Sunday, 21 August 2016

The Freude of Schadenfreude

They say schadenfreude is an ignoble emotion. After all in the original German it means 'harmful joy'. But I must admit to relishing the feeling when the victim deserves it. Thus, on reading of Ireland's Olympic Committee President Pat Hickey ('the most hated man in Irish sport') being arrested and banged up in one of Brazil's toughest prisons a warm glow of inner peace and contentment settled over me while I savoured every lip-smacking detail of his arrest (naked and on-camera) and subsequent imprisonment.

Why? Because Hickey is the exemplar par excellence of the 'blazer'. That loathed parasitic carbuncle on the backside of every sport. Invariably having been useless at the sport themselves the blazers contrive, through a combination of rat-like cunning, shameless careerism, sycophancy and a total absence of any semblance of decency, to ascent to the highest organising levels of the sport they feed off. Preening, arrogant and unaccountable, these leeches seemingly go on for ever while the sportsmen, the source of their privilege, disappear into obscurity once their brief moment in the sun ends.

So let us rejoice then, and breathe a silent prayer of gratitude as we savour the thought of Hickey getting his arsehole enlarged by the seven sex-starved vibrants with whom he currently shares a cell in Rio. Give it all you got guys, you're doing the Lord's work.

Coda: Have you noticed how the Olympic Battle Of The Pharmacists Games have been exploited to promote the anti-White agenda? Michael Phelps, the greatest swimmer of all time, completes another board-sweeping masterclass but all the attention focuses on some black woman who managed to swim the length of the pool without drowning. 

Meanwhile Ryan Lochte and his buddies (all typical White college boy types) get dragged through the media with finger-wagging relish for little more than a youthful prank. And British media celebrate as the "British" Mohammed Farah (pictured) - born and reared in Somalia - wins gold. Congratulations Britain. You've managed somehow to break the mysterious stranglehold that East Africans have held on long-distance running for decades. Well done. Hope nobody discovers your secret.

Thursday, 18 August 2016

Could Jews catch the flak if Trump loses?

Over at the Occidental Observer Prof. Kevin MacDonald has written a series of interesting article on the reasons for the extraordinary level of Jewish  antipathy to Donald Trump. Like any sane person Kevin dismisses ostensible Jewish concerns about Trump's character, in particular his alleged sexual and financial improprieties (kettles and pots spring instantly to mind) and exposes the real reason: His blowing open the Overton Window to the point where White ethnic concerns, especially those on immigration, have become mainline topics. For instance he cites (((Jonathan Greenblatt))) of the Anti-Defamation League whining that [Trump] has "allowed some of the worst ideas into the public conversation in ways we haven’t seen anything like in recent memory.” And that's what it's mainly about.

The whole series of articles is well worth a read, but here I want to focus on an issue raised in the fifth (and final?) one: Will Whites blame Jews should Trump lose in November?  I believe this to be a strong and fully deserved possibility.  The White resentment, often expressed by way of the much-deplored 'dog whistles', is palpable. (Explanatory note: A 'dog whistle' is simply an oblique expression of White interests. Obliqueness is required  to forestall subsequent loss of employment or even - as in Europe - a jail term. Jews are notoriously thin-skinned regarding anti-Semitic dog whistles such as 'Hollywood degenerates', 'corporate media' and 'international financiers'.)

The frantic whack-a-mole efforts of online moderators seem unable to keep pace with this growing torrent of White ethnic awakening. In my own case, using a variety of online personas I have acted as agent provocateur on many 'respectable' (i.e. cosy consensus parrots) publications and watched with amusement as my comment first gets overwhelmingly supported before eventually the whole thread gets consigned to the ether by despairing censors. I can assure you that the number of such comments has been dramatically increasing over recent years, going into overdrive since the onset of the Trumpening.

So what happens if Trump loses to the Hildebeast? Well his supporters have already witnessed the unprecedented efforts used by the Republican establishment and their cronies in the media to overturn the legitimate selection of the primary voters. They, with considerable justification, harbour deep suspicions regarding the Presidential election process. Whenever they turn on their screens or open a newspaper they witness the unprecedented degree of bile and vitriol flung at their choice. They know who (((the controllers))) of those outlets are. There's also a growing awareness that Whites are at the Last Chance Saloon when it comes to forestalling their own demographic displacement.

Time will tell. Hopefully a Trump victory will render the question moot.

Sunday, 14 August 2016

Seeking war with Russia

Have you given much thought to the non-stop tide of aggression by 'the West' against Russia in general and in particular Vladimir Putin? If not then you should be, because there is a real danger of WW III breaking out. History, especially that in the 20th century, is replete with examples of countries and alliances stumbling into catastrophic conflict, or assuming that a war of choice lasting many years would have been over within a few weeks. Here's Putin himself directly sounding the alarm. My friend Oleg, who's very well clued in there, tells me that he himself has never been more worried about an outbreak of global hostilities.

Here's a brief recap on recent Western aggression against Russia. First there was NATO expansion into the former Warsaw Pact countries, started almost before the ink was dry in the agreement between Gorbachev and Bush.  This was followed by the spectacular looting of Russia's resources by Western 'advisors' during the Yeltsin era, and since then there's been a non-stop barrage of invective, lies, threats, insults and provocations of every kind. And of course there was the ZioCon coup in Ukraine, which brought Russia's traditional enemies right into the heartland.

Factors I see contributing to these developments: 

NATO careerists and the MIC desperately seeking new enemies, or reviving old ones.

Russia's key role in the international trend towards breaking the petro dollar hegemony, non-dollar trade pacts and selling Russian and Iranian oil to Europe for Euros.

A distraction is needed for the impending collapse of the bankers' financial ponzi scheme

Putin is leading the 'traditional values' fightback against the (((Western))) nation-wrecking tide of degeneracy. (Check this article from Foreign Policy, aka ZioCon Central.)

Post-war anarchy would lead to public support for a NWO (Hegelian dialectic).

Finally and least likely, the green and global warming fanatics who long for a major depopulation event.

(Of course there are major links and overlaps between the interests cited above)

But.......if you read this earlier post of mine on Putin you might agree with me that the explanation is far from clear. But the danger is real.

Wednesday, 10 August 2016

The proof of the pudding....

When Henry Ford 1st published his famous/notorious exposure of the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion in the Dearborn Independent he adopted a distinctive approach. Declining to offer an opinion as to their authenticity he instead simply reprinted the protocols and invited his readers to assess the extent to which subsequent world events actually conformed to them. (The money men eventually got to Henry through his company, forcing him to don sackcloth and ashes and recant in the finest traditions of Galileo).

The prescriptive power of the Protocols was extraordinary even at that time, and subsequent events (especially regarding central banks' powers) continue to validate their authenticity. But A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties (aka the Yinon Plan) almost blows your mind in the way its recommendations have become reality since its publication in 1982. (In Hebrew for a World Zionist Organization magazine.) In essence the plan suggests fomenting endless war (intra-national and international) among Israel's 'neighbours' with a view to rendering them devastated, divided, impoverished and powerless, and thus easy prey for Israeli expansionism. Incidentally the document provides a chilling insight into the mind of a textbook psychopath, one utterly devoid of morality and empathy, casually proposing the death and impoverishment of millions of innocent civilians.

Here are are a few illustrative excerpts (full text here).

"The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible."

Now compare this to what Gen. Wesley Clarke revealed about the lead-up to the Iraq War. Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Are we still going to attack Iraq?”   He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

This document, and the events which have followed its publication, should lay to rest once and for all any illusions we might have harboured in relation to the various wars in the Middle East. Clearly the Zionist-Occupied Governments (ZOGs) of the West are using their countries' blood and treasure in pursuit of Israeli expansionism. The depths of the associated treason and treachery are simply breathtaking and will continue in overdrive should Hillary Rodent Clinton be elected President. 

Monday, 8 August 2016

There are none so blind as.....

Wow, that hurt! I'm talking about last night when my jaw dropped so fast it hit hit the table with a thump. You see Lady Savant was watching the indoctrination news on CNN or CNBC when two black "intellectuals" (if you're black, haven't killed anyone and wear a suit you're an intellectual) were discussing the alluring prospect of African-Americans returning to their Mudda Continent.

I assumed that they'd be quaking in terror at the prospect of living without YT's free shit. But no - they actually wondered how YT would get on without them! I swear! "We built this country, why should we hand it over?" Yes, they actually said that.  "The myth that Whites want us to go to Africa is just that. A myth". Yes, they said that as well.  And they referred a few times to the one trillion dollar spending power of the black 'community' in America. Watch YT survive without that, they chortled. This figure seemed crazy at first but then if you factor in welfare payments, loot from employer discrimination shakedowns (most of which ends up with Rev'unds Jesse and Al's drug dealers), 'reparations' for slavery and income from makeup AA jobs in Gub'mint they might actually be in the right ballpark. And apparently with black cultural icons such as P Diddy and Snoop Dog back in the Dark Continent White Americans would have 'no culture' left.

They failed to mention that:

The prison population would go down by 37%

Average IQ would go up 7 points

SAT scores would go up by about 100 points

Cases of sexually transmitted diseases would be reduced by more than half

The amount of people in poverty would go down by over 30% and as a result welfare costs would plummet

More than that, millions of police, prison guards, judges and lawyers would be redirected to productive employment, the inefficiencies of affirmative action would be massively reduced, blowing trillions of dollars on the futile attempt to 'bridge the achievement gap' would end while Whites would at last be allowed to settle in Whitopias without fear of Section 8 vibrancy driving them out.

America would lead the world again.

It staggers me that African Americans, especially their 'intellectuals', can be so divorced from reality. I can only assume that they buy into the fantasy world of black wonderfulness presented to them by the media, that they actually think they got and hold their AA jobs on merit, that their manifold failures are genuinely due to racism. Can they really be so deluded?  Have they not learned of the original Return To Africa experiment?  Probably not.

All of which means that when the Fed's funny money Ponzi hits the rocks (it will)  and America's blacks have to fund their own lifestyles the blow-back will be epic.

Monday, 1 August 2016

"Moderate" Muslims: Caution required

Long time members of this blog will know that I've spent many years working in Muslim countries, from Egypt to Pakistan and all stops in between. You will also be aware that I'm not a fan of the Religion Of Peace. Having said that my experience is by no means all negative. I have many pleasant memories of friends and acquaintances from those countries, with Oman holding a special place in my affections.

Now all of us have heard the following, or a variance of it. "We must distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary Muslims. I know plenty of Muslims who take a beer, don't go to a mosque, enjoy discos, are great fun....just like any of us".  All well and good. Apart from the last bit. Because apart from some rare exceptions they are not 'like any of us'. This truth can be established through the simple expedient of making a joke about the "Prophet" or Islam generally. Do that (not advised) and watch the transformation in your fun-loving hedonist. The realisation will dawn that in fact he is different, very different, and not in a reassuring way.

My experience has lead me to believe that an Islamic upbringing actually changes the chemistry of the brain, fossilises the neural pathways so that the brain is literally incapable of processing certain offending thoughts or concepts. I have had highly intelligent Muslims (technology PhD level from good Western universities) argue that the "Prophet" actually did head off into the skies on his horse and subsequently engage in a series tense (and successful!) negotiations with Allah Himself.  Attempting to dissect the inherent nonsense of such a position is not advised as it will quickly - very quickly - lead to a state of open and probably permanent animosity.

Also bear in mind that as a community Muslim behaviour is predicated directly on their proportion of the population. When it's tiny, as it is in Ireland right now, Muslims will generally be enthusiastic supporters of  freedom and tolerance of every kind, especially that of the religious variety. But they become progressively more demanding as they proportionally increases, to the point where they begin to run parallel societies (France, Sweden) and ultimately force their own rules and mores on the host population. "When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam."

Indeed. Nothing but a major prohibition on further Muslim immigration to the West will be sufficient. Those countries in the 10%+ range are doomed short of mass deportations.

All of which justifiably points the spotlight at those nation-wreckers who have foisted this recklessly dangerous social engineering project on the people of the West. In a just world they'd face the most severe form of retribution.

Friday, 29 July 2016

A Manchurian Candidate?

The more I see of Merkel's behaviour the more I'm convinced that she's some kind of Manchurian Candidate, installed by globalists at the political apex of Europe's most powerful country. I've spent a lot of time recently researching her background in an attempt to discover what makes her tick. Even allowing for my limitations in the German language the most remarkable finding was, well, the lack of findings. Just like another possible Manchurian Candidate (this one in Washington) much of her life remains shrouded in mystery. Which makes her (and Obama's) subsequent rise to positions of extraordinary power all the more remarkable, if not downright sinister.

What we do know of Merkel tells us that she was an enthusiastic supporter of the Communist Government in the GDR, to the point of being, despite her weak denials ("I can only rely on my memory. If other things emerge one can live with that too") secretary for Agitation and Propaganda in the institution where she worked. A former colleague explained "with Agitation and Propaganda you're responsible for brainwashing in the sense of Marxism. That was her task and that wasn't cultural work. Agitation and Propaganda, that was the group that was meant to fill people's brains with everything you were supposed to believe in the GDR, with all the ideological tricks."  Former colleagues in the GDR also remember her being a severe critic of the Federal German political system and polity. And who can forget the time she threw away, visibly disgusted, the flag of the country she purportedly leads??

Yet the ink on the German reunification agreement was hardly dry when she somersaulted into the bosom of the Christian Democrats, the very embodiment of that Federal Republic. Such cold-blooded cynical opportunism was nothing new to her. Shortly after graduating in 1976, on a trip to Leningrad she met a fellow scientist, Ulrich Merkel, and they were married the following year.  Her husband paid for their living expenses while Angela completed her doctorate. The doctorate complete, Merkel immediately left, taking the only thing of any value in the flat – a fridge – with her.  Ulrich had not the slightest inkling that his wife was about to leave: she hired a small van one morning and took the fridge. There was no discussion, no note, and she divorced him shortly afterwards.

Nice lady.

Once in the CDU her totally different background in the GDR must have aroused deep suspicion among party members, she had no power base, no friends, utterly lacked charm or empathy, and was a woman in a male-dominated party. Yet within a few short years she had - somehow - seized (or been awarded) the leadership of the party and shortly after that the Chancellorship itself. Her life and career therefore reveal her to be an unprincipled, conniving and disloyal opportunist. Essential qualities for a successful politician, the cynics among you might aver. And such a politician would never countenance sacrificing a career in pursuit of a selfless altruistic outcome. But that's what Merkel has been doing with and for the "refugees".

Or has she?

Is she instead some form of Manchurian Candidate, installed by NWO globalists to destroy the ethnic homogeneity of Germany and by extension the whole continent of Europe? What else could explain the insanity of what she's doing? With the black/brown tide sweeping her (?) country into fear and chaos, with powerful moves afoot to oust her an unscrupulous conniving careerist of her ilk would jettison her altruism post-haste. But instead it seems she's about to pour petrol on the flames. 'I am still convinced today that "we can do it" - it is our historic duty and this is a historic challenge in times of globalisation,' she said. 'We have already achieved very, very much in the last 11 months.' 

 I await your views with interest.