Tony Blair: The poison continues…

One thing that caught my attention recently was an article by our old friend, Tony Blair in the New York Times.

Blair has put himself –or is (((being))) put, at the forefront of a so called ‘centrist’ campaign against what he correctly describes as a popular revolt in the West, culminating in Trump’s election and Brexit, which he of course opposes.

While Blair’s new political activity should be a cause for great concern, there is an immediate silver lining to this cloud. It suggests there really aren’t that many people corrupt and debased enough who can actually take on this role. Blair, despite his absolutely soiled track record with the public, finds himself regularly reused as a frontman for the forces of globalization and anti-whiteness.

Blair says:

The modus operandi of this populism is not to reason but to roar. It has at times an anarchic feel. Yet it has also mobilized a powerful media behind it. Its supporters welcome the outrage their leaders provoke.

The causes of this movement are the scale, scope and speed of change. This is occurring economically as jobs are displaced and communities fractured, and culturally as the force of globalization moves the rest of the world closer and blurs old boundaries of nation, race and culture.

Not that the ‘change’ itself is a bad thing. It’s just the ‘speed’ of racial and national blurring that’s the problem. Blair’s view has always been that if you ‘mitigate’ the effects of globalization, i.e: placate whites with more worthless jobs in call centers or government, provide them with more state handouts, devalued degrees, and more CCTV cameras to try to dissuade blacks, Somalis and Muslims from raping white women, the underlying objections will just go away and whites will welcome their displacement and everything will be fine. They will simply exchange their human dignity, race, culture and values for things that will only hurt them more. Just explain to them it’s ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’. That’s basically Blair’s modus operandi.

Blair goes on:

The same dynamics are splintering the left, too. One element has aligned with the right in revolt against globalization, but with business taking the place of migrants as the chief evil. They agree with the right-wing populists about elites, though for the left the elites are the wealthy, while for the right they’re the liberals.

This leftist populism is a profound error. It has no chance of matching the populist appeal of the right, and it dangerously validates some of the right’s arguments. This only fuels a cynicism that depresses support for the more progressive parts of the left’s program.

Blair’s entire career has been as a fanatical apologist and Mr Fixit for these elites, and that means trying to nullify any arguments against things elites want, like globalization, white genocide and war. What Blair is really saying here, is that our arguments are extremely sound. They are so sound, that parts of the Left have actually found a way to agree with them. That means they are not a ‘nutty right wing conspiracy’, rather they have an observable objective basis, and that makes them extremely dangerous. One of the strategies of people like Blair is to drive a wedge between the Right and the sections of the Left who have the capacity to agree with us, so there can never be any political consensus against these elites that Blair represents.

But this left tendency has gained from the seeming paralysis of the center. The parties and politicians of the center have become the managers of the status quo in an era when people want change. So, the center — in both its center-right and center-left camps — is marginalized, even despised.

It’s despised because it’s caused immense harm. Firstly, the ‘center’ – center-left or center-right, is really just another version of the Left as far as its most zealous ideological advocates are concerned.

‘The center’ is a consolidation of the power between different vectors; extremes of global capitalism on the one hand and ‘social justice’ on the other, that were once at odds with each other, but are now merged into one toxic blob.

Particularly, the center has become ideologically dominated by the cultural goals of the Left, which rely on the cover it provides to appear less-threatening, utilizing less-obvious language to obscure its intentions.

So this ‘center’ is not really a center as it has a specific direction: towards more immigration, diversity, globalization and degeneracy. It never goes away from it. Sure the center-right will pay lip service to going the other way to get votes from whites, but it never actually does anything.

The term ‘center’ is dishonest as the objectives of its most staunch advocates are not politically neutral. The phrase provides legitimacy and cover, making it seem reasonable and moderate rather than its own kind of fanaticism.

After that, the center is really just a coalition of reality-denying white cucks, virtue-signalling to one another demonstrating how eager they are to flood their countries with hostile raping retards from the Third World, and to appease organized Jewish power.

Even when some of them don’t really want to flood their countries with the Third World, the center-right is so scared of being called racist and bigoted it can’t actually stop it anyway. This means the center is not actually in control of any of its own policies. It’s an empty political position, where many of its representatives hold no political authority of their own, where they have deferred power and choices to other groups and lobbyists, the centrists’ role simply being to appease the demands of those other groups. It’s a form of signalling and obedience.

The question is, will this be a temporary phase, perhaps linked to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and Sept. 11, and will politics soon revert to normal, or has a new political age begun?

There are fragments of truth even in what Blair says. I wonder if Blair too sees 9/11 as a necessary component in laying the foundation for some of things we see today?

The party structures on both sides of the Atlantic have their origins in the Industrial Revolution and the debates engendered by that epoch about socialism and capitalism, the market and the state. These parties have endured because the roots they put down were very strong. But now, there are different distinctions than those simply of traditional right and left.

When I was growing up, people like my dad were conservative; and that meant economically and socially. Today, many such voters don’t fit that old stereotype. They may be pro-private enterprise and conservative on economics in traditional terms, but they’re also socially liberal — in favor, for instance, of gay rights. And there are those who used to vote left, but who are culturally illiberal and now don’t mind voting for parties of the wealthy.

Although they sometimes go under other names like ‘Western values’, it’s race and identity that are now naturally and rightfully emerging as the critical fault lines. Old stereotypical notions of left or right, were indeed once relevant in the near mono-racial era of Tony Blair’s father when everyone was white.

Today, a distinction that often matters more than traditional right and left is open vs. closed. The open-minded see globalization as an opportunity but one with challenges that should be mitigated; the closed-minded see the outside world as a threat.

Make no mistake, black violence, Muslims blowing themselves up and raping white children are a threat. The sewage of diversity is a threat. The debasing effects of diversity on white institutions is a threat. Unteachable schools, ‘no go zones’ are a threat. Laws to facilitate and protect diversity and to facilitate white displacement are a threat. And white genocide is a very big, very real threat. The ‘open-minded’ people pushing these policies do so exactly because they are a threat, while ‘progressive’ gentile whites who support these policies, or claim to, are damaged goods, hate themselves or are simply not grown up enough to deal with the reality of the world as it is. So their views cannot be accepted as having a legitimate basis. Like it or not, they have to be denied any political say at all.

This distinction crosses traditional party lines and thus has no organizing base, no natural channel for representation in electoral politics.

Again, because it’s racial. It’s much more fundamental.

So this leaves a big space in the center. For the progressive wing of politics, the correct strategy is to make the case for building a new coalition out from the center. To do so, progressives need to acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of those voters who have deserted the cause of social progress: on immigration, the threat of radical Islamism and the difference between being progressive and appearing obsessive on issues like gender identity.

It’s not enough to ‘acknowledge the genuine cultural anxieties of voters’, you actually have to STOP doing things that injure them. If you refuse to stop, you will be stopped.

The politics of the progressive center has not died, but it needs reinventing and re-energizing. For liberal democracy to survive and thrive, we must build a new coalition that is popular, not populist.

‘Popular’ means it’s manufactured, spun and where a corrupt media can be relied upon to issue favorable propaganda. But no it has died. It’s died morally and ideologically. The ‘progressive center’ basically means a Jewish and oligarchical center having a disproportionate influence over the policies of white governments to suit their own interests. It means pushing immigration, diversity and selling degeneracy to whites to distract them while it’s happening. The ‘liberal democracy’ Blair espouses, which has to a large extent become an elite ‘dog-whistle’ for white genocide, doesn’t deserve to survive. It deserves to die.

But you know what ? I think it’s great Blair has put himself forward as a champion of ‘liberal democracy’ and left-centrism. It just shows how completely morally bankrupt the mainstream Left is if they will tolerate this soiled wretched perverter as their spokesperson.

This was the same problem that dogged Hillary Clinton in the election. A large swathe of liberal America just couldn’t accept that she was not actually electable. So they told themselves ‘she was the lesser of two evils’. Fuck off.

If I was Blair, I would would be genuinely concerned about this new populism. Last time, when I said the right place for Blair is hanging from a lamppost, I wasn’t being flippant. Blair’s concerns about where this new ‘roaring’ revolt may lead are quite real. If the forces that are protecting and promoting Blair are sufficiently overturned, Blair will inevitably be hanging from a lamppost.

Molyneux and Yiannopoulos: Why Political Correctness Must End

I know many of us have major problems with Milo Yiannopoulos. I can’t find anything wrong in this particular interview with Stefan Molyneux though and can find many things right.

My view is take what works and makes sense and ignore or reject the stuff that doesn’t. At the very least, for new people working their way towards their first red pill, it’s reasonable.

The interview side steps the corrosive Jewish ethnic effect on academia and Jewish culpability for political correctness, in fact it avoids diversity and race overall, although it’s implied in stuff about ‘dumb professors’ and ‘students that shouldn’t be at university’.

And I would also add that ‘rape culture’ is a way of accusing whites for something that is completely culturally and biologically black, as a kind of embarrassed displacement activity.

But what it does cover is entirely reasonable.

Hillary Clinton Trump/Alt Right Speech

Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s ‘Trump is a racist’/attack on the Alt Right-speech might as well have been list of slogans from the Anti Defamation League’s handbook of Hate.

I’m sure a lot of people have and will dissect it – in all its two dimensional moronic glory. All I’m going to say is that I can only hope more and more people are turned off by this kind of antiquated, stupid vulgar crap.

Clinton and her supporters are just simply out of step with reality. They are entirely behind the times, somewhere stuck in the past, in a world of ideas that have failed.

Clinton, the media and the (((controlled))) Left, have demonstrated yet again in their last breaths, that they have nothing but gatekeeping to defend their positions.

All they can do – and to be frank it has in the past been effective, is to use the power of the media and other institutions to set the boundaries of acceptable discourse, and from there they can search for – then feverishly promote the next ‘injustice’ while casting the next ‘icon of diversity’.

This all ensures the public remain confused about the murderous primitive reality of diversity – epitomized by negroes and their close relatives Somalis, from ever been recognized for the monstrous burden they are.

And it’s this kind of rhetoric that smooths the way for rapists, terrorists and other dysfunctional hate-filled animals from the Third World to flood white countries so that Starbucks and other multinationals have an endless supply of low-IQ, unconscious brown coolies on tap that there is no incentive to pay properly.

The ultimate prize in protecting diversity however, is in protecting the destructive efforts of Jews from being seen for what the are. All the rest of the diversity they pretend to align themselves with is a fog and a shield for that end.

But I don’t believe Clinton really cares about the content of her speech other than how it serves her. Extrapolated that means she doesn’t even really care that much for diversity or Jews, nor does is she particularly obsessed with anti-racism. For her, playing this game is just another lie, a way of acquiring power, hoping the forces of power align herself with her rather than her opponent.

Clinton simply doesn’t care that these perverse sensibilities about race have caused a malignant murderous global calamity, appalling suffering and perpetual injustice, now paving the way for the complete destruction of the West.

Well, you bet we care. You had better accept we are going to fight back.

The world has had enough of this shit.

This wretched corrupt old bag, who stands for nothing, who would sell her own granny to Saudi Arabia if it would further her career and bring in some lobbyist money can rot in hell.

This hideous ignorant witch, part of the new gynecological axis-of-evil, along with Theresa May and Angela Merkel, has now identified herself as an enemy of the world.

Clinton cannot promote herself as an attractive candidate in this campaign because she’s too corrupt, with too much baggage, and is far too disliked, so all she can do is attack Trump.

All she can do is hide behind diversity, hide behind ‘people of color’, hide behind the lies and constructed taboos imposed by Jewish ideologues.

And you wonder why people are angry ?

François Hollande not fit to be president

CNN: French President François Hollande said Tuesday that Donald Trump’s “excesses” give those watching a “retching feeling,” adding his voice to the onslaught of criticism directed at the Republican candidate.

You really have to wonder about Hollande. This monstrous sack of shit, this liberal ghoul is just pigheadedly oblivious to the “retching feeling” he evokes.

Look at the priorities of these people:

Trump makes a few off-the-cuff comments and the whole world is falling to pieces. It’s a ‘principle’ and matter of ‘respect’.

But when confronted by the Muslim slaughter campaign of French including children and the elderly by running them over, shooting them, slitting their throats, and torturing them, Hollande’s response is to actually deny why that is happening, paint a grotesquely false picture of ‘French unity’ and complain about the rise of right-wing parties. Hollande is truly someone no longer fit to be president.

Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter

Milo Yiannopoulos

Not sure how to categorize this post. On the one hand it is has a feel of entertainment news, and I’m a little wary of stuff that involves clashes within the media itself or non-events on social media. So take that as a warning. On the other hand, there could be something important lurking underneath.

Like a lot of people I have mixed feelings about Milo Yiannopoulos, the flamboyant Jewish-born gay conservative personality of Breitbart News.

And yet, whatever I find difficult to stomach about Yiannopoulos’s debased personal lifestyle, whatever concerns I may have about his ethnic background, his views on Islam, feminism and political correctness (while kinda low risk/’low hanging fruit’) are pretty much sane – in as far as they go – and have made him something of a magnet for the left’s hatred, now culminating in a permanent ban from Twitter.

Looking at different news stories, I’m still not sure exactly what Yiannopoulos’s offending messages were, other than there were some criticisms made of Ghostbusters black ‘star’ Leslie Jones.

Twitter’s own chief executive Jack Dorsey couldn’t resist the opportunity to virtue-signal and intervened personally in this case to rescue Jones which isn’t a good sign.

Jack Dorsey and Twitter black lives dont matter

Dorsey appears to wallow in the typical smug, liberal, fetishistic coddling instinct towards blacks that many tech industry types have, while Twitter even gave Black Lives Matter their own icon, just not realizing it looked like three differently shaded turds.

By our standards, whatever Yiannopoulos said is unlikely to be particularly harsh, but it’s the fact he has a high profile and a following that makes him aggravating to leftist discourse.

Twitter recently partnered with the Anti Defamation League as part of its “Trust & Safety Council” initiative in stopping ‘online hate’. Although Yiannopoulos is a gay Jew, his lavish support of immigration-unfriendly Donald Trump, and his relatively outspoken criticism of subjects that are definitively Jewish proxies like feminism, Islam, or in this case – his views about a cultural Marxist monstrosity of a movie featuring an obese negro female abomination, could designate him as a problem for the wider Jewish cultural narrative.

If they are prepared to exclude Yiannopoulos it makes you wonder what hope there is for race-real whites.

It is has been suggested for a while that the Right convene its own social media platforms, as these major tech companies are virulent institutions of liberalism, inevitably setting boundaries of discourse that are ‘inclusive’ – meaning ‘exclusive of dissent towards the diversity/multicultural/nation wrecking/shit-pot narrative’

What will Trump bring (and what do we want him to) ?


I miss my old blog. I felt pushed into a ‘neccessary evil’ to take it offline at that time, but I do miss it.

It was around about that time the US Presidential run of Donald Trump was just starting to turn into a phenomenon on the Right and has grown ever stronger over time.

As you may be aware, there is this joyful fantasy that Trump could be some kind of great nationalist leader who will throw out neocons, Mexicans, blacks, and put SJWs in camps while reconquering Europe for the benefit of White people.

And look, I’m not going to lie, I’ve been moved and thrilled by the rise of Trump, who for whatever his flaws or his real views, has tapped into and electrified something of a White-consciousness and appears to be a bitterly resented outsider to the current political power establishment. Yes, Trump is the most exciting political figure for decades.

While it can only be wishful thinking to believe that Trump is secretly signed up to the Right’s full fantasy menu of policies, some of the concerns the disenfranchised Left have of Trump are not without foundation.

Trump does appear to be a civic nationalist and a populist. Furthermore, he is clearly talking to White people (whatever his motives) and making political appeals to them, and I think based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s not unrealistic to believe that Trump sees White identity as an essential foundation of American identity, who’s interests have been neglected and need furthering, if only semi-implicitly.

Meanwhile, Trump has been relentlessly attacking some of the Right’s longstanding enemies such as political correctness, immigration and globalism: that catchall term that desribes a borderless, nationless world governed by international oligarchs and corporations.

Trump has even been forgiven by many on the Right for his nauseating AIPAC speech which is interpreted as another ‘necessary evil’ to get elected in a world where Jews have disproportionate, and often decisive political power.

The consensus is that Trump has unquestionably opened up a new space for the Right that should be exploited to the full.

My view is that rather than waiting for Trump to become President, and in the meantime worrying about what Trump will or won’t do in office, activists should be extrapolating Trump’s correct stance on immigration to one on race. And I know to some extent that’s already happening.

This is the time for creating a noise about black crime, black dysfunction, black birth rates, the economic burden of blacks and the hopeless futility of trying to close the White/black achievement gap, and even trying to finally redress the appalling apathy that resulted in allowing blacks to remain in America after the abolition of slavery.

At the very least there needs to be an effort to get Trump to address the deliberate psychosis around blacks, such as the disconnect between people’s dismal day to day experiences of blacks in comparison to the media representation of them as noble icons, and the skewed-reporting of black on White crime in the way he has addressed the issue of Mexican crime.

By skewed-reporting I mean in the media, where black on White crimes are depicted as some sort of victimless misdemeamor that can be explained away by poverty, history and societal attitudes, while extremely rare White on black crimes are a national outage fueled by White Supremacism.

The avoidance of the truth: that blacks are simply more prone to violence, more promiscuous, are bad parents, have a lower IQ and are separated by tens of thousands of years of evolution from Whites is the elephant in the living room that can no longer be sustained.

Trump needs to be encouraged not just to obsess about Obamacare, but to reverse Obama-administration legislation which unjustly pushes blacks onto White areas, and pushes inappropriate symbols of blackness (like Harriet Tubman) onto the entire population.

Trump needs to be encouraged not merely to temporarily block Muslim immigration but to permanently block all Third World immigration.

Meanwhile another group of activists needs to start getting the idea of a White Space, a White homeland on the table. Of course it sounds far fetched even to many of us, but big ideas need to start somewhere.

The Left with its Jewish intellectual backbone, has been doing the same for years. The left’s whacky, catastrophic extremist ideas have actually become standard government policy around the world. No matter how nutty, how unpopular, how alienating, how destructive, the Left has pushed and pushed and gotten its way by pushing.

Now it’s our turn.