How’d you like to be running a presidential campaign dependent on Muslims not acting up again between now and Nov. 8? It’s getting awfully hard for the media to keep being indignant about Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, as long as Muslims keep blowing things up and shooting people.
I’m assuming here that The Washington Post has not already ruled the Muslims who blew up the Istanbul Airport to be self-hating gays infected by America’s culture of homophobia.
Western governments have devoted incalculable resources to developing some diagnostic test other than “Muslim” to predict terrorism. As the New York Times reported earlier this year:
“What turns people toward violence — and whether they can be steered away from it — are questions that have bedeviled governments around the world for generations. Those questions have taken on fresh urgency with the rise of the Islamic State and the string of attacks in Europe and the United States. Despite millions of dollars of government-sponsored research, and a much-publicized White House pledge to find answers, there is still nothing close to a consensus on why someone becomes a terrorist.”
I have a possible indicator! M-U-S-L- …
After the July 7, 2005, London subway bombing by Muslim terrorists that killed 52 people, the British MI5 undertook its own highly sophisticated study, examining hundreds of cases. But the UK’s security agency discovered that terrorists are a wildly diverse lot. They worshipped at a variety of different mosques, for example.
Some terrorists were very religious Muslims and some barely practicing. Most were men, but some were women. There were young and old terrorists, highly educated as well as uneducated, some loners and some married with children.
So, according to MI5, the predictive power of every factor is very low — other than: Is a Muslim.
The researchers claimed their work would “challenge the stereotypes” about who becomes a terrorist, but it pretty much confirmed mine.
It’s simply back to business as usual for the Conservative Party, after the brief populist insurgency :
Mr. Johnson, sought to calm nerves and markets with his first extensive remarks on the way forward, setting out a position that seemed to de-emphasize elements of what the Leave campaign had promised.
While Johnson’s endearing eccentricity and caring toff-image helped sell the Leave vote, I find it unconvincing that he personally believed in the cause anymore that in provided political career opportunities for him :
Mr. Johnson also played down the central issue of the campaign, immigration, saying it was not really what Britons were voting on, despite considerable evidence that it was.
The Leave vote represented White Brits rejecting globalism, no borders and taken to its conclusion, their own genocide. Conservatives ignore it at their peril.
Dating across racial boundaries is at an all time high. What was once a relatively rare sight of a White female and black male is now becoming far more common. It’s not just trashy fat old White whores anymore. It used to be, but it’s also young women, intelligent looking with decent prospects, although I’m sorry to break it to them: blacks don’t differentiate.
It looks like a trend, as if women are copying one another. And its escalated in the last two years in particular. It’s extremely disturbing.
One thing I have noticed is these women don’t have the same expressions as women with White men. These White women with negroes look…..afraid, almost drugged or stupefied. They don’t really look comfortable.
Something is amiss.
You will notice it when you see it. Perhaps they have already had shaking experiences they weren’t warned about with their black partner that conflict with the images of blackness they have received.
There’s also another group of older women with negroes. For them it’s about still being wanted. They will take anything to still feel attractive.
In the past I have taken a more compassionate view of these dirtied-women. It’s not as if the mainstream media presents them with any serious facts about dating blacks and the joys they bring to a relationship, possibly starting with infidelity (Blacks are more naturally polygamous/promiscuous and are the most r-type reproducers), STDs/HIV, up to rape, gang rape as they introduce you to their ‘friends’, working up to extreme violence and death. All parts of the vibrancy spectrum.
Instead these women are inappropriately bombarded by images of blacks in music videos surrounded by White women, miscegenating couples and mixed babies as if it were something to strive for. They see celebrities. They think it’s cool. They are told to see blacks as oppressed rather than morally and intellectually disabled. They mistake pity for love, black inability for injustice, Jewish-manufactured black victim status for lost potential, perhaps that only she can repair.
But this group of younger women with far a higher IQ than the negroes they are dating have entered into an appalling false positive. They have identified themselves as weak links in our extended-family chain, susceptible to unquestioningly accepting demographic shifts in cites due to immigration, and defenseless to Jewish propaganda targeted at female group dynamics. Most regrettably, they have the potential at least to produce offspring out of these debased affairs, mixing their genes with a genetically-distant primitive group that will only ever be entirely dependent on their own. As the trend of interracial dating has clearly got worse I now feel less sympathetic.
When there eventually is racial separation these dirtied-women who have adopted negroes ought to be forced to embrace blackness in its completeness and everything that truly means without Whites.
They have elected to be on the other side of that wall.
Those in the political center were demonized as out-of-touch elites, as though the people leading the insurgency were ordinary folks […]
[…] Instead, we are seeing a convergence of the far left and far right. The right attacks immigrants while the left rails at bankers, but the spirit of insurgency, the venting of anger at those in power and the addiction to simple, demagogic answers to complex problems are the same for both extremes. Underlying it all is a shared hostility to globalization.
If the people — usually a repository of common sense and practicality — do something that appears neither sensible nor practical, then it forces a period of long and hard reflection. My own politics is waking to this new political landscape. The same dangerous impulses are visible, too, in American politics, but the challenges of globalization cannot be met by isolationism or shutting borders. […]
While it is completely lost on Blair that the ‘insurgency’ is because nobody wants globalization, this section is true:
And besides, immigration to Britain from outside the European Union will not be affected by the referendum decision.
What Blair calls concerns about immigration (what I would call alarm that the UK is being invaded by hostile, hate-filled, violent, primitive Others) is indeed less the fault of the EU, and more the result of successive British governments, including Blair’s own extremist internationalist administration.
It’s great to give the establishment and all of the out of touch elites Blair mentions a political kicking with the referendum, to send them a clear message their diversity is unwanted, but it’s not going to materially change the diversity-demographic problems Britain has, when it’s done a lot of the importing itself.
And as much as I am supportive of the Brexit result, on its own it is a symbolic victory. An important symbolic victory for sure – that will provide months of butt hurt and screaming by the Left and its SJWs, and that will lance the blob of puss that makes up the current political boil, but it is clearly a first step, not yet attached to any real world accomplishments on race and identity.
Meanwhile, in the immediate aftermath of Brexit there remains a danger that Britain starts rallying around the Union Jack, reinventing a similar ‘Cool Britannia’ top-down cultural nationalism that seemed to coincide with Blair’s rise to power in 1997. This neutered expression of nationalism would have a tendency to be inclusive and in a clamor of White-pathology, self-deception and Jewish meddling could include the brown flood it left the EU over.
Of course such an outcome would be a complete failure.
It’s true the EU had become a bloated meaningless monster, devouring more and more powers. Politicians and those who cared among the public were quite aware of the bureaucratic design flaws, its unaccountability to populations in member states, and there were regular, although sometimes halfhearted calls for the EU to ‘reform’.
However there was no serious political will to reform it, and everyone involved, even so called former ‘firebrand leftists’ simply enjoyed their grotesque luxuries and giant salaries from the EU with noses stuck in the trough.
Likewise, the EU itself had no real vision outside of the expired ‘never again’ politics of post-WW2. Aside from free trade, its values are inclusivity and tolerance, its official motto, ‘United in Diversity’. Although no one would dare admit it, Brexit was significantly and rightly psychologically driven by the rejection of diversity, i.e race.
No question, there were grave issues about sovereignty and governance, but watching freaks like Angela Merkel flood her country with every shade of shit possible to prove how modern, reformed and apologetic Germany really really is, repulsed the entire world. The UK looked on in horror as this rabid lunatic emptied out an extra large effluent bucket over Germany for no other reason than to look and feel ‘moral’ as bombs and bullets exploded in other European countries thanks to the same enrichment.
Images of Africans and Muslims all over Western Europe at ports, in shanty towns, setting fire to their dwellings, attacking Whites, raping children and women who welcomed them, murdering or killing their hosts in acts of terrorism, then EU leaders declaring member states would be fined for not accepting the privilege of even more of this enrichment was the EU setting itself up for disaster when put to the poll.
It’s just a shame the UK had been emptying its own buckets out across the country for years, inevitably for the same insane reasons other EU states have.
The EU thought it was unbeatable. It thought it was an institution that transcended history, towered over time and that, in its eyes, could atone for all European war. It assumed it held values so moral and compelling that no one would be able to resist its ethical grandeur, all can be transformed by its magic dirt.
It was that detached hubris of this giant unaccountable bureaucracy dispensing suicidal policies that ensured the UK’s Leave win and may now have set up the falling dominoes for other countries to do the same.
Congratulations to UK’s Leave campaign. Amazing job. Yesterday the indications seemed bad, and I assumed it was lost and yet the final results were there.
Although far bigger problems than the EU lie ahead, this is a major first step and a great day for the Right, who deserves to celebrate not just in Britain, but across the world.
Watching the absolute meltdown of the political and media classes is bliss. Will write up something fuller shortly!
I haven’t got a whole lot to add to what what has already been said on this subject, other than I very much hope the vote is for Leave.
Immigration is rightly a pivotal concern of the Leave campaign, but Britain’s immigration problem predates the EU.
The catastrophe in the United Kingdom started when blacks were imported in numbers in the 1950s, allegedly to fill work gaps in public services.1 This was the beginning of what is sometimes today called “Modern Britain”. Since then there have been successive waves of non-White immigration.
It’s difficult to pin down exactly what the thinking was in the government at the time, which either didn’t understand, or simply didn’t care what would happen (maybe the same lack of thinking ahead with slavery in the US), or some in and around the government possibly intended the beginning of a White Genocide. Take your pick. By 1968 Enoch Powell famously stood against the catastrophe and a lot of the British and media establishment who were guilty of it:
Powell recounted a conversation with one of his constituents, a middle-aged working man, a few weeks earlier. Powell said that the man told him: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country… I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas.” The man finished by saying to Powell: “In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
Powell went on:
“Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that the country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.
Sadly the situation is probably even far more extreme and grotesque than Powell predicted. By the time you get to the Blair government, immigration had literally become about White Genocide.
A Leave win would definitely be a great achievement. It would set a path to restoring sovereignty, it would be a major boost to the Right and could trigger an eventual collapse of the entire union, all major positives worth fighting for, but I don’t believe it’s going ‘save Britain’.
Britain’s immigration problem together with its extreme center politics can’t be solved by merely leaving the EU.
That’s not to say the EU doesn’t have a serious impact on immigration between member states. It does, and the EU should be seen as a kind of ‘mini global government’ in this regard, and a strong argument against one which would inevitably collapse into a centralized HQ to distribute diversity.
However a lot of the more fanatical laws created in the UK were not done so at the behest of the EU, they were created internally to discipline its demoted White population over decades as it absorbed more and more non-Whites, and chased ‘values’ which were increasingly less rooted in its history and more and more debased and abstract.
Laws against terror, racial discrimination, hate, laws for massive state surveillance were drawn up with feverish gusto by successive UK governments, abnormally catalyzed by the diversity that the UK had brought upon itself. And that toxic combination of immigration replete with terrorism and anti-discrimination legislation has increased the power of the state, particularly against its biggest enemy Whites, dramatically.
But I believe that the British government is imbued with a particularly nasty kind of moral fanaticism and paranoia. I can’t help wondering if that originated from its empire days, and if part of the UK-establishment really still believes it is an empire, or is at least steeped in the same sense of moral authority. (Doubtless Britain’s dubious and hypocritical post-WW2 view of itself is also a factor in this regard.)
In any case it has steadily turned that self-anointed authority on its own population, subjugating Whites and mixing them in with primitive groups urged along by Jews to do so.
With or without the European Union, the UK government doesn’t stand for ‘freedom’ or justice or fight for it. In fact the UK, despite successive leaders talking about ‘values’ doesn’t really stand for much at all.
The role of government in the UK is predominantly to protect power and the hoarding of power – with a special preference to Jewish power, and to protect itself from its own population, to stop the whole miserable meaningless regime falling to pieces.
Britain, not for a very long time has been a ‘good country’. It was a bad country in WW1, a bad one in WW2. It was a bad one in Iraq. You would probably have to turn the clock back 150 to 200 years to find something worthwhile Britain as a state stood for.
Britain today, as something to ‘fight for’ is gone. It’s more like a shit-stained plastic container than a country.
The only scenarios that could save Britain would be a White uprising where the military (loyal to the Queen and not the PM) and police are somehow brought onto the side of that uprising and media institutions are forcibly occupied. It would literally be a coup against liberal extremism. Or Britain is taken over by a Trump-Reich or Russia, followed by vast ethnic-cleansing of the last 60 years of diversity. Yeah sure it’s fantasy, but that’s the situation to ‘save Britain’.
1. Notice how fucking badly that Wiki page is written. Clearly put together by people of color.
There’s an interesting article by Hoew Abbott-Hiss on counter-currents.com reviewing a book called In Defense of Flogging by Peter Moskos.
As its title suggests, the book considers corporal punishment as an alternative to prison for offenders.
Abbot-Hiss sees the book as “a valuable contribution towards a future alt-right criminal justice policy”, which I interpret to mean how whites should be punished in a future whites-only state.
I haven’t read the book, and I haven’t studied any stats on the history of punishment in white-only societies, but it’s clear from recent studies that violent crime, and crime as a whole has become heavily influenced by diversity, particularly the presence of blacks who are disproportionately violent offenders.
That said, the author Moskos is definitely not a race realist, and must be thinking of how his ideas would apply to the ethnic status-quo:
“there is still a great deal of hand-wringing concerning racial disparities in the criminal justice system, as well as the “circumstances that contribute to crime.” Moskos believes for some reason that “To ask that the chances of a person being caught and punished for any given crime be roughly equal, regardless of race, would seem reasonable” (70). He even complains about slavery”
However the book does seem to indirectly impinge on the topic of negroes, as Moskos refects:
The idea that criminals can be deterred from crime by the threat of future punishment “depends on a certain level of rational thought and long-term comprehension,” but there is “little evidence that most criminals consider possible punishment before committing a crime,” as they do not expect to be caught. (29)
Before the but seems to suggest blacks.
Black criminality is not of the same nature as white criminality, it’s distinct. One essential differentiation is that the innate celebration of senseless barbaric violence itself is a core pillar of black identity as author Colin Flagherty illustrates:
Flaherty frequently cites Marlin Newburn, a prison psychologist who “has been on the front lines of racial violence for 30 years.”
According to Newburn, these “predators,” do not reflect “a subculture,” but “a primary part of the black culture [.]” This culture “is one of sadistic and primitive impulse where they [the predators] believe themselves to be 10 feet tall, bulletproof, very smart, good looking, gifted, and tougher than anyone.”
These “predators” live “without any sense of personal responsibility or boundaries with others.” Hence, while “assaulting or killing someone, the absence of a conscience is considered among their peers as an indicator of strength and power.” The expression of “joy in the process [of violence] only heightens their street cred.”
When it comes to murder, perhaps one would have to look historically to see if the six-times-more-likely-than-a-non-black-to-commit-murder rate is even a comprehensive understanding of the situation today. Perhaps many more blacks who would be murderers or engage in extreme violence, simply haven’t had sufficient stimulus to yet. Being sufficiently distracted enough by artificial affirmative action programs in exchange for not murdering.
In any case, harrowing monstrous violence is way too much of a frequent occurence with blacks than should be tolerated. It appears to be the conclusion all ‘black culture’ is moving towards, and where it doesn’t move directly towards it, it orbits round it – affected by its gravity, sooner or later being pulled towards the well.
Naturally in a sane world, this dire, murderous hellish situation should have real consequences for the law and penal system, and indeed it has had historically, but in recently times the consequences have all been implicit, legislation merely alleged by the Left to have disproportionately impacted blacks, as if that is a bad thing.
Time and time again, we see demonstrated in the news that negro criminals, no matter the severity of the crime, simply have no regret. It would seem to follow that blacks overwhelmingly lack the cognitive faculties, the moral framework to feel remorse or to reform, two of the key fundamental ideas that the prison system credits itself with conferring.
There is even a reasonable notion that crime itself is entirely a white, or at least non-black concept, that blacks have an utterly inadequate moral and cognitive resonance with.
As black criminals disproportionately don’t feel remorse, are unlikely to be reformed, are likely to re-offend and see their crimes as either part of normal black behavior or achievement signals to other blacks – the current system of punishment -as it pertains to blacks – is simply a hollow mockery of justice.
There are three options:
The first, what is happening or not-happening already, is to simply not address the issue and pretend that justice exists and that prison, and threat of prison, works for blacks as well as it does for whites.
The second – is to have an undisguised second set of laws that pertain specifically to the punishment of blacks as a distinct group,
and the third is the ideal of racial separation.
The second option – trying to accommodate blacks in the current failed system of racial integration would then need to empower the state to find other ways of punishing blacks, in this context – legally torturing negroes convicted of violent crime against whites and possibly non-blacks, where achievable by law to the specifics of the case.
The threshold of the death penalty could also be lowered with blacks.
As blacks are disproportionately the source of serious violent crime, if blacks can’t feel remorse and empathy and are unable to reform, then the justice system has to reform itself to take those realities into account, just as all government policy needs to adjust to current political circumstances.
Where they can’t reform or remorse, blacks can be made to suffer physically instead. This could act as a far more powerful deterrent to other blacks, where typical deterrents have failed – taking into account black cognitive deficits, like lack of morality and lack of impulse control, swapping failed punishments for ones that are appropriate to black group cognition and capacity. Under this scenario – ideally the punishments should correspond to those inflicted on the victim.