Wednesday, 31 July 2019

Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union

Have you noticed increasing references to the alleged persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union? There's even a book about it The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry. Oy vey! The primary driver for this is undoubtedly the prevailing anti-Russian narrative but I suspect that there are other reasons as well. Like increasing numbers of goyim awakening to the preponderant role played by Jews in inflicting the catastrophe of Communism on the unfortunate people of the SU (and elsewhere).

I have a rule of thumb which says that if Jews are pushing an agenda we can ipso facto assume it's bad for us. Hence we need the information to counter it. The claims of persecution are based on first, the number of Jews that came to grief in the Great Purge of the thirties, and second on the persecution Jews suffered from the beginning of the fifties and onwards. It's important to understand that their ethnicity had nothing to do with those Jews purged in the thirties. Stalin's goal was the elimination of the Old Bolsheviks, especially those with lingering attachment to Trotsky, many if not most of whom were Jewish. During WW II and its immediate aftermath Jews continued to play a leading role in Soviet politics and culture.

While the SU was one of the first countries to offer the new state of Israel de jure recognition it soon became clear to Stalin that the sympathies of the SU's Jews lay more with Israel than with the SU. Stalin began to murmur about a 'fifth column' operating within the country. This suspicion went into overdrive when important Jewish organisations began agitating for Crimea to be handed over as a 'Jewish homeland' within the USSR. As happens frequently, and in my opinion is happening again today, the Jews failed to realise the resentment they were generating. This was exacerbated by the kind of nepotism we see in the West and by the emergence of cheeky and rebellious films and plays - the arts, quelle surprise, was an arena which they dominated. But Stalin didn't like being poked and quickly had the most prominent 'artists' arrested or killed. This was coupled with a systematic removal of Jews from key positions especially in the security services.

Naturally the Jews fought back and Stalin became convinced they were out to kill him - the so-called Doctors' Plot. There may well have been such a plot but the important thing was that Stalin thought there was. At which point he conveniently died (or was killed) in 1953. Whereas the restrictions were considerably eased after his death Jews never recovered their pre-eminent position in the SU and a cloud of suspicion clung to them even when they succeeded in reaching important positions. As the collapse of Communism approached in the late eighties Jews, displaying the national loyalty for which they're famous, jumped ship for the West, citing unbearable anti-Semitic persecution as the cause. And we know how that worked out for us.

So in summary the story of Jewish persecution in the SU is just another blatantly misleading and self-serving trope deployed against us. We need to nail it whenever we get the chance.

Monday, 29 July 2019

Labour's Anti-Semitism problem

What's behind the transformation of the British Labour Party into a 21st century re-embodiment of the Nazis or the Fascists? Things seem to be really bad but according to the BBC "anti-Semitism was generally not regarded as a big problem in the Labour Party before Jeremy Corbyn's election as leader in September 2015". Which is putting it mildly as the previous leadership election was between two Jewish brothers. But now cries of anguish rend the air, defectors are leaving in droves and the very existence of the party has been brought into question.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has announced a wide-ranging investigation into whether Labour "unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish". Lords Turnburg, Triesman and Darzi (two Jews and an Iraqi) have resigned, "finally abandoning their struggle against Labour's antisemitism". Triesman has admitted that the party is now 'beyond reform'. Now that is serious. Many MPs have actually started a breakaway party (lead by Spear-Chukka Ummuna, scion of a legendary aristocratic British dynasty). Images of Germany in the 1930's are regularly conjured up and the "right-wing" Spectator asks if the gravity of the crisis means the party no longer has a reason to exist. (The Spectator is what passes for right-wing these days. Item: Let's call economic nationalism what it really is: 'White supremacism.')

In March 2018, scores of Labour MPs joined Jewish groups, including the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and other anti-racism campaigners to demand action in an unprecedented "Enough is Enough" rally outside Parliament. In July 2018, the UK's three main Jewish newspapers [are they not all Jewish newspapers?] published the same front page, warning that a government led by Mr Corbyn would pose an "existential threat to Jewish life".

Fearing the onset of another Holocau$t™ I set about determining the full scale of the horror. I have good tidings for those of you racked with worry at the possibility of Jewish party members being savagely beaten and dragged through the streets or Labour formally adopting the position that all Jews must be expelled from Britain. In fact it's quite difficult to find any overt examples of good old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Make that impossible to find. The Daily Mail managed to dredge up a video from 2013 of Corbyn saying that a group of British Zionists had "no sense of English irony". This lead former Chief Rabbi Lord Sachs to denounce it as "the most offensive statement" by a politician since Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, going on to accuse the Labour leader of being - wait for it - an anti-Semite.  Well Rabbi the only rational response to that would be if that mild throwaway remark is 'the worst' then you got nothing to worry about.

But there's more. A Jamaican party member had the temerity to ask why The Holocau$t™ is the only one commemorated. Why is not
 the Atlantic slave trade regarded as a holocaust in its own right? Cue an explosion of outrage from the usual suspects. The poor woman, despite abject apologies and retractions was driven from her post. We get a bit closer to the real reason with Labour's refusal to adopt some clauses of the 'internationally recognised' definition of anti-Semitism including, crucially, that of 'accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country'. 

And that my friends pretty much sums up the raging anti-Semitism of Corbyn and the Labour Party. There's nothing to it and that explains the lack of specificity behind the campaign. The real reason lies in Labour's perceived disobedience in failing to unquestionably support all things Jewish and Israeli.  This might well work as already Corbyn is running for cover while the 'anti-Semites' have been marginalised. Well at least for now. 

You see the ruthless crushing of dissent is a double-edged sword. Yes, it can work and has worked in the past as we all know. But in countries with a tradition of free speech such draconian measures also lead to pent-up resentment, the expression of which could lead to unpredictable outcomes. When you control the levers of power, especially media, it's easy  to miss this build-up. Remember Nicolae CeauČ™escu and many another dictator thought they were loved by the people right up till the time they were lynched. Couple this attitude with raging paranoia and you have a combustible combination.

Friday, 26 July 2019

Mueller's testimony

So what can we make of the Mueller testimony? What we saw was cringe-making as he babbled incoherently, refused to answer dozens of questions he deemed 'outside my purview', lacked focus, asked again and again for the question to be repeated, seemed to forget even the most basic details, stuttered, lost his train of thought. No surprise then that he was dismissed as a doddering geriatric in the first stages of dementia. 'Mueller is coming off as a semi-senile old goat who doesn't have a clue what he's doing or talking about' was one of the least unkind reactions to his performance. Fox News emphatically declared that he 'is in early-stage dementia'.

But could that be exactly the impression he was trying to create? Remember he's been involved in one shocking scandal after another throughout his nefarious career. He's knowingly had innocent men jailed while DA in Boston, pursued Steven Hatfill for seven years for the anthrax attack while the real culprit roamed free. Hatfill sued and got millions yet Mueller refused to apologise or express regret for ruining Hatfill's life. This was too much even for Eric ('know a Mob Family looking for a lawyer?') Holder who complained about the dreadful miscarriage of justice perpetrated by Mueller. His handling of the BCCI banking scandal allowed the perps to flee and saw the depositors lose their money. He was up to his neck in 911 planning and the subsequent cover-up. He used the FBI to provide misleading information to justify the Iraq war.

In other words he has a lot to answer for. And with the Deep State rats - hopefully - jumping ship what better way to prevent becoming a patsy than by deploying the Sudden Onset Dementia (SOD) strategy?  But if we accept that he is going senile and that he genuinely did not write the report, then who did?  Andrew Weisman, take a modest bow. According to Mark Levin 'what you saw today … was a fraud, a ruse, that has been perpetrated against the American people. There is no Mueller report. It’s a Weissmann report. There is no Mueller special counsel. It was the Weissmann special counsel. Weissmann. And this little bastard — that’s right, I said it! — the invisible hand that’s been behind the whole damn thing, from day one. … This wasn’t a special counsel office; this wasn’t an office of prosecutors. This was an office of Democrat activists who happen to be attorneys in the government. And they had the power to use criminal law and processes and tools to advance a political agenda, even though they failed.' 

It might well appear as if Mueller failed his way to the top. But that depends on what we mean by 'failed'. One man's failure can be another's success. Take the Iraq war, which has become generally recognised as a total disaster. And it was, for the people of Iraq who incurred millions of casualties and saw their infrastructure destroyed, for the thousands of Americans killed and wounded and for the American taxpayer. But it wasn't a disaster for the those who fomented the war, namely the MIC and Israel. Tens of billions on shiny new weaponry while a powerful enemy of Israel reduced - straight from the Yinon Plan playbook - into weak feuding ethnic and religious statelets.

So success is relative. And Mueller has been a success. 

So far.

Sunday, 21 July 2019

Russia commemorates the Romanovs. But not everyone's happy

Last year Russia saw massive numbers of its people commemorate the centennial of the murders  (Wikipedia calls them 'executions') of the last Czar and his family. (And by the way the same project saw to the virtual extermination of the country's whole ruling class and its intellectual elties, providing Lenin with his desired population of 'white niggers'.) According to Russia Insider "This year, 60,000 Orthodox faithful gathered for the nighttime Liturgy at Church on the Blood in Ekaterinburg, built on the site where the Royal Family and their faithful servants were brutally slain, and the following procession to the Monastery of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers in Ganina Yama, built on the site where their holy bodies were discarded".

But not everyone was happy, as the following bizarre headline in Western propaganda outfit The Moscow Times indicated:

A Conspiracy Around the Romanovs’ Murder Has Alarmed Russian Jews

Almost 100 years have passed, but the Russian Orthodox Church cannot let it rest

Doesn't that beggar belief? In any event the Tribe has good reason to feel uncomfortable about the Romanovs' fate because just about everyone associated with it - from the killers themselves right up through the chain of command to the very top - was Jewish.  The murders were carried out under the direct command of Yakov Yurovsky, who had armed himself with several revolvers, a bayonet and a short-handled axe. Presumably because young girls are hard to finish off.  Aleksandr Beloborodov (Vaysbart) was Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Ural Regional Council which controlled the region where Filipp Isayevich Goloshchyokin* was Military Commissar. Nothing happened there without their approval. The direct order for the murders came from Yakov Sverdlov (Yankel-Aaron Movshevich Solomon), Chairman of the Communist Party Central Executive Committee in Moscow. It's not a well known fact but around this time Sverdlov was better known and more powerful than either Trotsky or Stalin. All of these were Jewish, while Lenin, the man who gave the final sign-off, was quarter Jewish and grew up in a Yiddish-speaking household.

Well maybe the chain of command went even higher than Lenin.

"The order to murder the Tsar and his family actually came from New York. The Bolsheviks had been forced to flee from Yekaterinburg in such haste that they had no time to destroy all the telegraph strips. Those strips were later found in the telegraph house. [White leader] Nikolai Sokolov took care of them but could not decipher them. This was done only in 1922 by a group of experts in Paris. Sokolov then discovered that the strips were extremely revealing, since they dealt with the murder of the Tsar and his family.......... The chairman of the Central Executive Committee, Yakov Sverdlov, had sent a message to Yakov Yurovsky where he relayed that after he had told [Bolshevik financier] Jacob Schiff in New York about the approach of the White army, he had received orders from Schiff to liquidate the Tsar and his entire family at once."

So maybe the Tribe have reason to be worried. I guess we can expect a call from Bibi to his BFF Putin to clamp down on such dangerous developments.

* Not many people can claim to have had their own personal genocide named after them but Goloshchyokin is one (the Goloshchyokin Genocide). His was in Kazakhstan where up to one third of the population starved to death under his  forced collectivation programme. His mom must have been so proud.

Friday, 19 July 2019

Shock as well-known actor comes out

The entertainment industry has reacted in shock to the news that Robin Banks has 'come out'. "I just had to do it" he admitted at a press conference.  "The rumours and innuendo and the stress of hiding one's sexual orientation were becoming too much to bear.  If this damages my career or if colleagues find it offensive....then so be it. But the more people who come out, the easier it will be for others to follow."

The reaction to Banks' disclosure ranged from mild approval to open hostility. While his parents admitted "we still love our son" a distraught Tanya Hyde, Chairzir of the Gay And Lesbian Alliance admitted that "I feel like I've been physically beaten". "To discover after all those years that Robin Banks is a straight white male is literally the worst thing that ever happened in my life. After the wonderful progress that's been made, gay marriage, paedophiles adopting children, transgender programming in schools...this has come as a horrible surprise." Drying zir's tears Hyde added "under no circumstances must he be allowed to play the part of a non-straight zir again".  

A clearly distressed Da’Quonde King’Kong’Quisha (pictured left), Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and Professor of Moral Theology at Cambridge University exclaimed 'Oogabooga! Eek! Eek!".  Jonathan Silverplatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) referred ominously to "this terrifying development". "Be under no illusion" he warned, "this puts us on a slippery slope to a new Holocaust.  For me it conjures up images of Nazi Germany where heterosexual white youths spent their Summers in the countryside, working and innocently playing.  So you can understand why I'm literally shaking".

Banks has remained out of the public eye since making his shock announcement and time will tell how it impacts his career. Given the prevailing revulsion towards straight white males the omens are not good for him.

Epstein on suicide watch

Wednesday, 17 July 2019

Black intellectuals

As many of you know I spent a fair amount of time working in Africa, an experience which my wife claims transformed me from a liberal to a Nazi. Being in the technology field my interactions were largely with 'the best and the brightest' that those countries offered. Remarkably these people, though dispersed from South Africa to Ivory Coast, all demonstrated a number of common characteristics, characteristics which they even share with black 'intellectuals' in the West such as Michael Eric Dyson. This interview between JF Gariepy and the son of an Ethiopian immigrant to America provides a perfect illustration. 


An attitude of supreme (but totally unjustified) narcissistic confidence. Loud, assertive and patronising. Whether this is just posturing or whether they actually realise their inadequacies is unclear but the spurious confidence probably derives from being unused to questioning from their less intelligent fellow blacks and White libtards. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king and all that.

An inability to process a logical and coherent argument. Similarly they're unable to anticipate when they're painting themselves into a corner, when an averagely intelligent White person could see it coming a mile off. And they never prepare adequately....which probably derives from their narcissism and delusional confidence. For instance Nimrod talks down to JP on the issue of eugenics only to discover that it's a field in which the latter is an acknowledged expert.

Their apparent expertise is skin deep. Always. Despite the confident assertions their expertise quickly dissolves in the face of informed counter-arguments. I've seen this so many times. It seems - truly - that blacks are unable to build deep expertise in any subject.

Rhetorical devices which they wield as required to get themselves out of a corner and/or to put down their opponent. These include constant interruptions, throwing out 'big words' to make themselves appear intelligent, snickering, dismissing semantic consistency as 'word magic', and saying 'I don't even know what you're arguing' or 'hey, that was funny' or 'it's called xxx. Do you know what xyz is? Look it up'. For the record, we could make some use of these devices ourselves.

On a closing note I see that despite the firestorm that followed Trump's 'go back to where you came from' suggestion his popularity has actually gone up among Republicans (and I imagine a lot of White Democrats as well).

Saturday, 13 July 2019

Some random thoughts on the Epstein case

The ongoing Epstein saga is fascinating beyond measure. Will it result in the exposure and disempowerment of the Devil-worshipping paedophile cabal that rules over us? I doubt it. But first let me ask how we got to this stage. Why didn't the (almost) all-powerful cabal kill this off before it got traction? Just like they did with the first attempt to bring Epstein to justice. They have the wealth, power and information access to have strangled it at birth. Yet now they're in damage control mode.

Will they be brought to justice? I doubt it. For sure Epstein is going to the slammer but I find it hard to believe that the likes of Clinton, Prince Andrew, the Rothschilds and God knows who else will have their collars felt. They might deploy the same bait and switch strategy they're using in the 9/11 Grand Jury case. I wrote here that "the GJ can act only on the evidence provided by the US Attorney's office. That means that a US Attorney with a lot of skin in the game could spike the investigation from the outset. And who'll be the one overseeing this investigation? Why one (((Geoffrey Berman))). Not only is Geoffrey a (((Geoffrey))) he was also John McStain's personal lawyers. He can select the jury members and determine what evidence is presented to them. And finding suitable members is unlikely to present him with too many difficulties as Manhattan is Zio Central. And in the unlikely event that his selected GJ fails to comply he can simply replace them with a new jury. All of which will remain secret to the general public.

I hope I'm wrong but I can't see the Deep State that orchestrated and covered up the 911 attacks allowing the full truth to emerge from this exercise. Here's a more likely scenario. The GJ will be used to foist the Saudis with the complete blame while carefully avoiding the Mossad/Jewish elephant in the room. This will be seized on the the media and the political system as a once-and-for-all clearing of the decks. Now let's look for some Saudi fall guys and get on with out lives." In the Epstein case one of the lead prosecutors is Comey's daughter while the judge is a Jew with a record of twisting the law against conservative causes. The New York South jurisdiction will ensure it's more of a jewry than a jury!  They'll know the danger of the goyim connecting the J-dots.

Which brings me to the strange case of Alan Dershowitz and his campaign to have the Epstein case papers made public. Given that he's almost certainly guilty (just look at him) why would he do that? My theory is that he wants to identify the accusers at which point he can unleash his buddies in the media to traduce them and undermine their credibility. For sure he doesn't want to see justice done.

Anyway, these are just a few thoughts on the case which has the - slight -  potential to bring the House Of Satan crashing down.

Tuesday, 9 July 2019

The McElligots - a step too far?

The McElligots, a new soap opera which RTE has described as 'brave, ground-breaking and edgy' has attracted a storm of criticism from multiple sources. Tintin O'Foole, Culture Critic at the Irish Times described the series as 'sickening'. 'In a throwback to Ireland's darkest days The McElligotts features an all-white Irish household in which the father works while the mother stays at home to look after the family, all of whom go to Mass every Sunday. Hello!!!  The Current Year is 2019. I'm a proud and tolerant liberal but everyone associated with this should be fired, if not prosecuted for hate'.

Ivan Aikenhead of the LGBTQVBRXNL Alliance admitted 'I literally cried' after watching the first series, adding wistfully 'I wish it reflected real life like Eastenders, which handled the recent multiracial mother-father-daughter menage-a-trois episode with such taste and sensitivity' Oogabooga Bambaluba of the Irish Immigrant Association, speaking from his Government-funded apartment in swanky Dublin 4, condemned the 'total lack of diversity' in the series and - ominously - warned that the show's 'exclusion and hate' could drive many people of colour back to Africa.

Former Justice Minister Alan Shatter admitted to being, well, shattered by the series.'There's only one word to describe this abomination: Hate. For instance a Crucifix is openly visible in one of the scenes and the priest in the series - a white priest - is neither gay nor a child-molester. What kind of message does this send? I literally see this ending in another Holocaust. I'm reminded of Brecht's chilling warning on Hitler 'Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again'. As a proud Jew and Irishman I despair”

Annie Price, spokesperson for RTE, defended the show. "Our idea was to add diversity. I mean, where else on TV will you see a straight White middle-class heterosexual self-supporting family? But obviously we went too far. RTE apologises for any hurt or offence and has made available support services and safe rooms for those affected'.  

Sunday, 7 July 2019

The case for democratic eugenics

Eugenics has been getting a bad rap for a long time, especially from the left and from "liberals". But it wasn't always so. And that's not surprising given that its promise of long-term improvement of the human species fused neatly with the concept of Communism's New Man. Little surprise then that many if not most of the early 20th century's 'progressive' luminaries actively espoused it. These included Margaret Sanger, H.G. Wells, Bernard Shaw, the Webbs, Harold Laski and many more. But then came (shudder) the Nazis. And the rest is (fake) history.

Eugenics is now seen as a kind of Frankenscience, a subject not to be broached in polite circles. Especially among GoodWhites. But how could any of them object to the following proposal?

Anyone of child-bearing age who volunteers for sterilisation gets a cheque for €5,000. 

Simple as that. No incentives or restrictions based on race, religion, culture or economic class. On what basis could any virtue-signalling hypocrite object?  Well they would be mighty unhappy with the proposal. Because they know, even though they wouldn't directly admit it, that the beneficiaries would overwhelmingly be characterised by low intelligence and high time-preference. Which means fast-breeding White welfarists and blacks. They'd take up the offer in huge numbers and within a few generations their defective genes would start to disappear from our gene pool.

The luvvies might find this concept abhorrent but for sure the Chinese do not. They're already, at both Government and private levels, working to produce future generations of high IQ children. Meanwhile the long-term trend of increasing average IQ levels in White countries (the Flynn Effect) has gone into reverse. Yes, IQ levels in White countries are declining. And the decline is directly attributable to the relative growth in the numbers of black immigrants and of welfarists incentivised by the system to breed with all the foresight of stray dogs. This has catastrophic implications given that wealth and livability are directly correlated with intelligence. That's why the Chinese are so interested in the subject.

So my proposal literally has zero down-side. We'd reduce welfare dependency and its attendant pathologies as well as the proportion of blacks in our populations. But that's why our NWO overlords will never allow it.  Bertrand Russell, being one of them, explained it thus: "Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."

Friday, 5 July 2019

Announcing the David Lammy Mastermind Award

I wrote a few months back that David Lammy, MP, could justifiably claim the title of Britain's Stupidest Person. But this didn't stop him getting on the BBC's elite Mastermind quiz, where his performance became the stuff of legend. Even for his 'specialised subject' (Bob Marley, not nucular fizzix)) other contestants answered more than he did. Recognising his humiliation the moderator took the unprecedented step of prompting an answer to the identity of the first female Nobel Prize winner for physics. 'Marie.....' the host ventured, to which Lammy brightly responded 'Antionette'. He went on to say that Henry VIII was succeeded, somehow, by Henry VII. He's on record as complaining bitterly at the racism of Papal Elections in which black smoke is seen as bad, having never heard of the ancient electoral process.

Now in honour of his unique achievements I hereby announce the establishment of the David Lammy Mastermind Award, which goes to the stupidest quiz answer of the year. Here are a few suggestions.

Ben Shephard: "Between 1991 and 1999, Peter Schmeichel was the goalkeeper for which English football club?"
Contestant: "Germany?"

Jeremy Paxman: "What is another name for 'cherrypickers' and 'cheesemongers'?"
Contestant: "Homosexuals."
Paxman: "No. They're regiments in the British Army, who will be very upset with you."

DJ: "What was Hitler's first name?"
Contestant: "Heil."

Jamie Theakston: "Where do you think Cambridge University is?"
Contestant: "Geography isn't my strong point."
Theakston: "There's a clue in the title."
Contestant: "Leicester?"

DJ: "Name a film starring Bob Hoskins that is also the name of a famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci."
Contestant: "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"

Bradley Walsh: What is the only planet in the universe known to support life?
Contestant Jack: Mars?

Alexander Armstrong: Name a country that ends in two consonants?
Contestant Sarah: "I did Geography at A-Level but that's about as far as it goes. Oh.. erm... Paris?"

Host: "Which European country is Budapest the capital of?"
Contestant: "This might be a stupid question. I thought Europe was a country? I know they speak French there, don't they? Is France a country?"

Bradley: "Complete the popular saying, 'Always a bridesmaid, never the…'"
Contestant: "Groom."

Bradley: "In 2009, Sunderland scored against Liverpool when the ball deflected off what object? A beach ball, an ice cream van or a sunbathing German."
Contestant: "Ice Cream Van."

I'm sure Lammy is nodding his head in approval of such erudition.

(By the way, this genius was given admission to Harvard and was Minister for Higher Education at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in the last Labour Government.)

Monday, 1 July 2019

The happy carefree life of a cultural enricher

The young Irishman pictured here has been very naughty. Specifically he, along with two other Nigerians, raped and otherwise sexually assaulted a 14 year-old girl a few years back. The girl told police that the three accused took it in turns to pin her to the ground and forcefully have sex with her. She said she was still on anti-depressants and had suicidal ideation four years on as a direct result of the abuse.  A very serious offence, one for which an Irish offender would get ten years in the slammer at a minimum. 

But these offenders are black, and Muslim. Right at the pinnacle of the Victimhood Hierarchy.  And they're being tried in a Western court. So they walked. That's right, they walked. Judge Mary Ellen Ring noted that the three men will carry a sexual offence conviction with them, which may “cause them not to get employment, or to lose employment.” She said this was punishment in itself and was likely to come back against them in many years to come. Yes, she actually said that. Judge, for a Nigerian parasite in welfare-rich Ireland work is just about the last thing he thinks about. What were the other mitigating factors? Akinade 'showed remorse' and was 'co-operative with police'.

So there!

Akinade was due to be deported after the conviction but, wait for it, another bewigged imbecile not alone blocked the deportation but granted him asylum. Why? Because according to Justice Bernard Barton he was a ‘hot prospect for the future for Irish football’.  Not content with this the rapist then, with the help of publicly-funded hot-shot lawyers, got injunctions against five newspapers preventing them from publishing his name. And who presided over these cases? The same Justice Barton. 

And did these splendid young gentlemen suffer the torment of guilt, sleepless anguished nights where their crimes came back to haunt them as feared by Judge Ring? No. In fact after the court case they took to social media to mock and abuse the victim. This by the way was in flagrant breach of a restraining order issued by the courts and for which breach they suffered no repercussions.   

The happy carefree life of a cultural enricher in today's Ireland.