Saturday, 29 February 2020

The future of France?

An ex-colleague of mine retired about twenty years ago to Marseilles. He loved the climate, the cuisine - and the diversity. He loved the rich tapestry of multiple cultures and ethnicities. A city of communities... like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky. Maybe. But if so that was then and this is now. And the past is a foreign country. The city is now estimated to be the most diverse (i.e. the lowest proportion of White people) in France. The diversity has been celebrated in countless articles and TV documentaries, in speeches by politicians, sermons by clerics. 

"Despite" this diversity the city has by now become a dystopian hell-hole. Crime is almost out of control, whole swathes of the city are no-go areas for Whites, including the police, while housing is segregated rigidly along ethnic and religious lines. The media coverage has been fascinating. All reports follow the same format. Heads shaking in sadness, they ask how this multiculturalism success story could have gone so wrong. They soon find explanations. The 'vulnerable' (I just love that!) suburbs suffer from lack of integration, domestic violence, poor educational achievement and high unemployment. Why? Well the fault does not lie with the suburbs' inmates. It lies with the state and with, well, others.

The analyses would be comical were they not so dangerous. Non-sequitors and self-contradictions abound. To provide but two example: Police exacerbate the problems because they're a) an intrusive presence or b), nowhere to be seen. Then, exactly as happens in America, Whites moving into vulnerable areas represents gentrification. If they move out it's White flight, and that exacerbates segregation. The presenters plaintively ask 'What does it mean to be French?' Well, not being African or Arab for a start. Because the French don't see them as French and neither do the Africans and Arabs.

As I said in this post about another apparently successful multicultural society consumed by inter-ethnic conflagration. "But the tragedy should be seen primarily as a case study in failed multiculturalism, which as a concept and as a practice is inherently flawed, riven with fractures and fault lines, just waiting for a spark to ignite an inferno. It's nonsense to suggest that multiculturalism can work in perpetuity simply because it worked for a period. Multiculturalism works. Until it stops working. At which point you tremble for what's to come.

People lamenting the demise of multicultural success stories such as Yugoslavia therefore completely miss the point. The remarkable things was not that the country collapsed in an orgy of inter-religious and inter-ethnic slaughter rather that Tito managed to hold together such an inherently combustible concoction for so long. And I remember seeing a Belgian priest tearfully tell an interviewer that Rwanda had been his Order's 'most successful mission'. Until, that is, the unfortunate incident regarding the Tutsi genocide." 

I lost contact with my former colleague a long time ago. I hope he's ok but I have my doubts. He was the kind of guy who saw the good in everyone, never the bad. The problem is that there are a lot of very bad people in Marseilles and a naive White man to them is like a gazelle to a lion. The big question is whether Marseilles represents the future of France as San Francisco represents the future of America.  

My opinion? It does.

Friday, 28 February 2020

Wednesday, 26 February 2020

Be careful what you wish for

Harvey Weinstein is living testimony to the truth that physiognomy is real. The guy looks what he is. Not only is he hideous inside and out, a bully, coward, grasping, degenerate, crooked and disloyal, and he's hastened the weaponising of Hollywood against traditional Western culture and values. Now as he faces time in the Big House there won't be many sympathising with him, certainly not me.

But be careful what you wish for. Because his case dramatically ratchets up the subversion of our legal system in that the most fundamental Western judicial principle, that of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, has been demolished. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. admitted as much: “This is a new day, Rape is rape whether the survivor reports within an hour, within a year or perhaps never. It’s rape despite the complicated dynamics of power and consent after an assault. It’s rape even if there is no physical evidence.”

Conviction in a criminal case on the basis of uncorroborated verbal testimony has, or had, been anathema to our legal system. In fact traditionally no prosecutor would even bring a case on such a basis. But that was then, this is now. And as L.P. Hartley noted, the past is a foreign country. In this new country TPTB have acquired legal precedent to come after you based on uncorroborated testimony. Think about that. Think of the power that gives them. What if  they want to take out - and of course they do - some rising figure on the political right like Nick Fuentes? Just magic up some whore who claims he raped her. Based on the Weinstein precedent Fuentes would be convicted. So he's out of the way. Now who will we take out next? You see how this can be used? Bad law is often introduced in response to a public outcry. Hence the prevalence of false flags by TPTB. Think 911 and the Patriot Act. The fact that Weinstein is a deeply unsympathetic figure blinds the public to the dangers inherent in his conviction.

You could argue that guilt by accusation has already been enshrined in case law. Happens all the time with the charge of racism for instance. But the Weinstein case means that an immensely powerful figure can and will be jailed because some woman says he should be.

I'm reminded of what (((Norbert Schlei))) said on the passing into law of the 1965 Immigration Act, the one that destroyed America and for which he was the chief drafter: 'And now let the floodgates open'. 

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Monday, 24 February 2020

Chinese lessons

[Edit: This post was satire but it obviously fell flat with most people. I mean seriously, bad and all as the Irish public project people are do you really think that a bridge like that would cost €70 million? And that it'd be formally opened by top politicians?  Anyway I'm the one looking stupid]

You've got to hand it to the Chinese when it comes to public infrastructure projects. To treat Coronavirus patients they apparently built a 1,000-bed hospital in Wuhan in just eight days. A remarkable achievement and one not likely to be surpassed by Ireland's well-remunerated public servants any time soon. Their record on such projects is - and I love this euphemism - mixed.


Take this, the Martin Luther King Memorial Bridge in Phoenix Park Dublin which was formally opened last week. Originally scheduled for completion by March 1982, the project was, like many others,  'plagued by delays and cost over-runs'. The final figure came in at €76 million, dwarfing the original €12 million budget. The main cost components were design and consultancy (€27.4 million), public relations (€2.6 million), legal fees (€18.7 million) and project staff performance bonuses (€7.5 million). 

A report by consultants Deloitte attributed the delays mainly to the planning and appeals process which entailed no fewer than fifteen appeals, four of which were taken as far as the Euroepan Court Of Human Rights and which lasted a total of 22 years. The Deloitte report, which itself cost €8.5 million, added that nobody was to blame for anything and that 'lessons have been learned' and it was now time to 'move forward'.

I hope our next Project Manager will have a name like Ying Yang Fang.

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.

Tuesday, 11 February 2020

A hero for our times

"Brave"

"Principled"

"Heroic"

"Powerful"

"You have always been an absolute legend but never, never ever more so than this week my friend,"

Who is this paragon attracting such acclaim? Had this latter-day Spartacus single-handedly taken out an enemy machine-gun nest? or dived into a freezing lake to rescue a drowning toddler? or maybe parachuted into Idlib to take ISIS to task over their intolerance for homosexuals? None of these things. The only thing Philip Schofield did to attract such acclaim was to announce on Daytime TV that he was gay. Gay in the sense that he likes to have his ass pounded by other men.

With that announcement he's become a messianic cultural figure whose coming out is ‘a day to celebrate and a massive moment for society in general’. But this isn't really about Schofield, it's more about the gay agenda. As Brendan O'Neill put it "Sensitivity, authenticity, bravery, good fashion sense, and a sacred place in popular culture, where every gay character is an unusually wise possessor of the secrets to life and happiness – this is the story of gayness now. "

But actually it's more than gayness as well. It's about creating a degraded and degenerate society. Listen to Lavrenti Beria, the former head of the NKVD, addressing a group of US communist students at Lenin University in 1953. “Degradation and conquest are companions. By attacking the character and morals … by bringing about, through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree. By perverting the institutions of a nation and bringing about a general degradation … a population can be brought psychologically to heel…”

Ultimately that's what this is all about.


But going back to Schofield, one admirer solemnly proclaimed that "Everyone should be proud to live their own truth". In which case Schofield has been a total fraud because he hid that truth for 27 years. And why come out now? Well for a start it's obviously been a great career move. But it also seems that he's been in a sexual relationship with Mathew McGreevy, a young assistant on his show, since McGreevy was 18 and Schofield 51. But they've had a lovers' tiff and McGreevy was threatening to blow the whistle. Now you know.

Sunday, 9 February 2020

A picture tells a thousand words

Just look at the interactions in this scene (and the one below it). Girl turned toward man, face upwards, anxious to gain his attention, to please him in any way. He arrogantly indifferent, facing away, self-obsessed to the point of taking a selfie. Textbook stuff of the kind the sadly departed Chateau Heartiste would have made hay. We learn that this girl had posted derogatory and contemptuous tweets about her country's men, the seriously cucked Nordics of Finland. She had also sung the praises of Third World invaders and been photographed carrying a sign proclaiming "We Welcome Migrants".

Annoying to those of us seeking to save our civilisation but this silly girl was just playing out her Darwinian script. She undoubtedly didn't understand what was going on but the deepest recesses of her reptilian brain were prompting her to seek out a strong mate with whom to reproduce. Having emasculated her own menfolk, transforming them into quivering apologetic manginas, this swaggering macho Muslim asylum-seeker must have seemed ideal.

So she took him into her apartment, and we can be sure, provided him with all the material comforts she could afford. And he treated her with contempt. He saw her (and I know this from my own extensive experience of the Middle East) as a whore, a kuffar whore, albeit a beautiful one. How she must have impressed her friends, preening on the moral high ground as Hassan gave her a good rogering every night. He was the ideal prop for her woke status. Together they represented the apogee of successful multiculturalism.

But while emancipated grrrrls like a bit of domination they also want to retain their freedoms, including the freedom to move on to another partner when the mood takes them. Unfortunately - and Sanni wasn't to know this of course - you don't just walk out on a Muslim man. He'd see it as the ultimate belittling of his pride and masculinity. And when she duly tired of her toy he reacted by......well just look at the picture below. 
Neighbours 'felt something was wrong'. When they saw blood pouring out from under the door! On the ball, those Finns.

Yes, in Hassan she got the full diversity package, beheading and all. And another beautiful, blue-eyed alabaster-skinned childless blonde gets sacrificed on the altar of diversity. While we're all ultimately responsible for the results of our own decisions how much was she really to blame? After all from her first breath she'd been programmed by the indoctrination education system and media to see Third World detritus as virtuous and desirable, her own people, especially men, as the polar opposite. She had no ready access to alternative perspectives.  And in a sense the same could be said of the murderer. He grew up under the same degree of programming although obviously of a completely different kind. 

No, the blame for this tragedy lies squarely with those who engineered such a combustible and lethal brew. A special place in hell awaits them.

Friday, 7 February 2020

The productivity paradox

The productivity gains over the last fifty years from information technology, robotics and the 'free' internet have been staggering. It costs today but a fraction of what it used to to produce goods and services. The time and manpower (sorry, personpower) costs of processing an ordinary business transaction, be it bank loan, insurance quotation or invoice payment have been reduced by at least 80% since the fifties. The declines have been even greater in factory production, with many facilities reduced to people-free zones operating 24x7x365 through the use of robotics. Simulation technologies have achieved similar reductions in the time and cost of design and testing.  Farm automation and the Green Revolution have transformed the production of food. And to round off the cost of borrowing has shown a dramatic decline in recent years.

So why aren't we living like stereotypical Frenchmen working 3-hour days and taking four months holidays annually while women luxuriate at home painting their nails with dirt-cheap modern conveniences doing all the work? Au contraire, we're working harder than ever while the stay-at-home mother has now become a derided rarity. And on balance for less reward. Zero Hedge say that "A new report sheds light on [the fact that] 53 million Americans, or about 44% of all US workers, aged 18 to 64, are considered low-wage and low-skilled. Many of these folks are stuck in the gig economy, making approximately $10.22 per hour, and they bring home less than $20,000 per year. An overwhelmingly large percentage of these folks have insurmountable debts. Their wages don't cover their debt servicing payments as their lives will be left in financial ruin after the next recession."


Despite pre-fabricated robot-produced building components and architectural design automation tools house costs today represent a vastly higher proportion of take-home pay than they used to. In Britain this ratio 
has doubled in just twenty years from four to eight. Little surprise then that the proportion of 25-34 year-old who own their own house has collapsed from 67% in 1991 to 38% in 2016. Despite this more people are working, for longer hours and with less job security. The inflation-adjusted wages of working class Americans is lower today than it was 40 years ago.

Back in the fifties it seemed that most people lived reasonably comfortable lives, the husband worked in a steady usually-unionised job while the wife was a stay-at-home mother. For sure very few people lived in luxury but most owned their home, had one modest car, owned a phone and TV and went on a modest holiday once a year. And this was an economic environment where the norm was to have large families dependent on a single bread-winner. Still, people lived ok.


So why hasn't the spectacular increase in production resulted in everyone rolling in wealth and indolence instead of struggling even to own a house? I don't know but I offer the following as contributory causes:

Wealth is trickling up. A report in Bloomberg claims that the wealth of the top 1% now exceeds that of everyone else combined. The financialisation of the economy must play a major role in this with the extra wealth created by increased productivity and the money magicked up by the central banks being siphoned off by financial speculators. While vast fortunes can be made little or nothing is added to the wealth or lifestyles of ordinary citizens.

Then there's the black/brown/Muslim undertow as White numbers decline in relative terms. These minorities are less productive, commit more crime, have bigger families and are more dependent on welfare. Their rapidly-increasing numbers add to the pressure on housing and healthcare provision. And the affirmative action racket results in a vast army of incompetent leeches draining wealth from productive Whites.

That's my tuppence-worth, but I'm probably biased.

Any other ideas?

Tuesday, 4 February 2020

What do Conservatives actually conserve?

The Conservative Party in Britain has been returned to power with a massive majority. But how much of a victory does this represent for British, or more relevantly English nationalism? Well here's a clue. Look at those who occupy the three most powerful Cabinet positions, those controlling home affairs, foreign affairs and the Treasury. The rest of the Cabinet positions are in reality second-tier, all subject to the whims of one or more of the Big Three. (Maybe the Big Four if you include the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.)

So who are these patriots charged with leading Britain into the dangerous and unpredictable post-Brexit world? Presumably their every waking hour is taken up with furthering the interests of British factory workers, farmers and pensioners with whom they share a visceral love of country? Presumably they chill with a frisson of patriotism every time they hear God Save The Queen? Presumably they share a vicarious pride in Britain's glorious history, a history shaped by their ancestors over many centuries?

It's possible. But I doubt it. Because here are Britain's new de facto rulers:

Home Secretary: 
Name:  Priti Patel 
Ethnicity: Ugandan-Indian 
Religion: Hindu

Chancellor of the Exchequer: 
Name:  Sajid Javid 
Ethnicity: Pakistani - although he looks like he's from another galaxy
Religion: Muslim

Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Name:  Rishi Sunak
Ethnicity: Indian
Religion: Hindu

Foreign Secretary
Name:  Dominic Raab
Ethnicity: Jewish/English 
Religion: Unknown

Now Patel and Raab seem to be sounder on the 'national question' and other conservative touch-points than many of their Cabinet colleagues and were unwavering in their support for Brexit. At the same time you'd have to wonder when an Indian Hindu whose parents fled Uganda and a Jew whose father fled Czechoslovakia control, inter alia, the immigration spigot that threatens to irretrievably destroy Traditional Britain. And God alone knows what the two Punjabis in the Treasury will do when they get their hands on the loot. Javid had an undistinguished banking career before he was miraculously magicked to the top of the Tory pyramid while Sunak worked for Goldman Sachs in their notorious scandal-wracked Investment Banking arm. 

So here's a closing thought: The British ruled over and transformed what's now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (current combined population 1.8 billion) for two centuries with a tiny number of administrators and soldiers. Surely this speaks volumes for the governance capabilities of the respective peoples? Is it not truly bizarre then that just a few decades after relinquishing this control the British have recruited their former subjects to rule over them?

Well it's not if you believe that a Greater Power is orchestrating the nation's affairs.

Sunday, 2 February 2020

Fighting fire - with fire

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Thus the Green Movement has attributed the recent devastating Australian bush fires to, you guessed it, climate change. Experts, including that renowned meteorologist Jennifer Anniston, have sternly warned us  “Make no mistake, the tragedy unfolding in Australia is climate change-based.”  Thanks Jen but no, it isn't. In fact, believe it or not, the Green fundamentalists have themselves been largely responsible for the scale of the current disaster.

The affected region features eucalyptus trees growing in the midst of bushy ground cover. At the best of times this is a combustible mix which is obviously exacerbated by hot and dry weather.  But every fire needs fuel and the amount of fuel in the Australian case has a particularly significant impact. Research has found that doubling the fuel in the forest will double the rate of spread and quadruple the fire intensity. While low intensity fires will tend to burn dead fuels below six millimetres in diameter, medium to high intensity fires will burn young trees, thick twigs and branches, bark and deep litter. That's what we've been seeing for the last few weeks. Fuel reduction also reduces the deadly hazard of spotting from eucalyptus bark, in some cases for up to seven to ten years.

So is there any way to reduce the fuel then? Well yes. Multiple ways. Aussies used to do it all the time. Some still do. Men like Liam Sheehan (good Cork name that) who cleared around his house by controlled burning, cutting down trees and bulldozing the scrub. His house was the only one in his region to survive the recent fires. So why doesn't everyone do that then? They don't because environmental fundamentalist mullahs have taken control of the asylum. Sheehan was fined $100,000 for his foresight because it was adjudged to have caused 'significant damage' to the environment. That's serious money for an ordinary householder and Australians soon got the message.

As a consequence a powder keg in every meaning of the term began to grow. Despite which the mullahs literally added fuel to the fire through even more draconian restrictions. Not happy with preventing tree cutting and brush clearing they then deemed that collecting fallen timber for firewood also contravened sacred dogma. As Wildlife Services spokeswoman  Fiona Buchanan said last year 'removing firewood, including deadwood and fallen trees, is not permitted in national parks. On-the-spot fines apply but also very large fines can be handed out by the courts'. 

What could possibly go wrong? Well we've just seen what could go wrong, haven't we?  But instead of learning from their catastrophic interference the mullahs have used it to demand even greater powers to 'reduce global warming'. 

You see the Green bureaucrats care as little about the environment as socialists care about the working class. They want power above all else. And their policies aren't really about controlling global warming. They're about controlling you.