Friday, 30 December 2016

This year's greatest gift

2016 has given us many reasons to be hopeful, not least by way of the Trump and Brexit phenomena. But most of all as the year the (((mainstream media))) lost its credibility and therefore its power. This was the year of the Great Media Awakening, when the general public began to realise the true nature of the lies, equivocations and evasions, of the mind-rot peddled to them as news.

Earning credibility is a slow and painstaking process. Losing it can be devastatingly fast. Ordinary people can now discern The Agenda, maybe for now through a glass darkly, but soon they'll meet it face to face. Hard to see any way back for the presstitutes now that the internet provides a cornucopia of hard news, research, well written content - and most of all an alternative. Even The Donald, to their horror, largely ignored the MSM, instead communicating directly with the public via social media. And I believe that as President he'll still do this. I also believe that the full impact of this year's developments has yet to dawn fully on the media whores.

Their reaction, such as it is, has been soooooo, like, like .....pre-internet? I mean how McCarthy-era is it to ban readers from commenting, to close down offending outlets, to jail Thought Criminals? How about a spot of book burning for real authenticity? And now their war on "fake news"? Oh PULEEZE!!! In fact this has hit them with something even worse than distrust: Derision. Yes, there's now widespread laughter and ridicule at the idea of the MSM chasing down "fake news".

None of us of course will lose the run of ourselves here. The enemy still controls the commanding heights of the communications arena.....TV and print media, Hollywood, the main internet and social media platforms. And of course every Western government. We're still a bit like the samizdat rebels in the USSR.

But look how things worked out for them.

Tuesday, 27 December 2016

A development to celebrate

I see that the Democrats might elect a black Muslim as Chairman of the Democratic National Convention. I hope they do. Just like I hope the British Labour Party keep electing the likes of Dianne Abbot and Imram Khan as their public faces. And they probably will because as one splendid lady recently informed us 'we don't need White people running our (sic) parties anymore'.

Now much and all as I dread blacks being free to deploy their legendary organisational skills against us I otherwise welcome these developments because they'll accelerate the move to ethnicity-based politics. Or to be more specific they'll encourage Whites to finally wake up and embrace their own identity politics. Democrats and Labour will duly degenerate into a rag bag collection of blacks, browns, Muslims, sexual freaks and White cucks with nothing to bind them other than their antipathy to normal Whites. Cohesive they will not be. On the other hand an implicitly White party will, in an identity politics context, have every reason to be cohesive.

The position of Jews under such a dispensation is intriguing. Obviously White ethnic consciousness embodied in strong united Parties is their stuff of nightmares. But a black/brown/Muslim melange could be even worse, not least  because it'd give short shrift to any attempt at leveraging  muh Holocaust.  Bear in mind too that the Alt-Right, the genesis of White identity, carries a deep vein of scepticism towards the Tribe and their role in White displacement.

So yes, celebrate the ongoing takeover of the Dems and Labour by angry anti-White minorities. And in due course enjoy the sight of them scrabbling over the scraps they get thrown by their ethnically conscious White rulers. That's assuming we haven't sent them back to the hell-holes whence they emerged.

Saturday, 24 December 2016

Thursday, 22 December 2016

A rhetorical device

When dealing with whinging immigrants most of us have probably used a derivative of 'well if you don't like it here just fuck off back to where you came from'. But based on the principle that if you're explaining you're losing maybe posing this recommendation in question form might be better.

'Why are you here in a White country?'  'If White countries are so bad for you why didn't you go to a non-White one?' 

'Can we assume by your choosing to live among Whites ahead of your own you see Whites as more desirable co-citizens? If so aren't we justified in not wanting these less desirable people coming to our countries?'

'If your own people and culture are so good can we assume you'll be heading back at the first opportunity? If not, why not? If it's the case that you actually prefer to live in a White country can we expect that from now on you'll STFU and just be glad we left you in?'

This structure can of course also be used when arguing with libtards about whingeing immigrants, replacing second person singular with third person plural. 

Remember, if you're explaining you're losing.

Monday, 19 December 2016

An interesting thought

There's this young girl that I know, thirteen, maybe fourteen. Highly intelligent and for her age very articulate. Although third or even fourth generation in the town where we both live she has to travel to another town, ten miles away for her secondary education. You see there's no room for her in the local school because hordes of cultural enrichers have needs too.

Although her current school developed an excellent reputation over many years it's experiencing problems aplenty in recent times. Its rapidly declining academic performance has coincided with the enrolment of large numbers of Africans. This girl freely tells me that the five Africans in her class are irredeemably stupid, make little effort to learn, are highly disruptive and require all kinds of remedial services (including full-time translators!).They loudly jabber away in their own lingua franca, ignore the teachers, and communicate via "clucking" (her word) noises. Leading the teacher to one day burst into tears and warn that the whole class might fail to graduate.

Anybody familiar with teaching blacks won't be in the least surprised by any of this. But here's my big takeaway: This girl (and I confirmed that most of her class felt the same way) had no problem seeing her black 'classmates' as very different, of lower intelligence, as a severe drag on the White students. And they have no inhibitions about saying so. Now this might just be a localised and short-term reaction, with grim acceptance and cognitive dissonance setting in as the kids get older. After all just about every institution of power (state, churches, educational establishment, media) forces them to point out the Emperor's fine clothes.

Or maybe they won't change. Maybe experiencing diversity at first hand, and its direct and tangible impact on their future prospects, will over-ride the unnatural constraints imposed on them. What would happen then?

Time will tell.  

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Are you still laughing?

"The achievement, if I can call it that, of inducing the most successful race in the world, the creator of the most advanced civilisation ever seen, to turn on itself and willingly self-destruct by way of societal degradation and internecine warfare is simply awesome. So incredible that, even as an agnostic, I sometimes wonder whether some supernatural agency is not after all involved."

wrote that some time ago as I metaphorically scratched my head at the West's ongoing destruction. I also wondered why those who'd already been amply rewarded continued their destructive role into old age. For example why does Peter Sutherland (now in his seventies and apparently in ill-health) still work assiduously to flood Europe with millions of Muslims and Africans despite the ensuing catastrophe that's coming down the line? Why does he not sit back and enjoy the millions "earned" during his career, or better again make some effort to undo the evil he's wrought?

Maybe the architect of the long march through America's institutions (and mentor for, inter aliaHellery Rodent Clinton and Obama) can shed some light on the issue. (((Saul Alinsky))) in Rules For Radicals, his blueprint of destruction, wrote the following in his introduction to that book. "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

Don't know about you, but I'm no longer laughing at the supernatural dimension.

Sunday, 11 December 2016

The Cyprus solution

The partition of the Island of Cyprus into ethnically distinct semi-states has been universally deplored. It's self evidently a Bad Thing, and this  explains the endless efforts  to undo it.   But I'd argue that the current two-state arrangement is far better than the "unified" country it replaced because the Greek and Turkish communities had never really lived together in peace and harmony. Relatively peaceful co-existence was maintained only by force (or the threat of force) first by the Ottomans, then by the British.

The Constitution implemented after independence attempted to paper over the fissures arising from two very distinct and mutually-hostile communities having to live together under a single polity. Predictably the resulting compromise was arcane, complex and highly unstable. Clauses geared towards countering crude majoritarian rule (4:1 Greek/Turkish ratio) ended up creating legislative gridlock from the highest levels down to the street level. According to one Constitutional scholar 'the Constitution of Cyprus stands alone among the constitutions of the world".

Not surprisingly the two communities were at one another's throats from the outset. Issues of contention included schooling, media control, taxation and the ability to create ethnically and religiously based municipalities. Such disputes were resolved by violence on the ground rather than by political means. The 'land of the sirens' came to represent something very different to that portrayed in Greek mythology. 

Eventually the attempt to reunite with Greece in 1974 precipitated a Turkish invasion and the de facto two-country solution we have today, with Turks in the North, Greeks in the South. Obviously the creation of this entity was accompanied by mass ethnic cleansing in both directions and involved much suffering and dispossession. But in due course Cyprus (i.e. the Greek part) became free, peaceful, prosperous and democratic. The inter-communal violence that scarred the island for centuries is no more. There are no more ethnic enclaves. Ordinary Cypriots are free to go wherever they want in peace.

The Turkish-ruled North has been nowhere as successful, suffering as it does from Islamic obscurantism, a large (and deeply-resented) influx of peasants from the Anatolian plains and a generally limited entrepreneurial culture. To add to their woes they've been enriched by large numbers of  fast-breeding Africans. This large-scale immigration might in time lead to the kind of communal strife commonplace when the island was 'united'. But for now both sides of the Green Line are mercifully free of this scourge.

All of this lends credence to the old adage 'high fences make good neighbours'. They really do. The experience also underlines the insuperable challenges that can arise when incompatible peoples occupy the same physical space. The corollary being that those now working to beset White peoples with such an abomination are traitors and should be treated as such.

Wednesday, 7 December 2016

The Austrian Presidential Election

Austria's women gave the Green Party Candidate an astonishing 62% of their vote in the recent Presidential election in Austria, over-riding the strong majority of men who voted for the Bad Nazi guy. This is a huge imbalance but should not come as a surprise because as a general rule men invade while women invite. All over the West it's mostly women who brandish the 'Refugees Welcome' signs. They also staff the reception centres and write anguished letters to their politicians. But why would they support an invasion of primitive misogynistic thieves and rapists? 

For a start women react more emotionally than do men. And it's here where the meme of The Boy On The Beach proved to be so powerful. A brilliantly-staged piece of propaganda, it reinforced the ongoing pictorial representation of the migrants as hapless women and children (notwithstanding that most of the invaders are aggressive young men). Women also have narrower spheres of interest and shorter conceptual time frames. So they'll subconsciously assess the invasion on what they perceive to be its more immediate impact on their own family and social circle, neglecting the broader and longer-term societal impact. This becomes more understandable given that men have largely determined the course of human history (exploration, warfare, scientific advancement etc.) while women acted as nurturers and home makers. You don't easily gainsay 10,000 years of evolution.

Some unique pathologies of today's Western world also exacerbate the problem. For instance White women have been conditioned to 'liberate' themselves from their evil patriarchal menfolk and demonstrate it by having few if any children. This has resulted in a huge cohort of older middle-class women with neither husbands nor children. The  distressed and helpless migrants can then serve as surrogates for otherwise stunted emotional outlets. And of course they also win a valuable virtue signalling resource, secure in the knowledge that Khaled the camel humper won't be moving into their gated communities. Not yet anyway.

I wonder should we rescind their right to vote?

Sunday, 4 December 2016

The man with a plan

A few weeks ago the inhabitants of the stony and wind-swept Aran Islands off Ireland's West coast got an unpleasant surprise. The operators of the ferry announced that they were withdrawing the service until the middle of next March. Panic ensued (if we were to believe some of the claims the islanders would in quick order be reduced to cannibalism) and after frantic intervention by the Government the company promised to maintain the operation until Christmas.

As the Government flailed around for potential solutions they ignored one staring them in the face: Using Ireland's Navy. But our boys in blue had more urgent work in hand - 'rescuing' migrants in the Mediterranean and transporting them to Europe. An article entitled Something Strange Is Taking Place In The Mediterranean says this about how such so-called rescues take place. "Human traffickers contact the Italian coast guard in advance to receive support and to pick up their dubious cargo. NGO ships [Irish Navy does the same] are directed to the “rescue spot” even as those to be rescued are still in Libya. The 15 ships that we observed are owned or leased by NGOs have regularly been seen to leave their Italian ports, head south, stop short of reaching the Libyan coast, pick up their human cargo, and take course back 260 miles to Italy even though the port of Zarzis in Tunis is just 60 mile away from the rescue spot."

The report has elicited outrage from almost all of the readers. But many repeat the infuriating fallacy that the invasion is due to stupidity on the part of Europe's leaders. But these people are not dumb, they're not stupid, and they're not stumbling into what will be a challenge of existential dimensions. No. The NWO globalists are fulfilling the plan drawn up by a man they honour with a prestigious prize every few years: Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, who said that 'the man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. ...'
To repeat, the flooding of Europe by Third World detritus has been carefully planned. It's supported, despite the occasional tactical retreats, by all of the Continent's political elite. If you doubt this just consider an alternative: Europe builds and staffs a number of 'reception centres' for those supposedly fleeing persecution, and locates them in the Middle East and North Africa. They could house them at a fraction of what it costs in Europe and - here's the great part - all those drownings that they seem so concerned about would immediately end. But they have not done that and they will not do it. Because that would up-scuttle their plan for White genocide.