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.

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.

Happy Christmas everyone

Been a pretty good year what with Donald and BREXIT.

On to 2017!

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.


Like:
'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.

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.  

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."

I 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 alia, Hellery 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.

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.