Monday, 19 February 2018

A Wakanda wild side

Have you ever seen anything like the carefully-orchestrated hype surrounding Black PantherThe uniformity and obsequiousness of the reaction would have made Stalin blush, making Pravda's responses to his speeches forensically hostile by comparison.  It is of course all part of the Magic Numinous Negro Project, the objective of which is to make blacks seem like the best breeding material for shiksas and ultimately blend Whites out of existence. 

But what really blows my mind is the reaction of African-Americans. They, in some unfathomable dimension, seem to think Wakanda is real and take immense pride in it. I kid you not. The following are from a representative sample of journalists and 'academics'.

"An Afro-futuristic reality an idyllic, technically advanced and regally organized African society."

"This is a society that remains perfect because it has wisely been kept secret from the greed and cruelty of the “colonizers,” as the Wakandans call the people of the West."

"Meanwhile in Shuri, we see the infinite possibilities of our girls, who can be, do and invent anything when given the tools, the technological playground and the access to black girl joy."

"And so I drank up Wakanda like a tall, cool drink. And I felt proud."

Sweet Jesus, they can't really think it's real, can they? If so they perfectly meet the clinical definition of psychotic. The irony is that Wakanda itself is the creation of writers, designers, digital artists, software developers and special effects professionals of whom probably 90% are White, the remainder Asians. Any blacks involved would just have brought the coffee. 

Apart from black pride the project has greatly enhanced black cohesiveness and sense of identity. I gather that black-only screenings are taking place all over America and Whites feel frozen out in mixed-race audiences. Identity politics on steroids. And that's good. Identity politics is good for Whites even though - in fact because - right now we're the only race that doesn't self-identify. But that's changing as we get marginalised, mocked, devalued, discriminated against and programmed into believing that inferior races are our betters.....in our own countries, the ones carved out by our ancestors for us, their descendants. 

A closing thought. Maybe there is a Wakanda after all. Built by blacks, never colonised and ruled by these ingenious Africans since its foundations hundreds of years ago. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the First Wakanda.

Saturday, 17 February 2018

Should women be allowed to vote?

To say that women's right to vote should be withdrawn or even restricted would be enough in the Current Year to have you consigned to the pantheon of freaks along with Elephant Man and the Bearded Lady. People would line up and pay good money just to see you. But when analysed on a logical and factual basis the issue is less clear-cut. For instance women know far less about politics and current affairs that do their menfolk as evidenced by a huge (10,000 participants) international survey where men and women were asked questions about domestic and international news. Despite the diversity of the ten sample countries women answered substantially fewer questions correctly than men in every country.

And it gets better. 'Professor James Curran......was surprised to find that gaps in political knowledge are wider in countries that have done the most to promote gender equality.' To which I'd add that only a sociology professor could be surprised by that. Again unsurprisingly when it comes to younger (especially unmarried) women the 'gaps in knowledge' become truly unfathomable. As the report coyly observes 'women acquire political knowledge much later in their lives than men, regardless of a country's gender equality status'. In other words what young women know about current affairs could be written on the back of a small stamp. Yet their vote has the same value as, well, mine. How insane is that?

It gets worse when women's natural proclivities are tossed into the mix. Traditionally men were producers/providers while women were the distributors. So throughout history the man brought home the dead elk or its modern equivalent the pay-packet which the woman then disbursed in accordance with family and household requirements. (I'm talking generally here so please don't cite the Ooogabooga tribe from the Mungawunga Delta or some such in contrast). This system has worked reasonably well for probably thousands of years and it did so at least in part because there was a definitive constraint on what could be disbursed: The amount of food or money the man brought home.

However this modus vivendi does not scale up. When a single producer/provider is replaced by a giant abstraction by way of 'the Government' resource constraints are perceived to fall away. Women instinctively react by 'distributing' more. Lady Savant watches the TV News on the Irish national broadcaster (two female anchors, mostly female reporters, interviewing female heads of quangos) and the mindless bromides waft over me like a noxious miasma. 'Victim', 'oppressed', 'entitled', 'most vulnerable', 'free' 'resources must be made available'...you get the drift.

That's why women, especially the younger cohort, vote for a government that acts as Magic Provider, the substitute alpha male, the father they never knew and the husband they'll never have. Which in turn incentivises a wide range of pathological behaviours such as the whelping of human children with all the forethought and wisdom of stray dogs and welcoming a Third World demographic time bomb to our shores. In fact women, especially the younger ones, vote the wrong way on just about everything (if it had been up to them there's be no Trump nor no Brexit) and will surely destroy our societies if left unchecked. (Sweden will be a Third World country in less than twenty years if current trends continue). 


So as I wait for the men in white coats to collect me I'll cite the case of Appenzell Innerrhoden in my defence. The closest thing to paradise on earth this Swiss canton on the German border has it all. Wealth, beauty, peace, negligible crime, everything works like, well, clockwork.  If it were a country in its own right it'd probably top the international Human Development Index. But problems loom. They were forced to give women the vote a few years ago!

[Note on comment policy: Anonymous comments will not be posted. Quite simple to instead select the Name/URL panel above the Anonymous panel and enter some identifier]

Tuesday, 13 February 2018

Multicultural delusions

Just finished Anatomy Of A Genocide: The Life And Death Of A Town Called Buczacz by (((Omer Bartov))), a once in a lifetime book addressing a long-neglected subject: The fate of the Jews during WW II 😀. Specifically it concerns events in the historical town in what is now western Ukraine after the Germans captured it in 1941. At which point the local Ukrainians massacred their Jewish neighbours. We're lead to believe this came as a surprise because three communities (Ukrainians, Poles and Jews) lived together relatively peacefully in mixed neighbourhoods up till then.

But the full story is more complex. Because (and in fairness Bartov doesn't ignore these facts) when the Red Army invaded in 1940 - the town was then in Poland - it was closely followed by the largely Jewish NKVD. This provided local Jews with the opportunity to settle old scores with the Ukrainians and Poles, identifying enemies of the people for the town's new masters. "I saw how they threw their captives like cattle into trucks and sat on top of them with their rifles". Few of the captives were seen alive again. But the next year the Germans swept aside the Red Army leaving the Ukrainians take terrible vengeance on the Jews. And on their erstwhile masters the Poles.

In this instance, and in similar events that occurred all over the Easter Front in WW II, Jews were not, as the standard narrative ordains, just innocent bystanders nor were they the only victims of inter-communal vengeance.  But the tragedy (incidentally the ancient beautiful buildings were virtually razed to the ground in the conflagration) 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 exception was not that the country collapsed in an orgy of inter-religious and inter-ethnic slaughter rather that Tito managed to hold together 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.

Which is not to say - Jesus I hope I'm right - that all such societies end in violent conflagration. More commonly communities get along with one another albeit with seething fears and resentments simmering below the surface. Trust is at a premium, nepotism flourishes, the application of the law gets corrupted by communal favouritism, the transcendent national spirit atrophies. The United States today is a perfect example and demographic trends there suggest a denouement of some kind will occur within a generation. Many European countries face a similar prospect. Unfortunately the evil globalists who have worked to undermine the nation-state with their (and I use the word advisedly) diabolical social engineering project will by then have passed into the arms of their Master, spared the righteous wrath of their victims.

Saturday, 10 February 2018

Things looking up at the HebeBC!

Nothing, and I mean nothing, gladdens my heart more than seeing PC multicultural equalists enmeshing themselves in the destructive web of their own preposterous dogmas. I eagerly await the impending crash-and-burn in sports, the one place where you can't fake capability. How long can the equalists claim equal pay for women if they don't compete in the same competitions? And if they do then the day beckons when the world's top women players get blown away in the first rounds of every sport by male unknowns.

The belly of the globo-homo equalist beast on this side of the Atlantic surely lies in the HebeBC. And gratifyingly it faces a raft of problems to the point, according to some analysts, of threatening its existence as we know (and hate) it. Apparently given the particular staffing arrangements of the organisation equal pay for da wimmins will have a catastrophic financial impact. The problem was kicked off by China Editor Sarah Montague who resigned her London-based position on a point of deepest principle because she was earning far less than her male counterparts. Subsequently it emerged that the principled self-sacrificing resignation simply meant a different job at the same rate of pay in the same office. As Ron Liddle observed, this is a bit like protesting a restaurant's food and service by moving to a different table.

This particular problem was resolved by John Humphries agreeing to a substantial pay cut. But he is a White British gentleman (but I repeat myself), the kind who made the BBC the exemplar of all that was good in broadcasting. From the likes of him can such altruism be expected. But such men are rapidly being ushered out the doors. And being replaced by a motley collection of women, Jews, Muslims, blacks, Indians, Pakistanis, queers, transgenders and mystery meat of every kind. And the idea of such people volunteering major personal pay cuts in the cause of equality is side-splittingly funny. It appears that (((top executives))), having run the numbers, are seriously concerned at the potential financial impact. The problem is exacerbated by the vast army of useless female and other minority bureaucrats that has been employed over the years to meet self-imposed diversity quotas.

But it gets better. Directly due to its employment practises and being used as an anti-White propaganda machine by the Jews who run it the quality of its programming has plummetted. (Right now Lady Savant has a program on about dieting, presented by mystery meat with an impenetrable Cockney accent, the type which the real BBC would have directed to the tradesmen's entrance). Combined with its blatant multicultural, anti-White propagandising the British public has tuned out in significant numbers. The organisation is now but a pale shadow of its legendary former self and faces growing calls from every section of society to deprive it of its life-force - the compulsory license fee.

The BBC as presently constituted is an exemplar of The Long March Through The Institutions. Let us all hope and pray that a rancid carcass will soon be all that remains of it.

Thursday, 8 February 2018

The comment issue

This blog is unusual in that its ratio of comments to page views is extraordinarily high with an average of about 5,000 views per day generally attracting more than 100 comments per post. This is an extremely high ratio (RamZPaul for instance generally gets about half a dozen). Maybe Paul gets a lot more comments and just doesn't publish them but I don't think that's the case as I've seen advertorial stuff masquerading as comments a few times.

Despite - or maybe because of - the high number of comments many readers have complained that the section has shown a decline in quality and interest over the last few years. So this post is a simple one: I want your advice. A good blog in my opinion is made up of both the posts themselves but also the comments on that post. So I want your input on the following issues and any others you deem valuable:

- should we publish only on-topic comments?

- should the length of comments be restricted?

- how do we identify trolling?

- should certain commentators be banned?

- should anonymous commentators be banned?

- should we become more restrictive still and not publish comments deemed to add little value?

This is by no means a complete list and please add anything you want. Your opinions much appreciated and don't be afraid to name names if needs be.

Thanks.

Sunday, 4 February 2018

Trump's first SOTU address: Some observations

My big take from Trump's first SOTU address was that the Democrats and other 'liberal' nation-wreckers are presenting those defending White interests with an open goal. Victory is ours for the taking. Why? Because in assessing their reaction my first thought was 'with enemies like these who needs friends?'. Despite all Trump's talk of unity it becomes clearer by the day that America (and many other White countries) is separating into two separate nations: The traditional White stock on one side, on the other a motley collection of  (sometimes overlapping) blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Muslims and sexual deviants. Increasingly Whites are being presented with a binary choice: Are we with Them or Us? Are we going to allow ourselves be dispossessed by Them?

Just look - I know it's not easy - at this image of the Black Congressional Caucus at the SOTU. Dumb, disinterested, dressed up like Easter eggs in 'traditional' kente cloth in sympathy with their shit-hole nations of origin, their reaction throughout hinged on one thing only: What's in it for blacks? Latinos are the same. They want the USA to be flooded by fellow Latinos and that's pretty much it. Any rational White person watching would realise the near-impossibility of finding common cause with such people.

And it's not just ethnic, it's also social. Some black CNBC 'journalist' (I don't have the link and believe me it's not worth looking up) claimed after the speech that Trump was seeking to restore the America of family, law-and-order, religion and nationalism. Understand that she referred to these values, values which nearly all normal Americans long for, in a highly negative way. I remember Obama saying once 'this is not who we are'. And he was right in that most Americans are not jug-eared Kenyan homos. But unwittingly he was also right in a broader sense in that most Americans are still White, of the stock that  built the country. The shenanigans of the others are - surely -  giving rise to a renewed sense of racial and social identity. 

So let our enemies, and I use that term advisedly, dig their own graves. (Now there's a thought!). Let them continue to elect militant black Muslims to office, rapidly transform neighbourhoods from White to black/brown, marginalise Whites through AA, violently close down expression of White interests, debase our culture, demonise and belittle us in the media, and shove their hatred of us in our faces every chance they get. 

Unknown to themselves, they're doing the Lord's work.

Thursday, 1 February 2018

The asymmetry of indulgence


There's been a theme running through the comments recently regarding the merits or otherwise of associating with Nazi symbols and terminology. For the record I think we should - for the foreseeable future anyway - avoid them like the plague. The Nazi brand is toxic. Just recently even Jordan Peterson ran into a huge amount of trouble simply for appearing in this rather innocuous photo here.

The irony is that while Nazism is seen as toxic Communism is quite respectable. We're told that Nazism was evil, mass-murdering and demonic while Communism was essentially well-intentioned albeit some of its adherents took things a bit too far. In reality the reverse was the case. Even if we accept the six million Holocau$t™ fraud - a cash cow fabrication on an epic scale - deaths resulting from Nazi actions pale into significance compared to those of the Communists. If we exclude deaths from standard warfare the Nazis killed probably less than one million, including the Holocau$t™ hoax it's still 'only' about seven million. In comparison the deaths resulting from implementing and operating Communism are close to 100 million. At one stage under Stalin the state was executing 10,000 victims per day while Pol Pot tried to exterminate a whole people. 

Despite this, self-professed Communists occupy positions of influence and prestige throughout the West with Eric ('the world's ugliest man') Hobsbawm being a prime example. He espoused Communism all his life although strangely enough when he fled the Nazis he didn't go the USSR rather to Britain. Where, like a termite, he enthusiastically undermined the foundations of the state that gave him refuge. He was almost certainly a Soviet spy, being 'friendly' with all of the Cambridge Spy Ring, always fretting about his MI5 file, fearing that someone may have 'ratted me out'. He was a self-acknowldged social snob (I'm a Tory Communist') and quite openly despised the middle and working classes. Truly he loved The People and hated people.

In an interview with Michael Ignatieff (media today: A Jew interviewing another Jew on an issue of interest to Jews on a channel owned or controlled by Jews but financed by the goyim) he admitted that if the Soviet Union had succeeded in creating a true communist society it would have been worth the deaths of the twenty million people who perished under Stalin. 

Ignatieff: 'In 1934 … millions of people are dying in the Soviet experiment. If you had known that, would it have made a difference to you at that time? To your commitment? To being a communist'

Hobsbawm: 'Probably not.'

He supported the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939 (according to Hobsbawm they were defending Finland from British aggression!) Hungary in 1956 and in Prague twelve years later. Yet this treacherous psychopath was laden with honours throughout his life. The media and his academic colleagues bowed down before him and force fed his work into every modern history course. When the finally died  aged 95 (why is it that the most evil live the longest?) the HebeBC actually altered its programme schedule to broadcast an hour-long hagiography while the next day The Guardian filled not only the front page and the whole of an inside page but also devoted almost its entire G2 Supplement to the news. The Times devoted a leading article to the death, and a two-page obituary.

All of which would have been of interest to Markus Meechan who ended up in jail for training his dog to give the Nazi salute. At least he can take some consolation in knowing that Hobsbawn must now be roasting somewhere in the Seventh Circle of Hell.