Some random thoughts on the Kavanaugh lynching

What a sickening spectacle. I'd have had some respect for the Dems if they hadn't tried to cloak their sociopathy with cloying claims to justice and fairness. Jesus Christ, they fabricated charges so nonsensical that they should have been dismissed without consideration as the malevolent ravings of a cock-crazed whore. I'd have had some respect had they brought the issue to a trial of political strength based on the unacceptability of his judicial record and/or political views rather than cynically destroy the reputation of a good man.

Why were the accusations from this whore (on her own admission she shagged 57 men even before she went to university, where shagging begins in earnest) given any attention when there was virtually no supporting evidence and the supposed attack took place in 1982? Why, after testimony that was riddled with contradictions and refusals to answer (*see below), did Trump claim she was a credible witness? For the love of Jesus what was he playing at? And why are the FBI being called in? To investigate what? She said/he said and with her witnesses denying her story? The only genuine reason would be to charge her with malicious perjury. But we know that won't happen. You can bet that already more women are being lined up to fabricate further accusations whom the deeply corrupt FBI - you know, the people who 'investigated' the Clinton emails - will deem to be 'credible witnesses' as well.

Why did the Republicans choose an incompetent and potentially double-crossing prosecutor to conduct Ford's cross-examination? Well we know, don't we children? It's because she's a woman. And we can't have a nasty White male (and especially, God forbid, a straight one) upset the po' little innocent Ms. Ford. Which underlines that we're quickly reaching the stage where women are virtually above the law, amenable to a radically different set of standards to their male counterparts,

And what to make of the transfiguration of Lindsey Graham? I always saw him as one of the most despicable politicians but my God what a performance! The guy really has ability. I genuinely believe his contribution did more than anything else to bolster Kavanaugh's position. I was transfixed. Seriously.

And is anyone anywhere going to point out that the attack on Kavanaugh is being driven by Jews? The charges were conjured up by Feinstien who also, with Blumentha, leads the attack on Committee while Schumer eggs them on from the sidelines. As far as I can see every single Jewish Senator has come out against Kavanaugh. Ford's lawyers are Jewish as are two of the three accusers. There's wall-to-wall negative (((MSM)))coverage as well as articles openly exposing Jewish opposition to him. Is Brett Kavanaugh Bad for the Jews? (WSJ) Jewish groups respond fiercely to nomination of Kavanaugh (Haaretz), The Jewish Case Against Brett Kavanaugh (The Forward) ......all (((their))) media is the same. So my question is will anyone shine the light on this glaring attempt by a small subversive minority to thwart the appointment of someone representing traditional American stock. Well, you know the answer to that, don't you?

Let me close by admitting that I want to see the bastards behind this lynching to suffer in every way possible. I'd rejoice to see them rotting with disease, bankrupted living as beggars under a bridge.

* Cock-crazed whore's credibility

1. She contradicted herself a minimum of 15 time during her testimony.

2. Ford could not even remember her own address of the house she lived in when this incident supposedly occurred. She had to be reminded by her attorney during questioning.

3. She can’t remember when this happened but knows for certain that Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge had been drinking before they arrive at the mystery house.

4. Claims she does not remember how she got to the house or how she got home but knows for certain that Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge had been drinking before they arrive at the mystery house.

5. Claims she does not know where this party was but knows what other people were doing before they got there (refer to #1 & 2 above).

6. Originally claimed there were 2 boys at the party, changed that to 4 boys, then changed that to 3 boys + 1 girl. In testimony claimed a) several people were at the house, b) changed that to 5 boys + 1 girl all in the same sentence. But does not name the 5th boy.

7. Claimed she could hear others talking downstairs before she left the house. Changed that to, No, she could not hear people talking downstairs, then changed it again that she might have heard others talking downstairs. All within one statement.

8. She stated that the party was "unremarkable" but later says it “scarred her for life”. Really? Which was it?

9. Stated that she went to other parties after this where Brett Kavanaugh was present and that nothing ever happened. (Brett Kavanaugh stated he has never even met her.)

10. Said that she never told her therapist Judge Kavanaugh’s name. Contradicted herself five minutes later and said she did tell her therapist his name.

11. Does not remember if she gave the Washington Post her therapy records or if she just told the reporter about them. WAPO reporter has stated she was given all of her therapy records.

12. Refused to allow her therapist records to be part of the proceeding.

13. Claimed she had “academic problems” in college because of this alleged incident. So how did she get a BA, an MA and a PhD if she was so academically challenged?

14. Can’t remember what she told people last month, but wants us to believe her memories from 35 years ago. (Refer to # 11)

15. Claimed her polygraph exam was “stressful”. The exam consisted of two questions which Ford was allowed to dictate. They were these: a) Is any part of your statement false? b) Did you make up any part of your statement? That’s it. The whole exam.

16. Refused to have the full videotaped polygraph meeting placed as part of the record.

17. Stated that she met Mark Judge sometime later in life. Can’t remember when that happened and says HE should be able to fill in those blanks for her. Think about that. She wants a person she accused of a crime, to fill in her memory gaps for her. Who does that?

18. Before hearing her lawyers said she could not testify due to fear of flying. In testimony admits she has flown all over the world. Flew to DC for this meeting. Flew back and forth several times to meet with her attorneys before yesterday.

19. Claims she has PTSD because of allegedly being groped in high school. But she spent the last 35 years becoming a PhD, gives lectures all over the world, has no problem flying all over the globe for her job and vacations and marching on Washington wearing a vagina hat.

20. Stated she “did not understand what that meant” when the JC offered to send investigators to her home to interview her in private. How much clearer does “We will come to you” did they need to be?.

21. She testified that she did not know how to contact her Senators with her story. This is a flat out lie. As an Anti-Trump activist, she knows exactly how to contact her Senators. She has protested during the Women’s March and the Science March with various representatives. Also, she knows how to Google.

22. Spent the entire testimonial time fake crying and shuffling papers after every question in order to use up time and avoid answering questions.                                                                                                                                                  

Welcome to the Oasis

"Just a few miles from the centre of Sheffield, Fir Vale is a richly multicultural area with White British(!), Asian and Eastern European (read: Roma) communities living in a mix of parallel terraced streets. There are as many mosques as churches in the area." Into this bedlam came the comically-named "Oasis Academy" in 2014. Its main objective is "to inspire students and fashion unity while cherishing diversity". Good luck with that. Given the demographics it's no surprise that 40% of the pupils do not have English as their first language while nearly a quarter have special learning needs.

Just like me you're expecting that it's turned out to be an oasis of tranquility and learning as diverse talents coalesce into a beautiful mosaic, an idyll of peace, harmony and academic rigour. Well, not quite. In what has been tagged as the biggest riot in (cough) 'British' school history 150 students (about one third of the student body) engaged in a mass riot there yesterday. Eyewitness claimed 'all hell was breaking loose' prompting dozens of police cars, ambulances, helicopters and dog teams to 'scramble' to the scene.

As I've regularly pointed out, multiculturalism works. Until it stops working. By which I mean it might give the appearance of working but in reality it's a tinder-box waiting for a spark to start a conflagration. The traitorous British leaders responsible for this catastrophe should be - literally - hanging from lamp-posts.

If Whites were to disappear.

Everyone seems to be saying that Whites are to blame for the world's ills. The world would be a better place without us. Why, only this week (((Paul Krugman))) let slip that we're on the way out. And that this is good. Well, maybe. Here's how I envisage the institutions that replace ours.

Urban planning

Governance

Jurisprudence

Philosophy

Peaceful protest

Science

Academia

Al fresco food preparation

Music 

Shipping

Agriculture

Simple questions

Have you noticed the number of 'moderate' Muslims appearing on print and screen lately, telling us of Islam's 'beauty', the comfort they draw from it etc? That they're just like us, like the same things we do such as football. And, and this always get emphasised, they absolutely deplore the terrorists, those so-called Muslims who defile the good name of the religion. They earnestly assure us that Islam is all about peace and tolerance. And you know, in some cases it is. Like when when the Muslim population of country is tiny and powerless. Then they're enthusiastic supporters of religious freedom and tolerance. When they're the overwhelming majority? Ladies and gentlemen I give you Saudi Arabia.

It's noticeable in all such appearances the writer or interviewee is never asked to explain how to reconcile the peaceful and tolerant religion with its actual teachings and practices. They should be asked some of the following:

() Did not the 'Prophet' in the Koran instruct his followers 'kill the infidel wherever you find him'?

() Did not the 'Prophet' in the Koran instruct his followers to kill "apostates" from Islam?

() Did not the 'Prophet' in the Koran instruct his followers to stone adulterous women to death

() Was it ok for the 'perfect man' Mohammed to have sexual relations with a nine year-old child?

() Was it ok for him to slaughter 800 men and boys of the Qurayza tribe who had surrendered to him?

() Why is every Muslim country today a primitive poverty-stricken undemocratic backwater?

() How in the light of the foregoing can Islam be reconciled with Western democratic governance and practices?

These questions are so obvious we can assume only that the editorial reluctance to ask them derives from instructions emanating from the highest levels. Which is consistent with the enthusiasm of the West's traitorous leaders to open our borders to those nation-wrecking hordes.

My proposal for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize

For many years I've been troubled by the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. It seems to me that you had a head start by having the blood of thousands on your hands. Think Kissinger, Begin, Arafat....and not forgetting President Obomber herself himself. Following a period of profound reflection I believe I now have identified an ideal nominee for this year's prize. Ladies and gentlemen I give you John McCain's Tumour. This nominee struck a mighty blow for peace by taking down one of the most malevolent and industrious war-mongers of the last thirty years, ensuring that his stinking rotting carcass now lies powerless as his soul gets reacquainted with Beelzebub, his Lord And Master.

Now I didn't make this decision lightly. I first consulted a number of interested parties. First was Colonel Robin Banks, General Secretary of the American Veterans of Foreign Wars. "The vets hold the tumour in great esteem" he assured me. "Tens of thousands of my comrades were killed or mutilated due to that traitorous bastard having us fight wars for Israel".

On the other hand Schlomo Shekelstein, spokesman for the Greater Israel Project, was outraged. "This tumour is anti-Semitic!" he shouted, gesticulating wildly. "Senator McCain loyally served our interests throughout his career. We will now instruct - I mean request - President Trump to implement draconian sanctions on Norway should the tumour win the award".  

Finally I spoke to Ivan Astikoff of the Russian Foreign Ministry. "We're somewhat conflicted about this" he mused. "On the one hand we must recognise the tumour's central role in ridding the world of this corrupt war-mongering hypocrite. On the other hand he was, unwittingly, good for Russia!. "What?" I stammered. "Yes, you see the military conflicts he fomented with us resulted in - what you say it in the West? - blowback. They inadvertently resulted in Russia recovering Crimea, cementing our position in the Middle East and inducing us to become more independent in agriculture. But on balance Russia supports the tumour winning the Prize".

So there you have it. And here's another thing. If this proposal works out I  may well issue my own annual Peace Award: The McCain Tumour Prize. What do you think?

Clerical sex abuse: Paedophilia.......or homosexuality?

Like an ageing punch-drunk boxer the Catholic Church staggers under an endless pummelling for its role in facilitating paedophile abuse by its clergy. But was paedophilia or homosexuality the real problem? In 2004 the John Jay College of Criminal Justice was commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to analyse all the relevant information available from dioceses throughout the country. It found that only 96 of the 4,329 priest offenders were classified  as true paedophiles. It also found that no fewer than 81 percent of the victims were males and most were post-pubescent teens. 

Even Newsweek with its liberal defense of homosexual clergy agreed that the “great majority of cases now before the Church involve not pedophilia but ‘ephebophilia’, an attraction to post-pubescent youths”. A Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report came up with similar findings in that the vast majority of victims were males and had reached puberty. The psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, who has treated large numbers of priests over 34 years said: “every priest whom I treated who was involved with children sexually had previously been involved in adult homosexual relationships.”

But such evidence was quickly brushed aside and clerical sex abuse has become indelibly associated with paedophilia. That's because the nation-wrecking homosexual agenda is now sacrosanct, beyond criticism. Academic Michael O’Meara wrote that "This subversive ideology now even aspires to re-invent homosexuals as the flowers of society: liberators preparing the way to joy, liberty, fraternity, tolerance, social well-being, good taste, etc. As vice is transformed into virtue, homosexuality allegedly introduces a new sense of play and gaiety to the one-dimensional society of sad, heterosexual males." Yes, 'it's sapiens to be homo', and woe betide any critic who puts his head above the parapet.

Which goes some way towards explaining why the program to make paedophilia acceptable now gathers pace. Having deployed it to destroy the Church it's now safe to de-weaponise, or more correctly re-weaponise it to further the destruction of Western Civilisation.

Chimpout extraordinaire

Well unless you've been living in a cave you've seen Serena Willaims' epic chimpout in the American Open "Ladies" Final. At one stage I fully expected her to start throwing her own shit at the umpire. Nothing surprising about this because she has spent her whole career threatening and abusing opponents and court officials, in one case her blood-curdling threats induced an official to flee the court in terror. 

And of course in every case she claimed racism and/or sexism as an excuse. (Now look left and savour for a moment the irony of "her" playing the gender card.) And she's always gotten away with behaviour that would have resulted in a lengthy ban for anyone else. She also has a track record of missing drugs tests, in effect taking the test when the 'roid evidence has evanesced. Yet she and her army of drooling sycophants profess to believe that she's always suffered from racism and sexism. Even after this latest instance of abominable behaviour.

JK Rowling was immediately off the mark - by the way JK, whatever happened to those refugees you were going to house in one of your many mansions? But the shriek-fest really went into overdrive after a brilliant cartoon  appeared in an Australian newspaper. The mob claimed that Williams was made to look too black. Which is racism. And her opponent (also black) was made to look too White. Apparently that's racism as well. Go figure.

No, she's a spoiled, juiced-up feral half-man with a raging and totally unjustified sense of entitlement. Her latest outburst has underlined that and happily reader comments are heavily negative towards her. Which leaves me with the NY crowd. What the hell were they doing bellowing their support for this monster while booing both the umpire and her unfortunate opponent? 

Actually I explained it myself. They're New Yorkers.

Another 9/11 anniversary

Another 9/11 anniversary is upon us. In the intervening 17 years the perpetrators have achieved almost all their goals, and now luxuriate in their success, untroubled by the forces of law and order. Principal among those successes were turning America into a surveillance state and inducing it to destroy Israel's regional enemies at incalculable loss of blood and treasure.

The official explanation is so nonsensical that a twelve year-old child could demolish (ha!) it if given access to even the most elementary information. Those who dismiss this as a conspiracy theory (why should a conspiracy theory be a problem?) should be asked to explain away the following simple yet devastating facts.

The 'dancing Israelis' (self-identified Mossad agents) who admitted that they had their cameras in place well before the attack 'to record the event'.

The employees of Israeli software company Odego who admitted that they were warned not to come to work that fateful morning.

The fact that WTC owner Larry Silverstein admitted in a TV interview that he had given the 'pull it' (standard industry parlance to activate demolition charges) order for WTC 7 just before it collapsed, in free fall. Demolition charges for a building that size would take weeks to install.

There are of course dozens of other gaping holes in the official theory but the ones I cited about prove, without a shadow of doubt, that key players at a minimum knew in advance of the attacks and, as in the case of Silverstein, were part of the conspiracy.

Can journalism sink any lower?

We know that the vast majority of people have lost trust in the MSM and journalism generally. None more so than yours truly. But the sheer egregiousness of their output can still on occasion take the breath away. One such is an article in the print version of the "right-wing" Spectator by Paul Wood, whose daytime job is with the HebeBC  BBC.

The piece was based on two unsupported and unquestioned assumptions. That Trump colluded with the Russians and that this was decisive in his winning the election. But karma is on hand as he now stands (yet again) to lose everything. Wood assures us that 'his world is spinning out of control' . The title was Desperate Donald but instead could have been Trump Killed Again. The article was littered with journalistic monstrosities such as 'sources indicate' 'allegedly' and 'according to a source who must remain anonymous'.

Right.

Michael Cohen flipping and revealing the truth was 'terrifying' news for Trump. Why would this be unless Trump were a criminal? Well, that's the whole point. We're meant to infer that he is a criminal with unspeakable skeletons in his cupboard.  He goes into great detail about Manafort's squalid commercial manoeuvres. 'What has this got to do with Russia? [Wood rhetorically asks, and, more pertinently, could have asked what it had to do with Trump]. If he was paid $75 million by Russian intelligence as is claimed then they'd have strong influence over him and by extension, Trump. 'What Cohen might tell Mueller about the Russian connection could be deadly'. Then again it might not be deadly. But the smear has been made and the dirt sticks. "Cohen repeatedly claims to have never been to Russia but I have spoken to a witness who is not willing to be identified who claims he saw him there. Cohen was allegedly seeking help for a hotel deal". "Lanny Davis, Cohen's lawyer, hints that Trump knew about Russian hacking".

And so it goes. A farrago of insinuations and conjecture masquerading as journalism by a dishonest, unscrupulous, corrupt, lying, tendentious fraud. He brings to mind the wise words of a retiring New York Times editor (and this was in the days when journalism had some basic standards) who wistfully admitted to his colleagues "the role of journalism is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to fawn at the feet of Mammon…We are tools and vassals of the men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks: they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes”.

I could liken Wood to a whore but at least whores are honest about what they do.

Bad judgement

In the previous post I ended by suggesting we all enjoy our Whiteopias while we still have them. If and when we lose them we can blame the politicians of course. But the principle blame should lie with the courts which in almost every Western country have increasingly moved from interpreting legislation to becoming de facto legislators in their own right. Take this case in which the Irish Government moved in on bogus students from the Third World who had overstayed their visas. A simple case of applying the law, you would imagine. But no. The Government has now backed off and allowed nearly 6000 of these criminals to legally reside here and eventually claim citizenship.

Why? Because of a Supreme Court judgement that 'former holders of student permission were entitled to have their family and privacy rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In the court challenges, two former students sought permission to change their status allowing them to work and receive social welfare payments'. (My emphasis).  This ruling flagrantly flouts the intended purpose of the legislation and opens the door to a flood of future claims. Just overstay your 'student' visa and in due course you legally get access to the honeypot.

Such judicial overreach - where the Constitutional legislative process is flagrantly flouted - is now routine. I remember a case in Kilkenny when an African child died after a botched circumcision. The 'doctor' claimed he was acting in accordance with the laws of his home country. To which the correct judicial reaction should have been 'so what? You're under Irish law now'. But no, the judge asked the jury to assess whether the accused 'genuinely believed' that he was entitled to operate under the foreign law. Which of course lead to his acquittal.

Recently, I think it was in Maine, another visa overstayer (i.e. criminal) was allowed to remain because the judge ruled that he was well settled in and he 'wouldn't cause any harm' were he to remain. In other words don't mind the law, let me decide what's best. A similar case in California where some new immigration legislation was deemed Unconstitutional by the judge in part because 'the legislation was introduced without adequate consideration by the legislators'. Get that? Judges now get to decide the legislative calendar.

Far from protecting the Constitution and the rule of law the courts are fundamentally undermining them. As they are with the fundamental separation of powers principle and the delicate system of checks and balances. Let us remind ourselves that judges are (apart from some lower courts) unelected and virtually unaccountable for their rulings. They represent one of our gravest threats.

Genius?

Today I had an unexpected treat. Cycling with my family in glorious weather on the the Waterford Greenway, a 30-mile walking and cycling trail formed by paving over an old railway line. Everything was perfect. Clean and perfectly maintained bikes, not a trace of litter on the well-maintained billiard-table smooth path, hundreds of cyclists and walkers, cheery greetings all round, everybody adhering to trail protocols, secure in the knowledge that in the event of an emergency rapid response teams were on hand. Is this trail a work of genius in terms of imagination, innovation, design, engineering and management? Well hardly. More a case of a job well done.

But then again....maybe it is a work of genius in its own way. White genius for creating and operating such amenities. Look at it this way. Can you imagine if it were somehow transported to a black location such as Baltimore or Detroit? Or somewhere in Mexico, Brazil or Pakistan? For a start the bikes would be badly-maintained death traps. We can be assured that few if any would be returned to the rental shop, instead being stolen outright, cannibalised for parts or thrown over a ditch at journey's end. Would a naive White traveller get even a mile down the road before being being barged off the trail by a gang of "youths", or more likely mugged or raped? Would not the trail itself quickly degenerate into a litter-strewn potholed barely passable dirt track?

We all know the answer. So the genius lies in Whites' abilities to nurture high-trust, efficient, productive and peaceable societies in a way no other race can with the possible exception of the Japanese. That's why everyone in the Third World wants, as an Austrian politician noted, 'to live like Europeans but not to work like Europeans'. 

Touche!

Enjoy your own local equivalents of the Waterford Greenway while you can. Because diversity is headed your way.