Going With White Italian Hispanics

Italian Americans are our most solid, pro White RACIST group. For our younger readers still learning the hidden truths of racial realities, please read up on Philadelphia, Italian American police chief and mayor Frank Rizzo. Black mobs rioted and destroyed most of Detroit, Newark, Watts, the West Side of Chicago in the late 1960s. But, they did not do so in Frank Rizzo’s Philadelphia (Link). On the international scene from Europe to the United Kingdom to Australia to South America, it’s the same positive story.

Italians are very racist, solidly in our White camp.

Thus, it is with great joy and much relief that we learn that the new Catholic Pope Francis is an Argentinean of Italian heritage (most Argentineans are Italians). He is apparently a solid, traditional Jesuit, not in to some cultural marxist abomination of Catholicism like “Liberation Theology”.

So the good news (“gospel”) is that the Catholic church has gone for White “Hispanic” leadership and the top of the church is back in Italian hands.

Steve Sailer has some excellent comments on this great White Hispanic choice for Pope and has added some funny (accurate) Italian soccer themes (Link):

“Pope Francis I: A Lionel Messi halo effect?

By Steve Sailer on March 13, 2013 at 11:52pm
I read in Grantland yesterday:

There was even a rumor making the rounds Tuesday afternoon that the cardinals in Rome trying to elect a pope conveniently called it a day a half-hour before the Barcelona-Milan game so they could catch the broadcast.
Barcelona’s great Italian-Argentine leader Lionel Messi broke out of a minor slump to score two goals to lead Barcelona to a 4-0 win over Silvio Berlusconi’s AC Milan.

Today, it was announced that the conclave had elected an Italian-Argentine cardinal, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, to be the new Pope.


Viewed in the crass terms of ethnic politics, this pick looks like a two-fer: satisfying the rising Hispanic tidal wave etc., while letting the Italians get back the Papacy, which they held for about a half-millennium up until the Polish Pope.”


  1. Heh, heh. It just burns you to no end that free men of free will, built with their own free hands a city whose strength and magnificence no king or his subjects could have ever imagined, doens’t it John? Happy St. Patricks Day!

  2. @Lew

    “Long Live Dixie and stonelifter are like the cavalry in WW 1.”

    Although an unmitigated disaster on the Western Front, both cavalry and mounted infantry units were still highly effective in the wide open spaces of the Middle East.

  3. Not at all. It’s sad to see how the place fell to bits. The machines they built turned many civilized places into rubble. These Places have since recovered much of their former glory or surpassed that glory. Flooding Europe with 50,000 Sherman tanks and millions of jeeps, trucks, cannon and so on and so forth mostly manfuactured in Detroit was good for someone: Who benefitted?

  4. The Russians had entire Cavalry Armies in ww2. They could outmaneuver Germans in the big spaces… Showing up in areas 100 miles from their last reported position. Guderian wrote letters in exasperation about these units because you couldn’t estimate where they could be or where they might show up from one day to the next. Armoured Divisions couldn’t do this and mechanized infantry couldn’t either.

  5. That’s interesting. You and John have become my favorite commenters on matters of military history.

    Although an unmitigated disaster on the Western Front, both cavalry and mounted infantry units were still highly effective in the wide open spaces of the Middle East.

  6. “The Russians had entire Cavalry Armies in ww2. “

    It would be more accurate to describe them as mounted infantry as that is how they fought. One MG 42 can wreak unholy havoc upon a traditional cavalry charge.

    As a side note, the Wehrmacht relied heavily upon horses for transport during the entire war. Operation Barbarossa included 600,000 horses in the invasion force. This proved to be a good thing on the often muddy Russian steppe.

  7. As a side note Patton wanted to have a Cavalry division with pack artillery in North Africa and in Sicily. American forces fielded only a few cavalry and supply units during the war. George S. Patton lamented their lack in North Africa and wrote that “had we possessed an American cavalry division with pack artillery in Tunisia and in Sicily, not a German would have escaped.”

    fascinating as he designed a cavalry saber himself.

  8. “Id say they were cavalry, they just didnt charge with sabres (if and only if they had good officers) most of the time.

    As usual you don’t know WTF you are talking about. Cavalry fight from horseback with firearms usually, traditional dragoons (ie. mounted cavalry) don’t. They tie up their horses and fight as infantrymen. Sabers and lances have have had very little to do with it since the 19th century. This is what most of Forrest’s battles were like. He used mounted troops to concentrate (and disperse) his forces and supplies with alacrity. Nothing pedantic about it, you simply don’t understand this crucial difference.

    Mounted Infantry /= Cavalry numbnuts, despite the widespread incorrect use of the term. People like Patton and the U.S. Army use the word because it sounds cool even though they are really talking about a means of troop mobility rather than a method of actual fighting.

    Please stop posting John. Your ignorance of war and history is absolutely appalling and you shoot your mouth off without doing even a cursory amount of research (including actually reading my highly informative links.)

    Go away, you ignorant limey pest.

  9. Since there seems to be a serious divide here about working with Northerners (note, not Yankees) for mutually beneficial goals, I’ll bow out of this thread (and likely most others as well).

    See you at SBPDL!

  10. Rudel.

    Let’s both contact a military historian of your choosing to conduct a general survey exam. Find a way to conduct the exam via the net and see who come out top. I’ll wipe the floor with you. We both know it. You’re just an amateur.

  11. English cavalry in the 100 years war generally dismounted to fight. They are still an example of chivalry. They just didn’t ponce around on horses unless they were chevauche-ing.

    It’s very dangerous to charge as the Scots Greys found out or the French Cavalry at Agincourt. Knights dismount all the time as tactics and strategy demand. They are still Cavalry.

    The Russians were most certainly dependent upon cavalry formations well into ww2. Wtf are you arguing about you pedantic screwball?

  12. cavalgada, razzia, Chevauchee, this is really what cavalry is for. Raiding, scouting. hit and run. Most sensible generals dismount these same troops for pitched battles throughout much of history too. Tarlton would have been quite familiar with what the Russians did with their horses. So would Edward III.

  13. So according to you someone like Banastre Tarleton isn’t a cavalryman? A dragoon isn’t a type of cavalryman?

    Do you split hairs as a hobby when you don’t post on here?

  14. “The Russians were most certainly dependent upon cavalry formations well into ww2.”

    Nope, there was no wheeling about and engaging the enemy in tight formations. Russian cavalry were dragoons. They used their horses for mobility on the steppe and to outflank the enemy. They were primarily mobile infantry units and also carried along light cannon. There is even a picture of Russian “cavalry” running a field piece in one of your links with nary a horse in sight. You don’t even read your own links!

    Again, true cavalry fight on horseback. Mounted infantry fight on foot. References to cavalry prior to the 19th Century are irrelevant to this discussion which is about horse mounted troops in modern war. Read up on how Nathan Bedford Forrest mainly used his troops for rapid concentration of infantry force and maybe you will learn something although being English I doubt it. You stupid fucks were still slaughtering yourselves by attempting to fight from the saddle alongside tanks on the Western Front as late as 1918!

    Again, to all concerned: mounted infantry are not traditional cavalry as they fight on foot rather than from the saddle. Finis.

  15. “Banastre Tarleton was a sadist and a coward.”

    Not to mention a thoroughly incompetent commander. After Washington sent General Greene to the Carolinas to sort things out strategically Greene had Brigadier Daniel Morgan lure a brigade of British regulars under Tarleton into a spectacular double envelopment trap and subsequent defeat at Cowpens in late 1880. Tarleton lost 80% of his men and it marked the beginning of the end for the English in America. After Tarleton’s ignominious defeat and loss of one of Cornwallis’s brigades it was all downhill for the British from that point on right up to their final debacle at the hands of the Americans and French at Yorktown a year later.

    It was a grave mistake for us to get involved in the English stupidities and slaughters of WWI and WWII in which we had no strategic interests at stake.

  16. You are talking yourself into a corner.

    Is the there a True Cavarly Division?

    Normally you talk about Lancers, Hussars or individual regiments like the Life Guards or Blues&Royals when you describe the level of True Cavalry TM you want to define.

    Cossacks often fought on foot. Indeed they did do much of the time. Are they not cavalry?

  17. Appart from developing some of the first deployed tanks yeah, stupid fucking Tank Corps. Hehehe. Are you suffering from Alzheimer’s? The French and British developed the tank itself. How stupid was that?

    The Germans decided against tank development in ww1 altogether and the Yanks borrowed the Male and Females or borrowed French Renaults.

    The Germans used cavarly mixed in with tanks on the Easten Front well into the war. So did the Russians.

  18. Tditionally the least capable officers have been stuck in the cavalry as long as they pay to keep the horse shod and their uniforms in good order.

    The best officers are given infantry command and brightest assigned to artillery.

  19. I grew up in the NE but i dont live their now. 🙂 Partial blood (italian Great grandfather) but im not a liberal either. Thats partly why i moved out of the NE to many Libtard Jews whites and way to many spics and niggers!!!

Comments are closed.