Tuesday, 31 December 2013


Much comment on the previous post about the possibility of Vladimir Putin and  Russia as the last best hope for White Nationalists. Are those hopes realistic? I've put my thinking cap on and here's my position.
Ok, first the positives.  For a start I love the way he refuses to be intimidated by ‘public opinion’ or warnings from his putative moral superiors in the West. Without messing he’s awarded Pussy Riot and the Greenpeace people hefty jail sentences and he’s banned the proselytising of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, outraging Western degenerates such as the ubiquitous Stephen Fry (who, you’ll never guess, equated it to the Holocau$st ‘where most of my family were exterminated’).
He’s also restored much of the power and wealth of the Russian Orthodox Church (it’s only with difficulty I see this as a positive, and only on the basis of my enemy’s enemy being my friend.)  And there’s no doubt that he has made some powerful observations on the moral and demographic decline of the White race (The white race is dying out.  Do you understand what I am saying?”) and has acknowledged that this destruction has been driven from the top by ‘powerful forces’.  The clear inference being that such a thing won’t happen in Russia under his watch.
But will it?
There’s cause for great concern.  First it’s clear that his style is more USSR Release 2, or that of a Czar, rather than that of a Russian nationalist.  Accordingly he’s set great store by accepting, nay, welcoming, huge numbers of Asiatics and north Caucasians…..overwhelmingly Muslim.  On my last visit to Moscow I was staggered at the demographic change, from about 95% White ten years ago to about 70% now. There is no doubt that, despite his fine words, Putin has facilitated this, directly and indirectly, (e.g. employment and welfare bias) and almost exactly a year ago introduced an Amnesty for millions of such illegal immigrants.  Does not all of this sound eerily familiar?
As in the West, a heavy clampdown on nationalism is a corollary of mass immigration. And have no doubt, Putin has come down very hard on Russian nationalists. Despite perceptions to the contrary, Russia has its own panoply of ‘hate’ laws and has applied them almost exclusively against nationalists.  Just like in the West, attacks by enrichers get ignored, attacks by Russians on enrichers attracts the full force of the law and media. Putin’s antagonism to nationalists stems at least in part from the fact that they represent his strongest opposition by far.  The embodiment of that opposition, the Rodina (Homeland) party, has all but been destroyed.  But the persecution still goes on.
Worth noting here that (reflecting his nostalgia for the old USSR) Putin has established a youth organisation which is the old Komsomol in all but name. Any ambitious youth just has to join. And the new Konsomol is into multiculturalism in a way that would put an American university to shame. Every photo of the happy kids must feature a predefined (or so it seems) selection of black and brown faces (faeces?) and owners of said faces are promoted way out of line with their numbers and capabilities.
Bad as all of this undoubtedly is, it’s Putin’s relations with Jews that causes me the most concern. Now my main source of information here is my friend Oleg, whose view of Jews…….well, let’s just say that were our own esteemed Uncle Nasty to fall into his company he (UN) would soon be nervously edging towards the door.  (Here's my earlier post on Oleg).  Yet Oleg is not a liar and everything that I could check has stacked up.  Essentially “Putin is surrounded, supported, mentored and befriended by Jews and anti-Whites in his administration and, in fact, has been throughout his whole career.  Indeed he has.  Don’t be fooled by the Khodorovsky affair. Apparently Russia’s Jews had little time for him, and vice versa, and his jailing resulted from a power struggle with Putin, having nothing to do with his being an oligarch or Jewish. The oligarchs who have bent the knee to Putin have been allowed get away with their ill-gotten gains.
Wikileaks has provided extensive information on this subject (worth checking out for yourself).  We get the unexpurgated views of the stakeholders, and they are indeed revealing.  Here’s one example from the American Ambassador to Russia:  “Lazar [Berel Lazar, Chabad Lubavitch Shliach to Moscow and Chief Rabbi of Russia] called Putin the most pro-Jewish leader in Russian history, referring to his deep admiration for Israel and the Mossad, his trip to a kibbutz, and his cooperation with the Jewish community. Lazar noted the increase in Russian reverse immigration from Israel, estimating 100,000 Jews had returned in the past four years. He cited Putin's tolerance as a principal reason for the uptick”.
Oleg swears that Jews are at the levers of power in every state institution, and as elsewhere, work assiduously at recruiting and promoting their own. Anatoly Chubais, one of the architects of the looting of Russia under Yeltsin as well as a whole catalogue of other atrocious criminal actions, far from being jailed or, more justifiably executed, is, and has been for over a decade, one of Putin’s most powerful allies. He’s free to continue robbing the country blind, empowering his own Jewish mafia as he does so.  Oleg tells me that ordinary Russians are fully aware of this but feel powerless to do anything. As under the early USSR, there are severe penalties for ‘anti-Semitism’ which in practice means criticising anything or anyone that’s Jewish. By the way Oleg is emphatic that Putin’s mother was actually Jewish and it seems great efforts have been made to sanitise the official records, especially the spelling of her name. I’m unable to verify this, accounts are conflicting.
And we know, to our cost, what Jews do when they take over a country. No need to go over that again, isn’t that right, Mr. Shatter?  Now some people argue that Putin is merely working with Jews, that they don’t control him. Maybe, but if so, good luck to him with that. So going back to my original question, does Russia under Putin offer hope for Whites?  Based on the foregoing it would appear as if he’s as bad as any of the western traitors guilty of selling out their own countries.  But there is one strange and contradictory coda: Almost all the ‘bad guys’ in the west, the Neocons, the libtards, the BBC, the New York Times etc. they all hate him. What’s not to love….  inimicus inimici mei amicus meus est (my enemy’s enemy) and all that?
My view?  I think Putin sees himself as a modern Czar of the Russian Empire, a kind of a cross between Peter The Great and Stalin. He demonstrates strength, intelligence and persistence and could go on to be one of the most famous of Russian leaders. But a friend of White Nationalists?  I don’t think so.

Monday, 30 December 2013

Hey Bandar, get fitted for that bullet-proof vest!

The explosions in Russia in the lead-up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi bring to mind the famous/notorious meeting between Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar in Moscow last August. Bandar, among other things, is head of Saudi Intelligence.  He also (I know this from my many visits to that country) has a reputation for being totally corrupt, debased and degenerate, even by Saudi standards.

Anyway it seems that at that meeting Bandar made the Russians a generous offer in return for the Russians abandoning Bashar Assad.  "As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us."

It seems Putin was enraged by this and responded  “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned.”

You don't have to have a suspicious mind to draw the conclusion that the current bombings are payback for that rejection. After all, as Bandar said,  "the Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us."

So here I have a bit of advice for Bandar, worthless degenerate monster as he may be.  Get fitted for a Kevlar bullet-proof vest. You're not dealing with Obama, Cameron, Hollande or any of the other spineless drones who head western governments.  You're dealing with one tough cookie, former head of the KGB, one who has utterly defeated you and your allies in the war that you started in Syria. He will not react well to having his country and its citizens blown up.

I await his reaction with eager anticipation.  I'd happily accept a trebling of the oil price if it resulted from Bandar and his sick, vile kingdom being blown to, well, kingdom come.

Saturday, 28 December 2013

The nativists grow restless

As every schoolboy knows, Duck Dynasty reality star Phil Robertson was suspended from the super-popular show for (roll of drums)  HATE.  Specifically for saying - sorry, spewing, it's always spewing when it comes to HATE -  “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me."

What could be more hateful than that? 

And the good people at the A&E network immediately responded - following squeals of outrage from the gay 'community' -  by suspending Phil from the show. The suspension was greeted with predictable approval by the 'liberal' MSM.  To digress for a moment, it's perfectly clear that A&E, from the depths of their hermetically sealed Hollywierd cocoon, originally envisaged that the show would be for laughs, as their sophisticated viewers cracked up at the antics of the rednecks out in a Louisiana swamp.  But again, as every schoolboy knows, the show was a hit for precisely the opposite reason as the views and lifestyle of the down-to-earth family resonated to an extraordinary degree with the viewers.

Cue an explosion of outrage from said viewers when the suspension was announced,  followed by demonstrations and boycotts.  Immediately sensing the potential impact on the bottom line (as it were) the freaks at A&E ingloriously caved in and reinstated Phil.  This my friends is another sign that the nativists grow restless. Hopefully demonstrations and boycotts will soon be replaced by flaming torches and tumbrels.


Duck Quackers:  1

Fudge Packers:  0

PS: Off topic, but there's some very good stuff on bitcoin on the comment thread to this post.

Tuesday, 24 December 2013

Happy Christmas Everyone!

And note that I did not wish a Happy Xmas, or Happy Holiday, or Kwazoo or whatever else they use in the war against Christmas.
And may all your Christmases be WHITE! 

Tiger gets his Christmas Wish

Sunday, 22 December 2013

How to handle Deluded White 'Liberal' Females (and males)

This post is a follow-on to the previous one in that it was the same social occasion and the same people. As I've said before (and I accept that some of us are more vulnerable to 'liberal' (ha!) retaliation than are others) the best approach for a WN is to be unapologetic for what we say.  Works for me and this instance underlines its effectiveness.

DWLF in accusatory tone: 'So you're saying that blacks are inferior to Whites?'

Me: 'Are you serious?  Is this a serious question?'

DWLF falteringly: 'Well, yes'

Me: 'So let me understand this. You're asking whether the race that invented just about everything the world uses today is not superior to one that, right up to the present day, has no written language, no system of even the most basic mathematics, whose societies are  - without exception - poverty-stricken, barbaric and primitive? They never built anything more than a single story grass hut and never discovered the wheel.'

Listen, not only are they inferior to Whites, they're inferior to BEAVERS, who build much better and more complex homes. Why they're even inferior to the fucking DUNG BEETLE which at least discovered a rudimentary wheel structure to roll away the balls of shit.  Jesus, and you ask me if WHITES are superior?  Are you for real?'

 Beaver lodge architecture
Dung beetle 'wheel'

Now this was greeted with squeals of outrage-cum-laughter.  But note, mainly laughter.  I jokingly pretended to look into the ear of the DWLF purporting to check for a brain.  The interesting thing is that even she was laughing and her outrage was really de rigueur rather than heartfelt.

I felt safe in letting the subject change so as not to make it appear I was proselytising.  But for sure the seeds were planted, and more to the point a very touchy subject had been broached and handled without any comeback. I do recognise that every situation is different.  But I believe, more strongly than ever, that equivocating and apologetically trying to get your point across does not work and serves merely to whet the inherently bullying proclivities of today's, excuse me, 'liberals'.

On the same subject you might be interested in this.

Thursday, 19 December 2013

"You're a Holocaust denier!"

Such was the charge levelled against me in a conversation with friends and acquaintances last Tuesday evening.  Am I?  Well, you be the judge as I lay out my position.

1. The Jews in Europe did indeed suffer a Holocaust in which vast numbers of them were killed and otherwise lost their lives during WW II.

2.  The numbers come nowhere near the mythical (and it is mythical) figure of six million. I don't know what the number was, maybe nobody does but I suspect it was closer to a tenth of that figure.

3. Other peoples suffered a Holocaust as well during this time, at least as bad as that suffered by the Jews. I have in mind the Poles, Russians, Ukrainians and of course the Germans themselves. The ratio of Tutsis slaughtered in Rwanda dwarfs the ratio of Jews killed in their Holocaust. Yet Jews have cornered the genocide market.

4. There was no plan to exterminate Europe's Jews.  The plan was to get them into work camps, slave labour camps if you will, and at the end of the war expel them to Israel, Uganda, Madagascar or the steppes of Russia.

5. The majority of Jewish deaths resulted from the actions of the Einsatzgruppen and their local allies.  These forces operated behind German lines after Operation Barbarossa to suppress local resistance.  Such resistance was strongly associated with Jews who were in any event an easily identifiable target. Vast numbers were murdered and buried in mass graves. The local forces allied to the Einsatzgruppen undoubtedly took the opportunity to settle many an old score as part of the process. Typhus outbreaks in the camps were also a major contributor...possibly the largest.

6. The idea of the gas chambers as a form of mass slaughter is a complete fabrication.

7. The piles of skeletal bodies as seen in the iconic photos from Belsen and elsewhere represented the victims of typhus and starvation, the latter brought on by the bombing of German supply lines.

I have not arrived at these conclusions casually or quickly. I truly believe that they represent what really occurred.

Tuesday, 17 December 2013

Sunday, 15 December 2013

The real nutcases

If you're like me you got a right belly laugh at the antics of the by now famous Thamsanqa Jantjie, the guy who flailed his arms about during the obsequies for St. Mandela, pretending to translate into deaf-speak. A confession: I find it hard to keep a straight face looking at legitimate deaf interpreters so you can understand how this guy totally cracked me up.  I must have looked at  the clip about fifty times.  And of course it's perfectly obvious how he got the gig...via BEE, black economic empowerment which means that no matter what the required qualifications, a black must get the job.  Provided he greases a few greasy palms beforehand. So as well as providing the amusement, the episode illustrated to the world once again blacks' total ineptitude at everything and also served as a reminder of the fate that awaits the once First World South Africa.

However I'm posting here on a different aspect, namely the staggering security breach the incident represented.  Bad enough were the guy to be just another African crook trying get his paws on a few shillings.  But it's since emerged that he suffers from 'schizophrenia and hallucinations and saw angels while gesturing incoherently just 3 feet away from President Barack Obama and other world leaders'.  Adding grist to the mill it appears he has been accused of rape, murder and assault, charges which seem to have been dismissed due to his being a nutcase.

Yet as the report says and photographs confirm, he was within three feet of Obama and other world leaders. Which brings me to the all-pervading American 'security' apparatus, the one revealed in all its horrifying glory by Edward Snowden.  You know the one that bugs everybody's phone, that analyses every email, text message and Internet post irrespective of time, location or target (and then sends the analysis on to Israel)? The one that steamrolls over fundamental rights enshrined in the US Constitution and whose managers perjure themselves - without sanction - as they testify before Congress?

Yes, that's the security apparatus I'm talking about.

And it's been justified in the name of 'keeping America safe'.  Yet it failed to prevent an hallucinating schizophrenic, one accused of rape and murder, getting with three feet of their President. And as every schoolboy knows, schizophrenics hear voices instructing them to do things. He could easily got a message along the lines of 'that guy on your right was behind the Affordable Care Act website.  Kill!  Kill!'  

The security failure is gross enough to beggar belief.  But not if you consider an alternative focus for the apparatus, namely American citizens. And this seems by far the likeliest explanation.  Remember this apparatus has failed in virtually everything significant on an international scale, failing to predict national uprisings throughout the globe as well as the fall of Communism.  Their only success really lay, in conjunction with Mossad, in pulling off the 911 false flag.

Yet they continue to get away with it, gaining greater influence and power every year. So who are the real nutcases here......the American people or Thamsanqa Jantjie?

Wednesday, 11 December 2013

A great opportunity for the equality agenda

Remember before Janet Yellen got the Fed job it was supposed to be a contest between her and Larry ('Larry the Looter') Summers?     Remember when 'battle lines have been drawn over gender'.  You see, one was a man, the other a man a woman. Kind of.  And it was deemed 'a battle of the sexes'.  Yellen's eventual appointment was deemed a vindication of diversity, equality and all that good stuff. 

But now it seems we could be faced with another gender battle regarding her deputy.  Former Hawkish Bank Of Israel Head Rumored To Be Next Fed Vice Chairman says Zero Hedge, which has a very reliable record on such reporting. And that former head is another man.

Now I have a crazy idea.  How about an  insensitive battle about religion/race as well as gender?   How about some quotas here?  You know, the kind of thing that says you must have a proportionate number of blacks and whites in the Fire Department, even if the blacks fail all the tests and their  reading skills render them unable to distinguish between petrol and water?  Remember, we are solemnly and endlessly reminded that employment must reflect America's rich mosaic of races.

Always eager to help, I've done some herculean mathematical calculations here and have arrived at the conclusion that, were we to apply the same principles to Fed and Supreme Court appointments the number of Jews would be, well, zero actually.  Yet there are four Jews on the SCOTUS and as for the Fed bosses..........

So how about it guys? 

Sweden: The end

Can a society ever recover from such depravity?

'A paedophile who sexually abused five-year-old girl is given permission to adopt a child in Sweden. A social affairs committee deemed him at low risk of reoffending.'   Oh well, that's ok then.
He's been found guilty of 90 crimes including molesting a young girl from his neighbourhood in 2004 and  was suspected of raping a young teenage girl.  Despite not being charged for rape, social services ruled that the man needed to be supervised around his own children. he was considered at high risk of sex offending again, with his ‘probable victims’ were underage girls. Treatment was again recommended as well as parenting classes.

And he's allowed adopt a child.

This is of course part of  the overall programme of societal destruction being visited on us and we're all in the cross-hairs.  Check out this if your stomach can take it.

Saturday, 7 December 2013

Explaining the hysteria

I know that Mandela is a special hate figure for many if not most on this blog, especially South Africans.  But I don't see it that way.  You see he fought diligently, relentlessly and highly successfully for his own people.  That was very bad for Whites there and it gets worse by the day.  Yet if Whites had had a Mandela on their side who knows how things might stand today? And sure he was involved in violence where innocent people got killed, but that happens in every rebellion or civil war.  (Why, we  have another black man in the White House who does it daily on a much bigger scale and he has the Nobel Peace Prize on his cupboard.) Mandela was also a man of principle,  enduring many additional years in prison for refusing to renounce his policies.  And finally, in a way unknown in the rest of Africa, he did seek to embrace the country's Whites, albeit being too old ultimately to make much difference.

Having said all of that he was, or should be, a minor world figure. Yes, he 'inspired' his movement from prison, was ultimately successful and held the position of President for a few years. In terms of global importance his country would realistically be ranked mid-range, about the same as say Algeria or Roumania.  Now can you imagine the global reaction to the death of one of their Presidents? A few lines on the back page.   Or let's take Presidents with colossal geopolitical achievements, such as Michael Gorbachev, who oversaw the collapse of the Second World, or Helmut Kohl who rammed through German reunification.  Compare those achievements to that of Mandela who, in effect, lead the majority in a sometimes violent rebellion against a tiny and ultimately doomed minority in a country of little global importance.

Realistically he didn't achieve a lot more than did ben Bella in Algeria or even Mugabe in Southern Rhodesia . But you'd never think that from the MSM in the west.  I don't need to rub your noses in it anymore. But to take just a single example, the front page of the Irish Times yesterday had the paper's logo at the top, while every other single pixel went to make up a giant picture of Mandela (whom many of the cringing and slobbering madia have now taken to calling -excruciatingly -  Madeba.)  Suffice to say I have never - ever -  seen such blanket hagiographical coverage, not even for JFK.

All for the leader of a rebellion in a faraway country of modest importance.

The whole treatment bears an uncanny resonance with that of the Peace Prize Laureate himself, you know the one who starts undeclared wars and makes a list of people to be killed at the beginning of each week.  I remember when he burst on the scene on the basis of his speech to the Democratic National Convention. Now I'm not looking at this with hindsight but I really did think at the time 'ok the guy made a good speech. So what?'  I say the same about any speech from any politician. Because they have highly paid speech writers to create the words while the pol just reads them out. The words are analysed and parsed and run across focus groups interminably before they're finally loaded up onto the speaker's autocue. The 'soaring rhetoric' is someone else's creation

So really we're just seeing another example of the attempt to transmogrify elemental and localised black accomplishments into something profound and global.  And that in turn is part of the broader strategy to make blacks appear good, successful, intelligent and thus attractive brood stock for na├»ve and credulous White females. Probably 95% of those creaming themselves over 'Madeba' don't realise why they're doing it. But the elite few currently implementing the long-standing programme of White destruction know exactly what's going on. And why. As the following quotation from Mein Kampf underlines, the author was ahead of his time in so very many ways.

“The Jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate.”

Couldn't put it better myself.

Thursday, 5 December 2013

Was Quisling a quisling?

Very few people can be said to have had their name become a word in its own right in the English language. Captain Jimmy Boycott, of Co. Mayo, would undoubtedly agree were he still with us.  Vidkun Quisling has also lent his name to the language albeit in an altogether less flattering way. Quisling has come to refer to the lowest form of traitor, the kind who supports the enemy against his own country.

So what did the eponymous Quisling do to merit such a reputation?

Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician (he served as Norwegian Minister of Defence) and quasi philosopher. His family were it seems warm and friendly and stayed close right  up until his death. He was a brilliant student at all levels. In the 1920's he undertook humanitarian work in the USSR to help ameliorate the effects of the notorious famines there and also worked on behalf of the Armenians. By all accounts he was a superb administrator and proved highly effective in offsetting what he came to see as the catastrophic effects of Bolshevism. He also provided diplomatic (and some say spying) services for Britain during this time.  His humanitarian work lead to his later being awarded the Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) by the King of England and similar recognition from the governments of Roumania and Yugoslavia.

Later after serving in a number of Governments his party seized power with the aid of Germany in the turmoil that ensued after WW II broke out.  While leader he worked diligently to broker peace between Germany and the Allies.  Later in the war he broke into tears when it became apparent that Germany had no plans to reinstate Norwegian independence. Towards the end of the war he did everything in his power to minimise Norwegian casualties, refused to sign any execution orders, risking his own life in the process. Once German defeat became inevitable he ordered forces under his command not to offer resistance to either the Allies or the internal resistance movement.

I've read a lot about his trial and, absolutely sincerely, believe it to have been an outrageous miscarriage of justice, featuring one trumped-up charge after another.  For example his death sentence was contrived under a law that was enacted half way through the war by the government-in-exile . (On the other hand one Maynard Cohen declared the trial to be a model of probity). All witnesses to his execution concede that he died bravely and fearlessly. His last words were, "I'm convicted unfairly and I die innocent. Within ten years I will be seen as another King Olaf'  (a legendary 11th Century Norwegian patriot)..

Sorry Vidkund, but The Narrative had been well established within that time and you were the designated  'bad guy'. 

So what exactly had he done to merit the ultimate fate, and his name becoming synonymous with treason?  Siding with the enemy?  Well, maybe. But you see Britain had violated Norwegian territory before Germany did. They knew that Germany desperately needed Swedish iron ore and were therefore equally desperate to stop its shipment. Towards this end they mined Norwegian territorial waters - an act of war against Norway - and had drawn up detailed plans for the invasion and occupation of that country.  Towards this end they had planned a false flag operation as a pretext to invade and  'protect' (on behalf of the Scandinavians of course!) the mines and shipping routes from  the Germans.  The Altmark Incident confirmed to Hitler that a British invasion of some kind was imminent and this is what lead to the German action. The Germans just beat the Allies to the punch.

Norway would be invaded by one side or the other no matter what the Norwegians wanted or did.

Had the British had got there first they would for certain have done exactly what the Germans did....i.e. install a puppet government to help them achieve their war objectives. What would have happened to their Quisling - the Good Quisling -  at war's end?  Well, we all know the answer to that, don't we children?  Compare and contrast Quisling with King Victor Emmanuel of Italy. This guy had worked with Mussolini and had earlier instigated invasions of numerous countries, which ultimately lead to tens of thousand of deaths. But - in the finest Italian tradition - yon king had the good sense to change sides when the WW II tide was turning. He ended his life in peace and luxury as did countless other mass murdering villains from that war.

As Talleyrand so well stated, treason is only a matter of timing. A couple of centuries earlier Sir John Harrington put the same concept to verse.

"Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Note: Most of my material came from Hans Fredrik Dahl's Quisling: A Study in Treachery, which, as the title makes abundantly clear, was not sympathetic to its subject.  Other sources were also used.

Monday, 2 December 2013

Nastiest Uncle: The final countdown

The issue of Nastiest Uncle has been dominating the airwaves again. And therein lies a problem. The debate about allowing him comment has been long-standing and I've covered the pros and cons more comprehensively here.   In general I believe that contrarian views should be allowed. After all, my awakening on the Jewish Issue came via the then contrarian views expressed by, inter alia, Uncle Nasty and kulak.

But I think the situation has changed for the following reasons. First NU posts too often. This was revealed in the comments analysis undertaken by katana which frankly astounded me. Second he invariably introduces a topic not related to the post in question......the thread then degenerating into an unstructured and unproductive melee of name-calling. These two factors mean that in essence he is, as claimed by multiple readers, derailing the purpose of the blog. And the only reason I do this blog is to try and awaken and explain to Whites to the plan for our ethnic destruction. If that's being undermined I need to respond.

Accordingly and reluctantly I'm imposing moderation sanctions on NU. I'm not reverting to the pre-approval form of moderation, rather consigning his comments, if they continue to appear, to the grim solitude of the ether.