Saturday, 22 February 2020

Ireland's warrior poet

Is Ireland's Queen, whoops, I mean President, the country's smallest, roundest and bravest person? Well there's no doubt about the first two because Michael D ('Five Bellies') Higgins represents a geometrically perfect sphere, 4 feet 6 inches (137 mm) in diameter. But what about the bravest? Well the casual student of Irish politics. basing his opinions on the MSM and chattering classes, would be left in no doubt as to this. Understand that by bravery here we don't refer to the kind which involves dashing into a blazing house to rescue a kitten or single-handedly putting flight to a gang of White thugs attacking a helpless Muslim immigrant. No, we're talking here about the verbal kind, the kind at which this leprechaun excels.

But this being Ireland you're always going to get the cynics, the sceptics, lurking in the darkest recesses of the Web. They spitefully point out things like the following:

Apparently Michael lies awake at night, agonising over global warming (or whatever it's called now) yet travels the world in his own Government jet. To lecture others on the need to reduce carbon emissions. And he's not beyond a bit of local travel as well, taking the jet for the short hop between Belfast and Dublin while his entourage traveled in a gas-guzzling convoy by road. He expressed his reluctance to meet Trump because of the latter's 'pernicious' environmental policies. Yet enthusiastically feted the leaders of a country (China) that produces more carbon emissions than America and Europe combined.
He has often courageously expressed his distaste for capitalism. Perhaps understandably given that his whole 'working' life has been spent feeding out of the public trough, as sociology (wouldn't you guess!) lecturer, Senator, Parliamentarian, Minister and finally President. Yet, like his socialist heroes Castro and Chavez, he too has managed to accumulate a hefty property portfolio himself, estimated to be in the region of €2 million. Despite being tortured by Ireland's homeless problem he nonetheless rents out to them at a hefty profit. He's bravely railed against property speculation and tax loop-holes yet capitalised on them himself by availing of a property tax wheeze in his native Galway. However, to avail of the tax break he had to sell on the property after seven years. Which resulted in half a dozen unfortunate students being unceremoniously dumped out onto the street and into the ranks of the homeless. You know, maybe the cynics might have a point after all. He "earns" more than the American President (Ireland is good like that) and has an annual unaudited tax-free expense allowance of no less than €320,000, an allowance which, despite requests, he has politely declined to have validated.

He has also fearlessly and valiantly taken all and sundry to task for their treatment of migrants. He wants to allow them all in. The cynics point that this will make the homeless crisis worse and that maybe this garden gnome could help by say, offering them free accommodation in his three properties or in the multitude of free rooms in the Presidential Palace. Others point out that while he decries the vice of gambling he's nonetheless a feted regular in the bookies' tents at the Galway Races. Or that he - or rather the taxpayer - spends €200 a time twice yearly to groom his two Bernese Mountain Dogs. Not exactly the stuff of a horny-handed socialist son of the soil.



But before we dismiss him as a bogus money-grubbing champagne socialist spoofer remember that he's also a poet. Sample:

When Will My Time Come?


When will my time come for scenery
And will it be too late?
After all
Decades ago I was never able
To get excited
About filling the lungs with ozone
On Salthill Prom.


Before we get carried away with this brilliance you must understand that, in another exquisite capitalistic stroke, he reportedly switched from an Irish publisher to a British one on the news that the former faced financial hard times. I suppose we can be grateful that his art has been saved for posterity by this shrewd move.

Look, whatever you say about him you must admit that he has an eye for an opportunity. He realised very early on that a life spent at the public trough while posturing as a Moral Crusader is a wonderful gig. The beauty about it is that you get to lecture other people, bask in the ensuing adulation from the media and chattering classes while never having to do anything practical yourself. In fairness for a small country Ireland punches above its weight in producing Moral Crusaders...Bono, Geldoff, Mary Robinson....and little Mike. We must be so proud. Now the question on everybody's lips is 'will he run yet again?'. Michael says no. But then he said that too before he ran for a second time. I suppose his thirst for public service was too strong. His country needed him.


Michelle, your country needs you.

Squaw speak with forked tongue


Wednesday, 19 February 2020

Where's Larry Silverstein when you need him?

Did you read about that botched high-rise demolition job in Dallas? It was a right mess, with one whole section of the building left standing at an odd angle even after all of the charges had ignited. This lead some wags to describe it as the Leaning Tower Of Dallas. The head of the demolition company explained that the outcome of a controlled demolition is 'never certain'. Which must have had Lucky Larry Silverstein shaking his head in bemusement. Because Larry was the one you'll recall who gave the 'pull it' order for WTC 7 and within minutes the building, nearly five times higher than the Leaning Tower Of Dallas, gently glided to the ground in perfectly symmetrical free-fall.

'What a job the WTC 7 crew would have done on that' he must have observed wistfully. Adding 'or maybe all they had to do was sprinkle some paraffin oil on the top floor and light it. Then sit back and watch the symmetrical fall'. As a successful property developer it must break his heart so see such inefficiency. 

Now let's just hope that America doesn't launch a war of retribution against, well, Putin. Or maybe Iran. Or some other enemy of Israel.

Tuesday, 18 February 2020

Globalism's Baron Of Bullshit

To this day my first real job remains a source of embarrassment. No, I wasn't pimping out my sister to sailors. It was worse. I was an economic forecaster. Yes, my company based its medium and long-term production plans on my predictions for the economy. (The firm has since gone bust - pure coincidence I assume). My predictions were based on diligent research, cogently argued. And invariably wrong. Sometimes spectacularly so. These failures affected me deeply, driving me away from economics and into this new-fangled computer thingy where, unbeknown to me, a glittering career awaited.

I contrast my reaction to those of other economists whose confidence seems to swell proportionally with every disastrously wrong forecast they make. Those who reassured us in the Summer of 2008 that the Irish banks and economy were among the strongest in Europe (within months we ended up with the worst bank crash in our history and years of economic decline) are still there, undaunted by their endless fiascoes, still confidently telling us what's coming next. However they all fade into obscurity compared to that old favourite of mine, the Emperor Of Error himself, Paul Ehrlich. According to him we should by now be frolicking in the tepid seas of Svalbard or basking underneath its whispering palm trees. Because.....global warming. Or then again maybe not. Because he also warned us back in 1971 of a new Ice Age, an Age so terrible that “by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

That's assuming that any of us would actually be here at all. Because in a commentary on the massive bestseller that made him a science rock-star he confidently asserted back in 1971 that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” [His English is as lousy as his science]. And that in total some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” His 1975 pronouncement that India could not possibly feed two hundred million people will surely come as a surprise to the 1.2 billion now living there. And for good measure he assured us that 'by 1980 all animal life in the sea will be extinct" and that the world's oil would be gone by 2010.
I'm serious when I say that a Mystic Meg or Paul the Octupus would provide more reliable prognostications than would this fraud. Had his handlers asked Paul - the Octupus - (now sadly with his Maker) about the “Great Die-Off” he'd have reached out from his tank and throttled the questioner for wasting his time. You'd imagine then that, given his record, the other Paul would be somewhat circumspect, quietly retiring to spend more time with his family. Or simply come out with his hands up admitting 'ok, I'm a fraud, a charlatan, I've been wrong about everything. I'm the Baron of Bullshit'. But not a bit of it! He's still going strong. Fairly recently his warnings that Australia would become a Third World country due to its mining practices were widely and reverently reported by the media. He has dismissed in very unscientific terms those who disagree with him as  "idiots," "fools," "morons" and "clowns" even though they were right and he was wrong. No lack of confidence there.

But why would anyone with the following awards be modest? Gold Medal from the World Wildlife Fund, The Swedish Academy Of Sciences' highest award, The UN Environmental Prize, the Eminent Ecologist Award of the Ecological Society of America, The Distinguished Scientist Award of the American Institute of Biological Sciences and many, many more. And he's been, wait for it, Professor of Population Studies of the Department of Biology at Stanford University since, well, forever.

So what could account for the seemingly inexplicable success of this globalist supporter of One-World Government, the NWO and immigration 'reform' (White countries only)? 

Whoops, have I answered my own question?

Friday, 14 February 2020

When is violent resistance justified?

Allow me to paint you a scenario and at the end I'll ask if you a question on it.

There's this powerful prosperous country, operating under the rule of Constitutional Law and a highly-representative form of democratic politics. It's 90% mono-racial with the races largely keeping to themselves in relative harmony. It has a strong sense of nationhood, taking pride in its history and accomplishments. But over time a new race begins to appear in ever-greater numbers, Almost indistinguishable from the majority, this race ostensibly 'comes in peace' but secretly plans to destroy this polity with the aid of treacherous, venal and beguiled natives. The plot is all too successful and eventually the country's traditional people find themselves staring into the abyss of minority
status having been manoeuvred into the loss of their political, judicial and currency systems, their borders, media, the right to self-segregate. For all practical purposes they've lost the right of redress through peaceful political means. To crown it all they face a determined attack on their Constitutional right to defend themselves against (increasingly likely) armed attack.

So my question is this: In such a set of circumstances would the traditional population have the right to engage in armed resistance against their Government?

Now we all know what I'm talking about here and some may see my characterisation as exaggerated. They'll say that Americans had the voting power to have blocked this at any time. Well the right to vote in itself conveys little power as we saw with the old Soviet block where the whole adult population was enfranchised. Even 'opposition' candidates and parties were tolerated. But only if they operated within a narrow policy spectrum. Same with America. Just ask Pat Buchanan what happens when you stray off the park. You don't have to send troublesome opponents to Siberia or shoot them in order to neutralise them.

Real democratic politics can operate only in the context of balanced access by competing interests to the organs of information. Or propaganda if you will. These include education and the full spectrum of news and entertainment. If these become dominated by one faction democratic decisions get based on partial and tendentious information, which in turn leads to tainted voting outcomes. I'm only speculating here but if completely free and open elections were held today in North Korea Dear Leader would probably get elected despite the unimaginable suffering he's imposed on his unfortunate subjects. And if I'm right they'd have done it because they've been marinated in a propaganda fantasy from the day they were born. How different is that from America today? Remember in even in the most advanced democracies most people get their news and opinion from mainstream media. Those that dig deeper in a sceptical way account for but a small minority.

So what about Constitutional safeguards? Well they're only as good as the courts that administer them. And if the courts rule that the framers of the American Constitution deemed same-sex marriage a fundamental right then you know you've lost the game. In fact in most White countries today courts legislate from the bench in flagrant violation of Constitutional separation of powers. And in America the courts are almost uniformly hostile to the interests of straight, White Christian males and the traditional family. Although there has been some push-back under Trump the court system today remains Occupied Territory.


Consider the three most important pieces of legislation supporting the project to dispossess American Whites. The stated objective of Brown v. Board of Education was to end segregated education - despite the fact that this clearly was not prohibited by the Constitution. Nonetheless, in the most flagrant violation of legal ethics the 'renowned' Justice Felix Frankfurter and fellow Jew Philip Elman, who was presenting the case to the SCOTUS!, worked together and connived to get the legislation passed. As Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton show in The New Color Line: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy the decision had no basis in Constitutional Law. Even the New York Slimes admitted it was “A Sociological Decision: Court Founded Its Segregation Ruling on Hearts and Minds Rather Than Laws.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodation and private employment but only in under very specific conditions. However over time the law was transformed by bureaucrats and judges into a hiring quotas and racial preferences regime. Alfred Blumrosen, the Jewish compliance chief of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), almost single-handedly banned employment testing and turned workforce imbalances into proof of discrimination to the point where the U.S. Forest Service now posts employment notices that say “only applicants who do not meet standards [i.e. non-Whites] will be considered.”

The real dagger to the heart of traditional America though was the 1965 Immigration Act, which was a Jewish project from start to finish. The cabal's goyishe front-man Ted Kennedy reassured Americans as follows: "What the bill will not do: First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, the Act will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia." The Bill's chief drafter (the Jew Norbert Schlei) knew better, gloating 'now let the floodgates open' after the legislation was passed. There can be no doubt whatsoever that had the American people understood the real purpose of the measure and its future impact it would have been overwhelmingly rejected.

Not least because those same American people would know that it'd involve replacing them with a new electorate brought in from abroad. An electorate for the most part hostile to them. Throughout history such transformations have lead to violent confrontations. But it gets worse in that whole swathes of the country have brazenly flouted duly-constituted Federal law by refusing to deport those in the country illegally. And now, redolent of the Mad Hatter's Teas Party, green-lighting laws will permit illegals to vote. Even arch cuckservative Dan Crenshaw fumed: “It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with non-citizens?” Well Dan you should know them better than most. But seriously, what kind of a democracy allows illegal immigrants to vote? Especially a democracy which has lost control of its borders?

So is violence on the part of White Americans now justified? I'm not advocating it if for no other reason that God alone knows how it would pan out. But to give some perspective consider the revered American Revolutionary War which was driven mainly by fiscal issues and was supported only by a small minority of the population. The Irish 1916 Rebellion initially had little popular support but now forms part of the national psyche. In both cases the citizenry of the time had voting rights which were arguably more meaningful than those 'enjoyed' by Whites in America today. And unlike their compatriots of today they didn't face a hostile replacement population and have their taxes sequestered for their welfare. Neither were their rulers seeking to disarm them in the face of such a hostile invasion.

Look, this is not a simple case of Jews invading and taking the country over. Only too many 'Americans' are happy to carry water for them and very many Jews are unhappy with what's happening. Having said that, it's true that the experience of Yonkers has been replicated, and continues to be replicated, across the length and breath of the country.

As a final thought I'll leave you with a warning from JFK: 

"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable"

Wednesday, 12 February 2020

Accidental accelerationists?

Most of you will be aware of the informal debate between those who on the one hand want to take the fight to the enemies of White society and on the other hand the 'accelerationists', those who believe that the sooner things come to a head the better. This belief is in part based on the demographic time-bomb ticking in most White countries which accelerationists claim will render any future opposition moot once critical mass is reached. I admit to seeing a lot of merit in this position.

It has the added merit that our enemies - and I use that word advisedly - are doing the job for the accelerationists by regularly inciting a furious reaction  from hitherto cucked and disinterested Whites. It seems they just can't stop themselves rubbing our noses in our dispossession. Take this ad for Scandinavian Air Services (SAS). It starts off badly ("What is truly Scandinavian? Absolutely nothing. Everything is copied") and gets steadily worse to the point where an African gentleman says.....well here's the clip.
Yes, after spending two minutes telling Scandinavians how worthless they are they get a black guy to round it off with a lecture to the effect that "we" are no better than "our" Viking ancestors. What in Christ's name could they have been thinking? But I'll get back to that. Suffice to say that Scandinavians, the most cucked, pussy-whipped emasculated society on the planet, reacted with  explosive outrage.  The SAS web-site, FB page and Twitter feeds were deluged with abuse, as were the Youtube channels that showed the ad (at one stage there were 250 up votes as against 16,000 downs). Item: "What made a Scandinavian airline think pissing and spitting on Scandinavia and all Scandinavians was a good idea,"  Item: "If this doesn’t prove to people that they’re trying to destroy the very essence of what it means to be a European, I don’t know what will." Many of the comments referred to the 'hook-nosed' tribe orchestrating White destruction while several more identified the Wallenberg family as (((the Wallenberg family))) and that the top guy in SAS has a deeply suspicious non-Scandinavian surname. 
Little wonder that the ad was pulled within hours of going public. So to repeat my question: What the hell were SAS and the ad agency thinking?  Could they really have believed that their globohomo agenda (let alone ticket sales) was furthered by such a counter-productive monstrosity? Well maybe they could. You see, the gerontocracies of the former Communist block were secure in their power. Right up to the time they were swept aside by their disaffected subjects. That's what happens when you close off political and media expressions of dissent. You get out of touch, tone deaf. You live in a bubble. And when that happens you make bad decisions.

I don't know. But I do know that the accelerationists will be happy with these developments.