The Irish Savant

Joyous tidings this week as Reuters announce the layoff of 2,000 staff from their world-wide operations. This follows earlier layoffs of 5,500 in 2013 and further underlines the implosion of the mainstream media brainwashing machine. Readership, advertising revenue and most of all reputation spiral downwards as readers flee to alternative sources.

This trend worries the "liberal" (and partially Soros-funded) Brookings Institution which notes that while radio and television (print news is finished) remain important, listener and viewer numbers have also "declined precipitously". And it seems that even "hard news" is now in danger" (stop laughing at the back!). "These trends have left many people wondering who will collect hard news for the general public. While the Internet world has made it possible for everyone to express their opinion widely — whether they know anything or not — it has also confused readers." Isn't that terrible! The confusion stems apparently from the absence of "neutral intermediaries such as reporters, fact-checkers, and editors". And that means "readers are having a hard time judging the credibility of what they read."

It's bad. Because without the MSM who will we have to dig out the hard news on Obama's academic and birth records, to find out that "a Swedish man" was killed while fighting with ISIS in Syria, to detail the orgy of rape and pillage committed by Europe's 'migrants, to show the Clinton Foundation to be a criminal enterprise along the lines of the Mafia? Though various factors are contributing to the MSM's demise, the biggest one will be loss of credibility. Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history. And their grotesque (mis)handling of the Trump/Clinton election will represent the coup-de-grace for whatever credibility remains.

Happy days, but the battle is far from won. Our enemies remain active on the alternative front, controlling the various electronic communications oversight bodies while enjoying a virtual stranglehold on social media and other alternative platforms. Armies of hasbaras and bots are working feverishly even as we speak in the battle against Thought Crime. But this new environment is difficult to control. For every impediment put in our way one of us will come up with a counter-measure. The battle will be fierce and unrelenting.

Continue to fight the good fight.

The full extent of Huma Abedin's links with extreme Islam have become apparent to me only by way of the recent wikileaks revelations. How someone with a background like hers could become the probable next President's closest advisor beggars belief. But maybe it shouldn't. After all a half-Kenyan Muslim sympathiser currently occupies that very position. In fact wherever you look power is wielded by a motley collection of blacks, dual-citizen Israelis, Hispanics, lesbians....in fact the only cohort in short supply seems to be the founding stock of the nation.

Although referring to Abedin, this guy brilliantly describes those other usurpers as well. "Completely indifferent to the struggles of the Historic American Nation. Just a wicked, black-eyed, soulless political climber who happens to be one of the most powerful advisors in the world. Do you think she has the interests of the farmer in Kansas foremost in her mind? Does she get a patriotic rush when poring over America’s storied history or take pride upon hearing a a perfect pitch rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner? Is there any doubt that every thought that crosses her mind in relation to the American people is overtly hostile? She is the portrait of a globalized, hostile elite, the modern arch-cosmopolitan. Unelected, unaccountable, and completely alien to the people of the nation she “represents”.

The last sentence is particularly apposite: These people are for the most part un-elected and unaccountable. I'm referring to the likes of Lynch, Holder, Yellen, Fischer, the SCOTUS judges, all of whom wield far more power than the elected so-called representatives of the majority. How have things come to such a sorry pass? Maybe this guy can help.

In any event America now stands at the edge of the demographic abyss. If Hellery, that corrupt, psychopathic, murdering lesbian and her menageries of minorities win the White House the country will within thirty years resemble Brazil or Mexico today.

If Trump wins the vote - and is permitted by the Permanent Government to take office - will he activate his promise to 'deport the illegals'? No. Even in the unlikely event that he does try he has in fact no chance of succeeding. Look at it this way. Southern California has been demographically taken over by Hispanics and this, inter alia, has seen Whites ethnically cleansed from most police forces through affirmative action and tribal machinations. In the event of a clampdown on illegals by the hated Trump we can reasonably assume that such police departments will not enforce expulsion measures. In fact many will actively stymie them (an easy thing to do).

So what then? Start with the relatively small numbers of illegals in northern states? That would work, but only for a short while as the targets would soon flee to the safety of the barrios and Sanctuary Cities in the South West. This in turn would further distort the regional ethnic balance and copper-fasten ethnic solidarity. Now add into the mix the profusion of Hispanic gangs with hundreds of thousands of ruthless battle-hardened 'soldiers' operating in every city and town in the region. There's ample historical evidence to show how criminal gangs can segue into para-political organisations (and vice versa of course). And in the event of a showdown we can expect large numbers of Latino 'activists' to stream across the now defunct border, discreetly aided by the Mexican Government.

Pity the poor ICE agents who enter a barrio under such circumstances, assuming in the first place that this increasingly corrupt and Hispanicised (but I repeat myself) agency has the will to do so. So what does Trump do then? Send in the Army? No, this is banned by the Constitution - remember that? The other alternative is the National Guard. Even though strenuous efforts are ongoing to 'diversify' this organisation it remains largely White. But don't expect these part-time soldiers to engage in casa-to-casa fighting in the barrios against vicious and well-armed paramilitaries just itching to have a go at the hated gringo federales.

It's not going to happen. Demography is destiny and Hispanics (legal and illegal) have 'done a Kosovo' in that they've out-bred the natives and now demand control if not full independence for 'their' regions. The USA has lost control of a large swathe of its territory (not just SOCAL- a similar dispensation applies all the way along the border, as far as Corpus Christi in Texas) and, short of a military coup, it won't get it back.

Let's not be too surprised. Such dispossession has occurred throughout history. That's how the USA got Texas. The brave men of the Alamo were Mexican citizens who rebelled against their government because their people were now the majority in the land. But there's one big difference between what's happening today and what took place in 1835: The leaders of the United States then supported their own kin. Today they support the Hispanic invaders.

No, Trump or C*nt, the South-West is lost. It has been for some time.

"Thank you, thank you all. Now this is not the time for reconciliation and graciousness. This is a time to kick ass, to root out the traitorous degenerate globalist cabal that has dispossessed the real Americans and to send the millions of illegal invaders back to where they came from."

From all sides they came. They marched, they chanted. Their placards said it all.

LOVE TRUMPS HATE

END HATE

DEMOCRACY NOW!

PEACE AND TOLERANCE

TRUMP = VIOLENCE+RACISM

UNITED TO STOP HATE

And then they put the signs down and proceeded to smash windows, torch buildings and cars, attack police, beat up passing White men and call for Trump's death. Isn't it great to be an anti-Fascist?

In common with many Trump supporters on the alt-right I've long harboured a horrible doubt that - just maybe - he was a huckster using his marketing genius to tap into the zeitgeist, leveraging it to close the ultimate sale. Did he really plan to get on with Russia, de-fund NATO, pull American troops out of the Middle East (i.e. stop fighting wars for Israel) and instead focus attention and resources on domestic issues? If that represented his true beliefs then he literally could not have made a worse choice for National Security Adviser.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey recognised early in his career the boundless opportunities open to an energetic shabbos goy. Shamelessly throwing in his lot with the Israeli-Jewish power structure he became rich and powerful despite (or by way of) being mired in corruption and conflict of interest at every stage.

And he repaid his benefactors in full, enthusiastically supporting the slaughter and destruction in Iraq, Libya, Lebanon and Syria. On cue he's now agitating for war with Iran and for taking a 'tough stance' with Russia. He endlessly proclaims Israel to be "America's greatest friend and ally". His pandering on occasion has even embarrassed many American Jews, such as when he claimed that spy Jonathan Pollard was in jail only because of his Jewishness.

He's the Neocon's Neocon and Trump's stated position is not compatible with his. Someone will have to concede. I'm not optimistic.

Have you noticed how the media and related 'experts', having totally and utterly failed in their pre-election analysis, are now, after a short period of reflection, returning to explain to us why Trump won and to issue us with instructions for taking things forward. Silly me, I had assumed the first, last, and only thing they'd say would be: "Please, for the love of Christ, don't ever listen to us again." Naturally their post hoc attempts at rationalisation founder on their fundamental misunderstanding of what shaped the typical White male Trump voter.

Now in his sixties, his first experience of "White privilege" would have been at school. A school not of his parents' choice, rather one dictated by the needs of diversity. Here he tried to gain an education while surrounded by low-intelligence, undisciplined and unteachable minorities. Here he came to understand that despite his people never owning slaves he owed - big time - people who themselves never were slaves. Throughout his schooling his confidence is systematically undermined by a media which massively over-represents blacks, representing them as cool, intelligent and sensitive while White males such as he get relentlessly mocked, denigrated and guilt-tripped.

Despite high SAT scores he's unable to gain entry to a good university - the kind of place founded by his antecedents for the likes of him. It pains him to see his place taken by unqualified minorities and to learn that most of the 'white' faculty and students he sees are in fact Jewish. Rejected, he takes a job in the private sector. Intelligent and industrious, he expected to make swift progress but instead found himself overlooked time and again as worthless minorities get promoted ahead of him. In due course he loses his job to a H1B Visa holder, whom he had first to first train in in order to qualify for the meagre severance package.

Ever resourceful, reflecting the stock that built the country, he sets up his own business, a business which thrives despite draconian EEOC (Eventual Elimination Of Competence) requirements which force him to employ an array of unproductive minority parasites. Meanwhile he walks on eggshells, fearful of bankrupting himself through offending them by way of some stray innocuous remark. Eventually he saves enough to buy a nice house in a nice suburb. The suburb is nice because it's almost 100% White....the only exception being a black guy down the road with his $200k p.a. Government Diversity Manager's job.

But this idyll doesn't last long as an invading army of Section 8 welfare bums soon swarms in. As he watches baby mammas and their bastard spawn destroy what had been his he reflects that his taxes and those of his neighbours finance this destruction. He wonders what will become of his family. He has no doubt as to the result of a divorce - he will, even if at no fault at all, lose half of whatever he owns and will incur discriminatory access to his children.

And his children, what is to become of them? Will there be another fifty years of litigation, marches, riots, white flight, reparations, affirmative action, section eight sprawl, diversity training, Whiteness Studies and other forms of anti-White brainwashing, midnight basketball, more portrayals of blacks as geniuses in the media while his boys are manhandled down the economic and social drain? Probably more than possibly. So his anger builds. And the anger turns to implacable rage as the pension fund he laboured to build gets progressively looted by the untouchable criminals of Wall Street.

So now presstitutes, welcome to your average Trump voter. I just hope you traitors and your ilk can feel the hot breath of the impending White Uprising on their necks.

"Jews have been the targets of an enduring, widespread, and volcanic animosity, the world’s all-time leading prejudice. Why are people around the world — this is especially relevant to Europeans — so susceptible to antisemitism?" Why indeed. Well if like me you're interested in finding the answer you wont't find it in the canonical work of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen who has built a lucrative career churning out book after book on this very subject. And you won't find it either from any of the other Jewish 'experts' in this field, all of whom metaphorically throw their hands in the air at the goyim's inexplicable perversity. Well actually they do offer some explanations, but 'mental derangement' and/or 'demonic posession' (Goldhagen) are unlikely to convince the impartial observer.

I've studied the history of numerous pogroms (inter-communal violence would often be a more accurate description) and it seems that anti-Semitism arose mainly as a reaction to strong Jewish ethnocentric behaviour and their acting as middle-men and usurers rather than producers. While irritating enough to elicit a backlash (often violent) from the goyim these contributors are minimal compared to the potential backlash to which Organised Jewry has exposed the Jewish people in more recent times.

Imagine if the general public became aware of the pivotal Jewish role in fomenting both World Wars, Bolshevism (including its financing), the 9/11 attacks, various wars in the Middle East and the destruction of White lands through mass Third World immigration (and this is a far from exhaustive catalogue). Can you imagine what would happen were this to become general knowledge?

And why should this happen now given that it's slid under the radar so far? Back to Goldhagen: "The Internet in particular is available to everyone all the time anywhere, with the power of fuelling and sustaining prejudice that is vast, new, in this respect revolutionary, and continuing only to increase in scope and intensity.” Oy vey! There can be no doubt that the truth is beginning to seep out just as he fears. This despite the Jewish monopoly of the most popular Internet and media platforms and a plethora of "hate" laws to foreclose discussion.

Hard to predict the outcome. Suffice to say the goyim have a lot more to complain about today than they ever had in the past.

[One caveat: Most Jews will be unaware - or just dimly aware - of their leaders' machinations and the danger to which they have as a result been exposed.]

During his eight-year reign Obama added more to America's national debt than all the other Presidents before him combined. Incredible but true. When he ascended the throne the debt stood at $10.9 trillion and in a spending frenzy that conjures up Caligula he doubled it in eight years to over $20 trillion. And strangely enough neither the (((Federal Reserve Board))) nor mainstream economists had much to say about it. To the extent they did get involved it was only to assure us that deficits would be offset by the ensuing stimulation. Eventually.

Strangely enough, just as Trump takes office, it seems the great and the good have become very worried about Government expenditure. (((Paul Krugman))) the doyen of talking head economists (and Nobel Laureate) as recently as last August was writing about The Folly of Prudence. But that was when the Hildebeaste looked a shoo-in for the Presidency. Now that the beast has returned to its lair Krugman has suddenly donned the hair shirt and professes himself to be worried about the national debt and 'the quality of Trump's spending'. Many others have adopted a similar line, including former head of the Central Bank of Israel (and now Fed Vice-Chairman) Stanley Fischer. Whatever he does or says I know Stanley will always have the interests of the American people uppermost in his mind.

But back to the Emperor and his doubling of the debt. The following chart uses a disarmingly simple technique to underline the gravity of the situation Trump has inherited.

United States Tax Revenues: $2,170,000,000,000

· Federal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000

· New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000

· National Debt: $14,271,000,000,000

Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget.

· Annual Family Income: $21,700

· Money the Family Spent: $38,200

· New Debt on Credit Card: $16,500

· Outstanding Balance on Credit Card: $142,710

What cannot last will not last. But who'll be left standing when the music stops? I can make a fair guess as to who will not be left standing.

Here's the single objective that characterises every Irish Government: Don't ever make an unpopular decision. And if you do so by mistake or through some fleeting and ill-advised commitment to the long-term good immediately concede and withdraw. Above all never ever upset the chattering classes in the media or the 'international bodies' like the UN or the EU. Paddy must always be seen as a good World Citizen. Understanding this helps explain why the streets of Ireland today resemble a cross between Karachi and Lagos.

So you can understand my surprise when I read this.

"For a country that once boasted the '100,000 welcomes' to visitors, Ireland has become the least welcoming country in western Europe for refugees. Latest figures from the EU agency, Eurostat, shows Ireland at the bottom of the league for accepting refugees. Ireland may also have the highest level of refusals for asylum seekers in the EU, turning down more than 90pc of those who arrived here seeking refuge, the figures show.

In the 12 months to the end of June this year, Ireland received less than 10pc of asylum applicants to similar-sized EU states. Denmark, with a population of 5.4m, accepted 21,000 asylum applicants; Norway, with a population of 5m, accepted 28,000 applicants. Ireland is recorded by Eurostat as receiving only 2,780 applicants during the 12-month period to June this year.

Figures from the Department of Justice revealed that of a total of 1,552 applications for asylum to the Office of Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) in 2015, only 9.8pc were granted leave to remain. The Department of Justice is also steadily closing down appeal avenues for asylum seekers, increasingly preventing them from seeking judicial reviews of their refusals, sources say."

The report goes on to say that "new systems which are being put in place are making the process of applying for refugee status, and of appealing rejection, harder and harder." As a consequence "asylum seekers are now believed to be avoiding Ireland".

And it gets better. "Ireland would also appear to be, statistically, ahead of other EU countries when it comes to deporting illegal aliens. Last year the State deported 3,500 people with the figure for this year expected to increase to around 4,000, about double the 2012 figure for deportations, according to figures supplied to the Dail by Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald."

I must confess to being extremely surprised - and impressed - by this. By way of explanation I remember Rob McCarthy, a regular reader of this blog, pointing out some time ago that dedicated and patriotic civil servants were countering on the ground much of the damage caused by spineless politicians and traitors like (((Alan Shatter))). It looks like he might be right and could explain why an asylum centre in my town has been gradually emptied over the last few years. Maybe there is hope. However I should add that the correct rejection figure would be 100%. Because anyone fetching up here and claiming asylum must have travelled through other countries to get here. Ipso facto that makes them asylum tourists.

I close with a heart-warming story of two groups of 'vulnerable' parasites squabbling over taxpayer largess and celebrate the ensuing anguish of the SJWs as they grapple with the vagaries of the Victimhood Hierarchy. A group of Irish travellers/knackers/gypsies protested at the allocation of a public housing unit to a family of Syrian asylum tourists. Interestingly the comments for the article were closed off with an hour of its appearance.

The bed-wetting SJWs who rule our moral ecosystem get more out of touch by the day, cowering in safe rooms while clutching their pearls as they contemplate the horror of Donald and Brexit. And this will increasingly cost them. Got an example today listening to a harrowing radio report from an Irish holiday-camp-turned-asylum-seeker-accommodation.

Well the whole thrust of the report and the introductory comments were meant to be harrowing, all about unfortunate victims who were getting only an extra €20 per child for Christmas presents. One after another the victims relayed their frustration and disappointment with the Irish taxpayer. 'You know children, they want all the best things for Christmas. And with five children [this guy is from the Congo] I'll have less than €100 to spend between them'. He then went on to helpfully suggest that '€100 per child would be acceptable'.

I have no doubt that all concerned believed they had struck a mighty blow on behalf of the asylum tourists, that listeners all over the country were scrambling for their cheque-books in a feverish attempt to alleviate the suffering. But your wise Savant knew better. In fact anybody working in a normal job and trying to provide for a family knew better. And the reaction wasn't long coming. The presenter triumphantly reported that their switchboard 'lit up' after the report....... only to plaintively follow shortly afterwards with a plea for tolerance and understanding. And then the subject was then dropped.

They had of course shot themselves in the foot with a howitzer. And such developments take place all over the world in ever greater numbers, from the highest levels (a la Trump) down to the mundane and quotidian. You see by closing down all opposing opinions and marginalising those who hold them they've made warfare's most fundamental error (and remember this is warfare): they no longer know their enemy.

So continue to occupy the High Moral Ground my luvvies while we get on with business.

A few weeks ago the inhabitants of the stony and wind-swept Aran Islands off Ireland's West coast got an unpleasant surprise. The operators of the ferry announced that they were withdrawing the service until the middle of next March. Panic ensued (if we were to believe some of the claims the islanders would in quick order be reduced to cannibalism) and after frantic intervention by the Government the company promised to maintain the operation until Christmas.

As the Government flailed around for potential solutions they ignored one staring them in the face: Using Ireland's Navy. But our boys in blue had more urgent work in hand - 'rescuing' migrants in the Mediterranean and transporting them to Europe. An article entitled Something Strange Is Taking Place In The Mediterranean says this about how such so-called rescues take place. "Human traffickers contact the Italian coast guard in advance to receive support and to pick up their dubious cargo. NGO ships [Irish Navy does the same] are directed to the “rescue spot” even as those to be rescued are still in Libya. The 15 ships that we observed are owned or leased by NGOs have regularly been seen to leave their Italian ports, head south, stop short of reaching the Libyan coast, pick up their human cargo, and take course back 260 miles to Italy even though the port of Zarzis in Tunis is just 60 mile away from the rescue spot."

The report has elicited outrage from almost all of the readers. But many repeat the infuriating fallacy that the invasion is due to stupidity on the part of Europe's leaders. But these people are not dumb, they're not stupid, and they're not stumbling into what will be a challenge of existential dimensions. No. The NWO globalists are fulfilling the plan drawn up by a man they honour with a prestigious prize every few years: Richard Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, who said that 'the man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. ...'

To repeat, the flooding of Europe by Third World detritus has been carefully planned. It's supported, despite the occasional tactical retreats, by all of the Continent's political elite. If you doubt this just consider an alternative: Europe builds and staffs a number of 'reception centres' for those supposedly fleeing persecution, and locates them in the Middle East and North Africa. They could house them at a fraction of what it costs in Europe and - here's the great part - all those drownings that they seem so concerned about would immediately end. But they have not done that and they will not do it. Because that would up-scuttle their plan for White genocide.

Austria's women gave the Green Party Candidate an astonishing 62% of their vote in the recent Presidential election in Austria, over-riding the strong majority of men who voted for the Bad Nazi guy. This is a huge imbalance but should not come as a surprise because as a general rule men invade while women invite. All over the West it's mostly women who brandish the 'Refugees Welcome' signs. They also staff the reception centres and write anguished letters to their politicians. But why would they support an invasion of primitive misogynistic thieves and rapists?

For a start women react more emotionally than do men. And it's here where the meme of The Boy On The Beach proved to be so powerful. A brilliantly-staged piece of propaganda, it reinforced the ongoing pictorial representation of the migrants as hapless women and children (notwithstanding that most of the invaders are aggressive young men). Women also have narrower spheres of interest and shorter conceptual time frames. So they'll subconsciously assess the invasion on what they perceive to be its more immediate impact on their own family and social circle, neglecting the broader and longer-term societal impact. This becomes more understandable given that men have largely determined the course of human history (exploration, warfare, scientific advancement etc.) while women acted as nurturers and home makers. You don't easily gainsay 10,000 years of evolution.

Some unique pathologies of today's Western world also exacerbate the problem. For instance White women have been conditioned to 'liberate' themselves from their evil patriarchal menfolk and demonstrate it by having few if any children. This has resulted in a huge cohort of older middle-class women with neither husbands nor children. The distressed and helpless migrants can then serve as surrogates for otherwise stunted emotional outlets. And of course they also win a valuable virtue signalling resource, secure in the knowledge that Khaled the camel humper won't be moving into their gated communities. Not yet anyway.

I wonder should we rescind their right to vote?

The partition of the Island of Cyprus into ethnically distinct semi-states has been universally deplored. It's self evidently a Bad Thing, and this explains the endless efforts to undo it. But I'd argue that the current two-state arrangement is far better than the "unified" country it replaced because the Greek and Turkish communities had never really lived together in peace and harmony. Relatively peaceful co-existence was maintained only by force (or the threat of force) first by the Ottomans, then by the British.

The Constitution implemented after independence attempted to paper over the fissures arising from two very distinct and mutually-hostile communities having to live together under a single polity. Predictably the resulting compromise was arcane, complex and highly unstable. Clauses geared towards countering crude majoritarian rule (4:1 Greek/Turkish ratio) ended up creating legislative gridlock from the highest levels down to the street level. According to one Constitutional scholar 'the Constitution of Cyprus stands alone among the constitutions of the world".

Not surprisingly the two communities were at one another's throats from the outset. Issues of contention included schooling, media control, taxation and the ability to create ethnically and religiously based municipalities. Such disputes were resolved by violence on the ground rather than by political means. The 'land of the sirens' came to represent something very different to that portrayed in Greek mythology.

Eventually the attempt to reunite with Greece in 1974 precipitated a Turkish invasion and the de facto two-country solution we have today, with Turks in the North, Greeks in the South. Obviously the creation of this entity was accompanied by mass ethnic cleansing in both directions and involved much suffering and dispossession. But in due course Cyprus (i.e. the Greek part) became free, peaceful, prosperous and democratic. The inter-communal violence that scarred the island for centuries is no more. There are no more ethnic enclaves. Ordinary Cypriots are free to go wherever they want in peace.

The Turkish-ruled North has been nowhere as successful, suffering as it does from Islamic obscurantism, a large (and deeply-resented) influx of peasants from the Anatolian plains and a generally limited entrepreneurial culture. To add to their woes they've been enriched by large numbers of fast-breeding Africans. This large-scale immigration might in time lead to the kind of communal strife commonplace when the island was 'united'. But for now both sides of the Green Line are mercifully free of this scourge.

All of this lends credence to the old adage 'high fences make good neighbours'. They really do. The experience also underlines the insuperable challenges that can arise when incompatible peoples occupy the same physical space. The corollary being that those now working to beset White peoples with such an abomination are traitors and should be treated as such.

"The achievement, if I can call it that, of inducing the most successful race in the world, the creator of the most advanced civilisation ever seen, to turn on itself and willingly self-destruct by way of societal degradation and internecine warfare is simply awesome. So incredible that, even as an agnostic, I sometimes wonder whether some supernatural agency is not after all involved."

I wrote that some time ago as I metaphorically scratched my head at the West's ongoing destruction. I also wondered why those who'd already been amply rewarded continued their destructive role into old age. For example why does Peter Sutherland (now in his seventies and apparently in ill-health) still work assiduously to flood Europe with millions of Muslims and Africans despite the ensuing catastrophe that's coming down the line? Why does he not sit back and enjoy the millions "earned" during his career, or better again make some effort to undo the evil he's wrought?

Maybe the architect of the long march through America's institutions (and mentor for, inter alia, Hellery Rodent Clinton and Obama) can shed some light on the issue. (((Saul Alinsky))) in Rules For Radicals, his blueprint of destruction, wrote the following in his introduction to that book. "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

Don't know about you, but I'm no longer laughing at the supernatural dimension.

There's this young girl that I know, thirteen, maybe fourteen. Highly intelligent and for her age very articulate. Although third or even fourth generation in the town where we both live she has to travel to another town, ten miles away for her secondary education. You see there's no room for her in the local school because hordes of cultural enrichers have needs too.

Although her current school developed an excellent reputation over many years it's experiencing problems aplenty in recent times. Its rapidly declining academic performance has coincided with the enrolment of large numbers of Africans. This girl freely tells me that the five Africans in her class are irredeemably stupid, make little effort to learn, are highly disruptive and require all kinds of remedial services (including full-time translators!).They loudly jabber away in their own lingua franca, ignore the teachers, and communicate via "clucking" (her word) noises. Leading the teacher to one day burst into tears and warn that the whole class might fail to graduate.

Anybody familiar with teaching blacks won't be in the least surprised by any of this. But here's my big takeaway: This girl (and I confirmed that most of her class felt the same way) had no problem seeing her black 'classmates' as very different, of lower intelligence, as a severe drag on the White students. And they have no inhibitions about saying so. Now this might just be a localised and short-term reaction, with grim acceptance and cognitive dissonance setting in as the kids get older. After all just about every institution of power (state, churches, educational establishment, media) forces them to point out the Emperor's fine clothes.

Or maybe they won't change. Maybe experiencing diversity at first hand, and its direct and tangible impact on their future prospects, will over-ride the unnatural constraints imposed on them. What would happen then?

Time will tell.

When dealing with whinging immigrants most of us have probably used a derivative of 'well if you don't like it here just fuck off back to where you came from'. But based on the principle that if you're explaining you're losing maybe posing this recommendation in question form might be better.

Like:
'Why are you here in a White country?' 'If White countries are so bad for you why didn't you go to a non-White one?'

'Can we assume by your choosing to live among Whites ahead of your own you see Whites as more desirable co-citizens? If so aren't we justified in not wanting these less desirable people coming to our countries?'

'If your own people and culture are so good can we assume you'll be heading back at the first opportunity? If not, why not? If it's the case that you actually prefer to live in a White country can we expect that from now on you'll STFU and just be glad we left you in?'

This structure can of course also be used when arguing with libtards about whingeing immigrants, replacing second person singular with third person plural.

Remember, if you're explaining you're losing.

Been a pretty good year what with Donald and BREXIT.

On to 2017!

I see that the Democrats might elect a black Muslim as Chairman of the Democratic National Convention. I hope they do. Just like I hope the British Labour Party keep electing the likes of Dianne Abbot and Imram Khan as their public faces. And they probably will because as one splendid lady recently informed us 'we don't need White people running our (sic) parties anymore'.

Now much and all as I dread blacks being free to deploy their legendary organisational skills against us I otherwise welcome these developments because they'll accelerate the move to ethnicity-based politics. Or to be more specific they'll encourage Whites to finally wake up and embrace their own identity politics. Democrats and Labour will duly degenerate into a rag bag collection of blacks, browns, Muslims, sexual freaks and White cucks with nothing to bind them other than their antipathy to normal Whites. Cohesive they will not be. On the other hand an implicitly White party will, in an identity politics context, have every reason to be cohesive.

The position of Jews under such a dispensation is intriguing. Obviously White ethnic consciousness embodied in strong united Parties is their stuff of nightmares. But a black/brown/Muslim melange could be even worse, not least because it'd give short shrift to any attempt at leveraging muh Holocaust. Bear in mind too that the Alt-Right, the genesis of White identity, carries a deep vein of scepticism towards the Tribe and their role in White displacement.

So yes, celebrate the ongoing takeover of the Dems and Labour by angry anti-White minorities. And in due course enjoy the sight of them scrabbling over the scraps they get thrown by their ethnically conscious White rulers. That's assuming we haven't sent them back to the hell-holes whence they emerged.

The sad death of "hard news"

The enemies within

Trump or C*nt, the illegals stay

He did it!

Rioting for peace and democracy

A terrible choice, a grim portent

Anatomy of a deplorable

The ticking anti-Semitic timebomb

That didn't take long

A pleasant surprise

Know thine enemy

Wolf Blitzer interviews Syrian rape victim

The man with a plan

The Austrian Presidential Election

The Cyprus solution

Are you still laughing?

An interesting thought

A rhetorical device

Happy Christmas everyone

A development to celebrate