Monday, 19 August 2019

Reparations for slavery

Has there ever been anything more preposterous than American blacks’ demands for slavery reparations? Well there is actually: Their protests at Whites expropriating their “culture”. Future historians will scratch their heads, baffled that an advanced people gave serious consideration to the proposal that those who never had slaves hand over money to those who never were slaves in compensation for slavery. Those future historians would surely think that descendants of slaves, far from deserving reparations, have actually struck the jackpot. Because they now enjoy the advantages of an advanced affluent culture in which they enjoy favourable treatment through a plethora of affirmative action measures. Had their antecedents been smarter or fleeter of foot they’d have avoided capture and their descendants would be now subsisting on grubs and bush meat in the West African jungles.

In an non-insane world it’d be the other way around - America’s Whites would be seeking reparations from blacks. Considering the trillions, yes, trillions of dollars they’ve spent on the futile attempt to ‘bridge the achievement gap’ between the races and to keeping black criminals off the streets, the disruption suffered by having to flee neighbourhoods invaded by blacks and seeing their kids dragged down academically and physically endangered through forced school integration. The potential claims list is endless.

The cultural appropriation wheeze is upside-down as well. Tell me, what “culture” do Whites appropriate? I’m pressed to think of anything beyond fuzzy hairstyles and primitive jungle rap “music”. Can you think of anything else?  The black contribution to building America was equivalent to that of the carthorse yet they benefit from advanced infrastructure, telecommunications, health care, democratic institutions, organised sport, complex musical instruments, writing (actually scrub the last two). In other words White civilisation. The thing that thousands of Africans risk their lives to gain entry to. Yet America’s blacks benefit from it free of charge. How about charging them a license fee for its use?

But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Tyrone to cut a cheque.  

I long for the day when someone - anyone - will tell them to take a jump. All the way back to Africa if possible.

Friday, 16 August 2019

Sorry for lack of posting.  Internet down and working through my phone.  Not easy!

Monday, 12 August 2019

More sufferink. This time in Lithuania

Unlike many on this blog I believe Jews are in general smarter than Whites. I know it pains but it's true. If not how is it that they, despite their minuscule numbers, rule over us just as thoroughly as White colonists ruled over the Africans? What's more they get us to pay for the privilege. The colonists never managed that. But Jews also possess a sperg-like quality whereby they can be tone deaf to the goyim they oversee, which can lead to surprising outcomes. Take this case from Lithuania.

First a brief history of that country in the twentieth century. It enjoyed a brief period of independence between 1919 and 1940, despite being constantly undermined by the heavily Jewish Communist Party of Lithuania, lead by Antanas Gintautas Sniečkus who was married to a 'sophisticated' Jewish woman.  Independence of all the Baltic countries ended after the USSR invaded in 1940 at which point Sniečkus and the local Communists, working with the largely Jewish NKVD, began a reign of terror against local nationalists, vast numbers of whom were murdered or deported to die in Siberia. Naturally this didn't go down too well with the remaining Lithuanians who began a campaign of partisan resistance, in an uneasy alliance with the Germans for some of the time, in which Jonas Noreika and Kazys Skirpa played important roles. Roles which, understandably, lead to their being regarded as heroes by Lithuanians who erected plaques to them after the collapse of the USSR.

But there was a problem. Both Sniečkus and Noreika, despite being imprisoned by the Germans, had 'declared anti-Semitic views'. I wonder why that would be? (shakin' ma haid). But having valiantly fought for their country's interests, and in Noreika's case given his life for it, and given the traitorous role played by the largely Jewish Communist Party, you'd imagine that Jews would have kept their heads down hoping the whole unsavoury episode would quietly fade into history.

But no. They had to launch a bitter and long-lasting campaign to remove the plaques, much of it driven from wealthy Lithuanian exiles in America (take a bow, Sheldon Adelson). Inevitably they were successful. "The move was ordered by Vilnius mayor Remigijus Simasius (yeah, right) who said it was done because of Noreika's approval of the Nazi administration's decision to establish a Jewish ghetto and seize their property. Both decisions were hailed by the Lithuanian Jewish Council."  And Noreika's plaque was not just quietly removed, it was smashed by a hammer in from of an approving crowd of local Jews.

Now you don't have to be a genius to expect an angry reaction from Lithuanians, which duly came about via mass demonstrations (by 'neo-Nazis', you understand) and blood-curdling threats against the local Jewish community.  To the extent that "Jewish leaders in the Lithuanian capital are indefinitely closing the city's sole synagogue and community center following threats sparked by an emotional debate over the country's World War II-era history, Community leader Faina Kukliansky told The Associated Press."  "There is an atmosphere of tension and incitement" he added.

Now in case you're upset and worried about the synagogue closure I have good news for you. It opened again after a few days. But 'community relations' have been badly undermined. The development most certainly has not been good for Lithuanian Jews. So why do they do such things and continue to be surprised at the outcome? 

Saturday, 10 August 2019

Epstein dead. Bill and Hill react

Well now isn't that a surprise? The most watched prisoner on the planet, with one (alleged) suicide attempt already during his current stint in jail, and he somehow manages to hang himself. In most incarceration regimes strict measures are taken to minimise suicide attempts and this perp was supposedly under 24-hour watch. Remember that modern facilities have a plethora of advanced technologies to monitor a prisoner's every move, every heart-beat, and possibly every thought. They remove anything that could conceivably be used for a suicide attempt. Yet Epstein manages to hang himself.

Right. 

My only comment is that the Cabal have given up even pretending. They don't care what ordinary people think. And they're probably right. Because nobody will do anything about this flagrant flouting of the justice system which in America and most of the West has become a sick joke. In fact it's quite possible that they're so contemptuous of the ordinary person's willingness and ability to react that they're sending out a message: Don't even think of stepping out of line.

Thursday, 8 August 2019

Gun massacres - who benefits?

I'm not strongly into the 'false flag' theory to explain all and every violent event that occurs. I think many on our side are too quick to apply the FF label in the absence of convincing evidence. However it's always correct to ask cui bono? (who benefits?) from such massacres. You don't need to be of a conspiratorial mind-set to be highly sceptical of the explosive growth of such incidents in recent times. Because every such incident elicits a barrage of outraged demands for gun-ownership "reform". Every time. This despite overwhelming evidence that such "reform" would prove worthless in terms of countering such attacks.****
Now the manipulators have successfully seized on the latest massacres to win over Trump and Congressional Republicans, hitherto the only meaningful defenders of the Second Amendment in the political arena.  'We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said. “That is why I have called for red-flag laws, also known as extreme-risk protection orders.” Well done Donald, you've just lost about half his base while gaining not a single Dem convert. Not one. "Congressional Republicans, under pressure to respond to this weekend’s massacres, appear to be coalescing around legislation to help law enforcement to take guns from those who pose an imminent danger — a measure that, if signed into law, would be the most significant gun safety legislation enacted in 20 years."

It would indeed be the most significant gun safety legislation enacted in 20 years. Because it would provide a mechanism to progressively chip away at gun ownership rights the same way so-called hate speech laws are used to progressively smother almost everything not consistent with The Narrative. Countries like Britain and Sweden, historically bastions of free speech and discourse, have been transformed into USSR-lite. And increasingly less lite as time goes on. Had Western peoples been aware of the eventual impact of seemingly innocent initial restrictions on "hate" - I mean, how could you not oppose hate? - The legislation would have been overwhelmingly rejected. But bit by bit the range and depth of what qualified as "hate" was extended until we are where we are today. Unless White Americans (because - 
be in no doubt - they're the target) act now gun rights, like free speech, will go the way of the dodo.

****
Bad guys can always acquire a gun. Would-be murderers or terrorists can always get hold a gun or if not a weapon equally lethal. This applies especially in the USA where existing circumstances (hundreds of millions of guns in existence and Latin America lying across a porous border) render it impossible to disarm gang-bangers or terrorists.

Bad guys will ignore gun-free zone warnings. In the name of Jesus it should not be necessary to point this out but many otherwise normal people profess to think that sticking up a sign will stop would-be mass murderers. It'd be comical were not lives as stake.

The ownership/murder ratio does not hold up. The ratio of gun ownership does not correlate at all with the ratio of murders. For instance Norway, Canada and Switzerland lag only slightly behind the USA in the gun ownership ratio but the gun death ratio (especially in Norway and Switzerland) is but a fraction of America's. Same within the USA, States and cities with rigid gun control laws have the highest ratios of gun crime.

The 80/20 rule applies: Analysis of race-delineated gun deaths shows that approximately 80% of White killers kill themselves while the ratio is reversed for black killers. 


Gun deaths are actually declining: Despite the opportunistic hysteria that accompanies every mass killing in the USA the number of gun deaths there has actually declined since the nineties. (Last year 12 per 100,000, 15 for most of the nineties...a 20% decline). 

Legally-owned gun-holders can deter or foil attacks. Think of the football coach who valiantly threw himself in front of his students when Cruz started firing. What if he had had a powerful gun? We know what would have happened. Cruz would have been offed and the death toll drastically reduced. Note that American politicians strangely enough have no problem with guns when its their own asses being protected. The takeaway: Guns don't murder, the people who use them do. 

The nigger in the woodpile: An appropriate metaphor here because the mystery ingredient underpinning all of the anomalies above is race. As FBI statistics show, year after year, blacks murder at about six times the rate of Whites, Hispanics three to four times the White rate. If you normalise the figures, i.e. isolate the ratio of gun murders committed by Whites, you'll see that America is little different from most European countries. 

Fathers' Day in da' hood


Tuesday, 6 August 2019

Go woke, go broke

On this blog we've often fulminated at the evil genius Edward Bernays, the  advertising and propaganda mastermind whose black arts have had a lasting negative impact throughout Western society. As he roasts in the Seventh Circle of Hell he must be aghast at the extent to which former client Proctor & Gamble has dropped the ball he provided for them. I'm referring to the notorious Gillette advertising campaign  "The Best Men Can Be"  - a series of videos which took on 'toxic masculinity' - make that White toxic masculinity - in a way that bordered on self-parody. I've made this point before: That the media masters have become so isolated in their own bubble, having consigned all heretical opinions to the far reaches of the internet, that they've become a bit like loathed dictators imagining they're still loved by the people.

How much closer to self-parody can you get than having a White guy, about to proposition a girl, held back by a sensitive well-dressed black 'youth' who enjoined him 'that's not cool'. Yeah, I'd say that happens every day of the week. In essence the company takes aim at straight White males - who make up the overwhelming bulk of their customers - making them feel worthless, inadequate, that their needs and desires are wrong under any circumstances, that their instincts are loathsome, that their very existence is a malignancy, and that they're responsible for all the world's ills. After heaping on the abuse they then ask their target to give them their money. That's a winning strategy if I ever saw one.

Now I was outraged to the extent of immediately boycotting (sorry, in the Current Year this should be personcotting) all Gillette products. I wondered to what extent others would take the same course. I looked out for the company's financials in a haphazard way in the interim but found nothing  of note. Until now. It has emerged that the company has taken an $8 billion non-cash write-down for the period since the launch of the campaign in January. According to Reuter 'P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion.... for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash write-down of Gillette. For the same period last year, P&G’s net income (i.e profit) was $1.89 billion.' Now I know that it's not possible to attribute all of this catastrophic change to the ad campaign but the company offered no other explanation admitting 'it was a mistake to call our customers rapists'.  (All right, I made up that last bit).  

This represents one of the most gratifying and encouraging developments I've heard in a long time. It underlines the latent power of White males, and of all Whites actually, once they become aware of the war being waged against them. And decide to fight back. A marvellous development. Having said that it seems to me that the corporate world, especially big tech and Hollywood, are prepared to be hit in the pocket to further their agenda. Amazing. Who could have imagined such a situation even ten years ago? Major corporations prepared, against all their natural instincts, to suffer severe financial penalties to pursue a social agenda. What can be driving them?