers being tolerant to Jews today? Why do you not condemn it or acknowledge it? Within your spaces and your website you very clearly acknowledge that they are a problem and have so called subverted your country but back then at the founding of the omnipotent republic it was a good thing and nothing to be concerned about? To which all Europeans living on American soil must turn a blind eye to and not worry about it but must worry about American Jewry now? You allow us to speak about Jews and the Federal Reserve, Jews and World War One, Jews and World War Two, Jews and the assassination of John F Kennedy, Jews and the theft of Uranium that built Israeli nuclear weapons, The Levon Affair, The Six Day War, The U.S.S Liberty, The Gulf Wars, 9/11, the Covid Pandemic and Jeffery Epstein but your glorious goody two shoe Founding Fathers we must defend and absolutely had nothing to do with Jews? This is not even cope, this tactic is just cognitive dissonance because America is your idol, you idolize what it could be, what it is not, what it never will be and what it never was, if Christ told you himself to stop worshiping America you would grab a knife like Judas and stab him in the back while giving him a kiss. America is the last obstacle in your way from returning to your European roots, European roots which you hate, European history which you are detached from and the European spirit which you are jealous of, and the ultimate drive of this cognitive dissonance is your individuality and the idea that it will be insignificant in a European dominated world with Indo-Germanic ideals at the forefront. Americans are allergic to authority, righteousness, godliness, humility, collective work, quality and culture. You call us worshipers of Hitler but we do not worship your products, your supermarkets, your strip malls, your fast food, your drugs, your military, your government, your feminism, your infanticide, your anti-natalism, your hatred of men and masculinity and your separation of powers where liberty and justice reign for all. You Ethnic Americans are in desperate need of the teachings of the legions, warriors, nobles and kings that came before you, the dynasties that pioneered and conquered everything in their path and the cross that was set in all four corners of the spherical earth, while you are the worshipers of vice, greed, pandemonium, lust, debauchery, money, materialism, consumerism and self flatulence. National Socialism forbids all aforementioned. It's not a wonder why you are terrified of it. Your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is inferior to our warrior hood, martial excellence, loyalty, honor, selflessness, masculinity and totality. You have the mindset of feminist women who do not want men to reach their peak or kow tow to superior beings who have marvelous ideas, creations, sculpture, music or architecture, you place stock in the mediocre individual who is neither intelligent, courageous, industrious or learned. In your worldview, the mediocre rule for the sake of not being oppressed, in our worldview, the strong overpower the weak, subjugate them and actually enlighten them with courageous and pious ideals that above all leave in the hands of the Almighty God. The Lord that came down to bear your sins and mine, did not come as a senator, or a individual or a consumer or as a voter, he came as a King and gave his apostles strict instructions on how to build his church and kingdom, these strict instructions were to be and are to be followed to the letter, which makes God above all not just the ultimate authoritarian, but the ultimate totalitarian, call yourselves Christian as you may, but if you cannot handle the authority of another European man, how could you handle the authority of God himself? You would rebel against God just as you did Europe. Because God is far greater than Europe and is eternal. But you do not rebel against your Jewish government or your vice, greed, sacrilege, poison, prostitution, money worship, consumerism and usury. Because in truth, when your nationalist facade collapses, these are your true values. As they say, complacency is conformity. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒐𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒔 𝑾𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝑭𝒐𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒅 i found this particular claim interesting, because it neither understands how the Protocols came about or where they actually came from. This was a convenient dismissal due to the fact there are multiple passages within the protocols that show that Freemasonry is inherently Jewish and in Protocol 10 showcases how the Jews want a Constitutional Republic as a form of government for the Gentiles. The claim was made that the Protocols were forgeries from the Russian secret police and were debunked by Philip P Graves in his 1920 publication “The Protocols” A Literary Forgery, mind you this is the only hyperlinked source in the entire article. The protocols did not come from the Russian secret police. The protocols were transcripts of the Zionist conferences that took place in Basel, Switzerland between 1895 and 1897. Attached to this post i have two original photocopied excerpts from the Zionist meetings in Switzerland at that time. Sergei Nilus, the first publisher of the Protocols was an Orthodox Christian, he had no involvement in the Russian secret police which if you didn't know is called the Okhrana and no orders from any Russian officials to publish the Protocols. The Protocols came from Nilus, not the Russian government, not even the Orthodox church but an Orthodox Monk who published books about apologetics and epistemology, he sent two adjutants into Switzerland who attended the conferences and monitored the meeting. The Zionist conferences were Jewish events in the heart of Europe at a time when Europeans still did not like Jews, the adjutants to Nilus, transcribed the statements on paper as they were spoken during the meetings, far fetched as this may seem, Nilus's publication in 1901 was enough to convince Henry Ford who later became a Freemason in the 1930's that they were legitimate due to the circumstances and foreknowledge Jews had of a "great European War" (World War One) and in which the Balfour Declaration was planned. It does not take a genius to look at the outlined protocols and then look at the early events of the 20th century and how they occurred and draw a realistic connection. This history is explained in Victor E Mardsen's edition of the Protocols. SOURCES: x.com/spacecatpressV1/status… archive.org/details/unrecogn… x.com/spacecatpressV1/status… x.com/spacecatpressV1/status… x.com/spacecatpressV1/status… x.com/spacecatpressV1/status… x.com/spacecatpressV1/status… x.com/spacecatpressV1/status… x.com/spacecatpressV1/status… x.com/spacecatpressV1/status… x.com/spacecatpressV1/status…

Sending my best to Ian Cranston during his re-trial today

On September 19, 2021 Ian Cranston and his fiancée were attacked while exiting a nightclub in Bend, Oregon after a black man became enraged when his sexual advances on Ian’s fiancée were rejected. The attacker struck Ian in the head twice. Out of reasonable fear for his life and for the life of his fiancée Ian fired a single shot from his concealed handgun, killing the aggressor. The anti-White judicial system sentenced Ian to 10 years in prison for the crime of defending himself while being White. Under Oregon law, a person does not have a legal obligation to retreat before using justified deadly force in self-defense. That detail was intentionally withheld from the jury to ensure that the system would put him away. The appellate court has deemed a retrial necessary because of this “error”. Ian has posted bail and is currently free. His retrial starts today, October 20. While Ian’s conviction being overturned was a good development, his persecution by our illegitimate occupation government is far from over. #iancranston

Has anyone done an article on the nature of “subversion” on the right? It seems to be a perennial issue that right wing minded people don’t actually understand what someone subverting actually does. Someone wearing a communist shirt and beret in the communist club is not a subversive. Someone telling what you want to hear so you do what they want you to is subversive. Hasan Piker is a not a subversive he is a socialist propagandist. Stephen Miller is a subversive.

Immigration is caused by Jews, not "the left." That is why far-right Zio-populist politicians like Takaichi and Meloni are overseeing record numbers of migration to their countries. If at this point an influencer is telling you that the "left" is responsible for mass migration and the solution to this is to vote for "the right," that person is paid to deliberately confuse you.

The southern planter class were massive race traitors that permanently demographically disfigured the South, no different from the capitalists importing non-White laborers today. This chart is also a great demonstration of why figures like GDP are useless. The South impoverished itself with its reliance on African labor. Read Hinton Helper.

A black man moved to Oregon and immediately started harassing the local gentry. After being told off for hitting on Cranston’s girlfriend, he immediately resorted to violence and was told off permanently. Of course, the jewish press twists the story to make white guy the villain.

JUSTICE FOR IAN CRANSTON HE SERVES 10 YEARS FOR DEFENDING HIS GIRLFRIEND FROM A NEGRO RAPIST

Stop taking W’s that don’t belong to you.

“The Overton window is shifting” Translation: “Whites are now a sufficiently toothless minority that the Jewish pedophiles in charge are becoming more comfortable throwing us a bone to achieve their goals.”

On October 20th, the system will be holding a retrial for Ian Cranston. Ian was jailed for defending himself and his fiancee from a feral individual outside of a club in Bend Oregon on September 19, 2021. The man assaulted Ian and his fiancee after she rebuffed his sexual advances. With the safety of his partner and himself in mind, Ian shot the man with a 9mm handgun. After taking this act of necessary defense into his own hands, Ian proceeded to care for this attacker by asking him where he was hit, applying pressure on his wound, and proceeding to yell for everyone in sight to call the police. This man is not a criminal, anyone in his shoes would have done the same thing. We stand with Ian Cranston and so should you.