Nothing is Written

Commentary on politics and culture.

710 28 5MB

English Pages 342

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Nothing is Written

Citation preview

Nothing is Written A Third Collection of Essays, 2016 by

Morgoth of Morgoth’s Review

Table of Contents A Note from the Editor

PART I CULTURE Music, Movies, and Television Radiohead In The Age Of White Genocide The Hateful Eight Tinker Tailor Soldier Why? The Last Whites Of The East End

PART II AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL Why I Hate, Part I:

Anti-fascists and Friends On Facebook

PART III THE WARS TO COME Migration, Demographics, and Strife Entering 2016: The Wars To Come The Mystery Of Hope Not Hate’s Missing Counter Jihad Report Kafka’s Revenge Liberal Media Snowflake Responds To Brussels Bloodbath: “Don’t Send Us Mean Tweets!” The Age Of The European Eloi Viktor Orbán and The Dune Strategy Analysis Of A Feminist’s Migrant Fairy Tale Ramadan 2016: David Cameron’s Message

PART IV LEFTISTS Yes, Laurie Penny, You Leftists Are To Blame For The Cologne Rape Rampage Commie Bad Goys, Shabbos Good Goys & Those Powerless Jews The Jo Cox Murder and The Liberal Elite The Child Soldiers Of The Khmer EU

PART V “RIGHTISTS” No Thanks, Roosh, We Already Have Enough Rapey Non-whites First They Came For Ben Shapiro… And When They Came for Milo Yiannopoulos…

Game of Thrones: Are We The White Walkers? The “Nazi EU” Conspiracy

PART VI BIOLOGY AND POLITICS Rewiring Our Brains To Combat Hate-Think Fear and Loathing In The European Hive-Mind

PART VII PLATFORMS The Legacy Media, and the Rise of Internet Censorship Analysis of a BBC Immigration Debate The BBC Euphemism Handbook The Meta-Politics of the Great Shutdown

PART VIII TRUMPIAN STORMS GATHER Trump-Flight: Where Will Liberals Flee To If Trump Wins? Donald Trump, Islam & Europe

PART IX NOTHING IS WRITTEN: BREXIT Brexit Special Nothing Is Written…

A Note from the Editor

Nothing is Written forms the third volume of our collection of Morgoth’s Review blog posts. It covers the first half of 2016. Here Morgoth turns a steely eye on important issues such as mass third-world migration, Donald Trump, and Brexit. We also see the first ominous stirrings of what would later come to be called “deplatforming”. And as always culture, a subject disastrously neglected by the dissident right, leads the collection. The first essay, Radiohead in the Age of White Genocide, is tremendous. The title of this volume comes from its final piece, a stirring, mustread message of hope. As always, if we want to prevail, we must help with the cause any way we can. You can do so here:

https://www.subscribestar.com/morgoth-s-review https://www.patreon.com/Morgoth https://ko-fi.com/morgoth1 Enjoy the book. George Elwit [email protected] January 2020

Part I

Culture Music, Movies, and Television

Radiohead In The Age Of White Genocide May 2016

I was pleasantly surprised to see Radiohead return with their weird, and strangely addictive, brand of angst-laden introspective ambient rock. Listening to music which could, understandably, be deemed miserable and depressing has often struck me as a particular and peculiar European pastime. What bands such as New Order or Joy Division or Nirvana or Radiohead are actually singing about is by the by; they tap into a latent melancholia

which has always existed in the European soul, which European musicians, whether modern or classic, have always explored. A brief glance at the titles of Radiohead’s songs and albums over the years reveals quite quickly where they are coming from: Fake Plastic Trees, Paranoid Android, Fitter Happier, Climbing Up the Walls, How to Disappear Completely, Life in a Glasshouse, Ok Computer, Sail to the Moon, etc. Radiohead are exploring the isolation, atomization, and malaise of post-modernity: the internal struggles, the dark cloud of feeling that the world, and our lives on it, are superficial, that it simply “shouldn’t be like this!” wrapped up within lead singer Thom Yorke’s emotional falsetto vocals and copious dollops of melodic brilliance. The typical Radiohead song conjures an imagine of an obese slob who watches reality television between random bouts of wifebeating, the wife being a soulless dead-eyed tramp who has no dreams or longing beyond mobile phones and consumer junk. Our slob, in a one-time-only moment of self-awareness, steps outside himself and contemplates the dead animals which he ate without thinking, his shit job, and the wars being carried out in his

name which he doesn’t understand and then, allowing a solitary tear to trickle down his fat cheek, it dawns on him that when he was a boy and pure of heart, he dreamed of so, so much more.

So where is all of this stuff coming from? What drives Radiohead intellectually? What sits behind all those cryptic lyrics and lashings of operatic existential angst? Thom Yorke describes reading Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” as a “formative moment”. According to Chomsky, privately owned mass media, high finance, the Military-Industrial Complex, and the political class all co-operate and complement

each other in achieving convergent goals. This is “The System”, and the System has reduced the masses to a Kentucky Fried Chicken munching horde of farting retards spoon fed “Wars on Terror” as the last hummingbird on earth chokes to death on the noxious gases created by the furnaces of capitalist production. Or as Radiohead put it:

concerned an empowered and informed member of society will not cry in public less chance of illness tires that grip in the wet a good memory still cries at a good film still kisses with saliva no longer empty and frantic like a cat tied to a stick that’s driven into frozen winter shit

calm fitter, healthier and more productive a pig in a cage on antibiotics There’s obviously a good bit of meat for the nationalist to enjoy in this interesting brand of left-wing thought, though it doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. The problems appear when we delve into precisely who, or what, is actually at the heart of the System. The System, for these thoughtful leftists, is selfperpetuating. Who runs it or why isn’t important; it is the structures and power-centres which drive it, regardless of who operates its control mechanisms. It spreads and grows because it must spread and grow; it’s more like the Borg from Star Trek, or Islam—it’s a virus, and its purpose is to perpetuate itself. You will note that this is not the same as the far more moronic and poisonous doctrines of White Privilege Theory peddled by the more recently birthed SJW school of leftism. Indeed, it’s quite reasonable to assume that the System itself created the SJW

movement to misdirect an awakening citizen-consumer as to the identity of the System’s operators.

Too Many Woods, Not Enough Trees

Any nationalist worthy of the name should be able to cut through these leftist webs with consummate ease. Why, if the System is simply a means to gain more power and resources and consumers, why then is it so paranoid about one relatively useless patch of desert scrub in the Middle East? To be fair to Chomsky, he has been highly critical of Israel and neoconservatism in general. He’s asked that the Holocaust be made open to public debate. But only nationalists look deep into the

inner core of the System and see, and speak, and create amusing memes about, who or what is there—and as we know, it’s members of Chomsky’s own group, the Jews. The suspicious white nationalist mind might even go so far as to accuse Chomsky of brushing the footprints of his people out of the snow. My issue with Radiohead is that they’re pouring heartfelt and very white emotions, melancholia and empathy, into a dead end created by the same group who ultimately are responsible for the creation of the System which has created the misery of the world, the misery and despair which Radiohead articulate so well. Why weep for a tree frog when Norwegian children born today will be a minority by early adulthood? A change which The System has forced to occur within just three decades, a change which will overturn at least 10,000 years of history! That is the ambient rock power ballad I want to hear. And it isn’t a million miles away from where Radiohead, or other thinking leftists of this hue, are now intellectually.

Our people will never find salvation in universalist ideals because you cannot possibly defeat a power structure which imposes universalism with yet more universalism. If we establish that nature and the natural is more spiritually fulfilling than crass materialism then why not go further, why not bring it all the way home to the human and then on to the ethnic and racial and understanding that we are part of nature and should be treated as such. Yet for ((some)) reason the intellectual left has no problem with introducing the human equivalent of the tree frog and the scorpion into the Irish countryside if we idiotically call them “social constructs”. And so the destruction of the System rolls on, crunching over everything of value like a tank over skulls. There is no way out of the labyrinth of modernity for the leftist mind. They’re trapped. Or are they? One of the new songs from the latest Radiohead album “A Moon Shaped Pool”, the aptly named “Daydreamer”, features Thom Yorke wandering aimlessly through houses, streets, car parks, and alleys. It’s their standard theme of the atomized individual

going nowhere without purpose. The video ends with Yorke scrambling into mountains and finally resting in a snow cave. He has escaped, but he is not yet at home there. From a strictly musical perspective Lau Nau, a young woman from Finland, is not that far from Radiohead. She deploys a similar melodic and vocal structure to Yorke. She isn’t as technically accomplished as Radiohead (few are) but she has escaped the labyrinth of the System. Her music is not a damning critique of modernity or being a consumer drone—she’s passed beyond it, she’s returned home, she’s an Aryan girl in a snowfield. Has the girl shown roaming in the snowfields in the video for her song Valolle read Chomsky’s work? Probably not, and nor should she: it’s all junk compared to the purity of spirit, the embodiment of natural innocence and belonging she seems familiar with. And Radiohead? Perhaps, just perhaps, they and others like them will, one day, find their way out of the maze of modernity, but until then, we can appreciate their postcards from the heart of the System.

The Hateful Eight January 2016

Game of Thrones creator George RR Martin is actually a die-hard Obama-voting liberal but, so far having managed to keep his politics out of his writing, has created a world which is deeply illiberal and anti-egalitarian. The same separation of politics and art can’t be said for Quentin Tarantino, who marches on the streets with “Black Lives Matter”, calling white American cops “killers”, and making movies which, if

targeted toward any other racial group, would have him labeled a “hate criminal.” Tarantino’s movies might be cleverly made and his scripts well written, but there is no deeper context to the hatred of white people—it’s neither ironic nor cleverly subversive, which can only indicate he actually means it.

The Hateful Eight opens as it means to go on: the ubiquitous Samuel L. Jackson sits atop three dead white men he has gunned down, whose dead bodies he is dragging into town for bounty,

when a stagecoach approaches carrying another bounty hunter, Kurt Russell, chained to Jennifer Jason Leigh. Jennifer Jason Leigh is a Jewish actress but here she plays such a grotesque mockery of a white, Southern woman she hardly comes across as human at all. When Jackson asks to climb aboard the stagecoach Leigh’s character, Daisy, twists her retarded, semi-human face and calls him “nigger”, prompting Kurt Russell to pistol-whip her which results in blood streaming down her face. After the characters wade their way through a thick goo of Tarantino dialogue, Jackson climbs aboard. Russell feeds Daisy as if she’s a dog and elbows her in the face. Daisy spits on Jackson’s letter of friendship from Abraham Lincoln and so Jackson punches her in face, knocking her and Russell out of the stagecoach. Shortly afterwards, and back in the stagecoach, the trio are joined by another “nigga hatin’ redneck” called Mannix. Like Daisy, Mannix is a cartoonish mockery of a Confederate soldier, but in stark contrast Jackson is cool, collected, and

articulate. Mannix challenges Jackson’s character to confirm or deny a rumour in which Jackson burned alive white Confederate soldiers, Jackson replying, “I kill white crackers any way I can—I shoot them, I drown them, I stab them, I burn them”. And so begins The Hateful Eight.

Actual screenshot from The Hateful Eight

The rest of the movie is pretty much Reservoir Dogs transplanted into a shack called “Minnie’s Haberdashery”. The plot revolves around characters being trapped in this shack while Kurt Russell attempts to bring Daisy to town to be hanged. During this her gang is secretly waiting in the shack trying to spring her loose and nobody appears to be what they say. All of the characters are utterly loathsome but the film is really nothing more than a vehicle for Samuel L Jackson to play out this role of alpha negro in what might actually be the most anti-white mainstream movie ever made. In one scene Jackson approaches an elderly Confederate general with a bowl of stew and we are treated to a lengthy monologue on how Jackson tracked down his “nigger-hating white boy” son. We then have a flashback and see Jackson march the white man naked across a frozen mountain, Jackson laughing as he explains the man begged for a blanket and Jackson forced him to perform oral sex on him. Tarantino shows the audience this, he shows Jackson gleefully howling as the white man has his face buried in his groin and Jackson tells the old man he then killed him anyway. Taunting him further he reveals the last thing to ever leave his

son’s mouth was a negro penis. Aghast, the elderly general reaches for his gun but Jackson shoots him dead. That was the whole point. Another white nationalist blogger has reflected on this scene of the film and Tarantino’s anti-white nihilism: “the hipster audience cheered. What were they cheering? The killing of an old racist white man? The gruesome killing of his son? The triumph of black power?” So fanatically anti-white is The Hateful Eight that the plot begins to break down under the weight of it all. One example is how redneck “cracker” Mannix, introduced as the most “racist” of all the whites, later teams up with Jackson and delights in killing the other whites off for no other reason than the plot demands it. A flashback depicts Minnie’s Haberdashery as a diverse beacon of racial harmony. Minnie is a chubby, friendly black woman and so is her help. They also employ a friendly blond woman, and a lazy white man sits around. It’s a picture of multicultural bliss. Yet when Daisy’s gang come along they slaughter everyone with no

consideration of race. Surely if all the whites are “nigger-hating crackers” they would spare the whites or at least show some empathy? Tarantino wants it both ways, his hatred of white people so obsessive he leaves plot holes a mile wide. In The

Hateful Eight whites are at once stupid inbred hick racists and at the same time they’re psychotics who murder regardless of race, showing no empathy towards anyone. What this does is prove that Tarantino’s priority was to give Jackson’s character complete justification in his, frankly, genocidal treatment of whites in the movie. The only reason the whites in The Hateful Eight are relentlessly spitting “nigger” at Jackson is to garner the support of the audience, and Tarantino knows the predominantly white audience will cheer Jackson on. So too will blacks as they get to see their guy humiliating and torturing whites. In the course of The Hateful Eight’s running time Daisy is pistol whipped, repeatedly punched, elbowed in the face, kicked in the face so hard her teeth are smashed out, shot twice, and is splattered with her brother’s blood as Jackson blows his head off.

Then, finally, Mannix and Jackson laugh and mock her as they lynch her in the shack, Tarantino lingering on her bloodied face as she slowly chokes to death. Jackson guffaws in the background with his race traitor friend as the credits roll. This is what you get when an ethnic group which despises you controls your media and entertainment.

Tarantino is like a Hollywood version of Miley Cyrus — both fancy themselves as rebels who are breaking down barriers, when in fact they both serve the same masters, playing roles in the wider

game of driving Western Civilization into the gutter. Quentin works for the Jewish Weinstein brothers and he might be “outrageous”, but his attacks upon whites are only possible because Jews own Hollywood, and due to this the cinema-going public will never see an Inglourious Basterds where Russians seek bloody revenge upon the Jewish Bolsheviks who killed their families. Quentin is not challenging the system, he is a part of it. Similarly, Miley runs around with dildos and makes a whore of herself but is challenging nothing, as this is culture being imposed on us, and they are mere servants to those who are doing the imposing. There is only one avenue open to people who want to become huge stars and that is to further the process of destruction of civilisation through being more anti-white, more sexually explicit, more violent, more anti-human, more removed from all norms except the unnatural new norm, that of liberal nihilism. The tragedy of it all is it could be so different. If Europeans were free to create their own art and film what would it be like? We would be mentally free of political correctness and demographically free of “hateful” racial aliens. Would Europeans,

free to express themselves and use all the technological marvels available in today’s film making, ever create a movie such as The

Hateful Eight? Do any racial or ethnic groups who do have control over their media produce material wherein they depict themselves as trash to be slaughtered and tortured and disposed of by another race? Counter Currents has explored this theme before, particularly in regards to Chinese cinema. Chinese people create movies for Chinese people and so are free to celebrate their own traditions and heroism, history, and culture without postmodern irony, without guilt or shame and without genocidal racial aliens humiliating them.

People Who Make Their Own Cinema Get This

We Get This

Chinese Cinema Celebrates Chinese Beauty

We Get This.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Why? April 2016

I recently found time to watch the 2014 adaption of John Le Carre’s Cold War espionage thriller, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which I’d been looking forward to for some time. Compared to the usual fodder pushed out by the media machine, Tinker Tailor moves at the pace of a Soviet built-Lada. It is the anti-Bond: a raised eyebrow over a cup of tea is the equivalent of a speedingtrain action sequence. The plot is extraordinarily intricate, as our

geriatric protagonist, George Smiley, shuffles through meetings and interviews in drab pubs and smokey cafes trying to decipher the identity of the “moles” and double agents. Unsurprisingly, such a smart and tightly wound plot set in 1973 isn’t likely to set the “urban market” on fire, so the cast is entirely white, and almost entirely white male at that. Tinker Tailor is worth a watch even if for no other reason than to see highly intelligent and capable white men being highly intelligent and capable. Gary Oldman excels as George Smiley and Colin Firth, John Hurt, Tom Hardy, Ciaran Hinds, and Benedict Cumberbatch all seem to revel in the backstabbing, intrigue and tension. But this is what makes Tinker Tailor such strange viewing in 2016. Here we have a group of men within the British intelligence community, all of them from a conservative, middle-class to upper-class background, desperately trying to outwit Soviet operatives, killing is just part of the job…and yet, it all seems totally futile, tragically so. What were they defending? What was the actual threat posed by the USSR? Was the USSR positioning

submarines in the Adriatic more of an issue than London becoming minority English? The senior civil servants in Tinker Tailor are in late their forties to sixties. Smiley is the oldest. The younger, junior members of the secret services, played by Hardy and Cumberbatch, have a marked difference in style and attitude. They have the post 60’s beardy hippy look: they are liberals, they are a sign that the Cultural Marxist “long march through the institutions” is underway. This raises the question, didn’t our watchers on the wall notice it taking hold? If their task was to—literally—hunt down and destroy Marxist infiltrators, which they were more than capable of doing, then why was their attention always on stolen documents outlining Soviet naval movements and not on the Marxist intellectuals wriggling their way into positions of influence within our own countries?

“Did anyone see Britain’s Got Talent last night?”

In actual fact some powerful Western men did try to sound the alarm, most notably Joseph McCarthy. What McCarthy and other conservatives discovered was that when you go after (Cultural) Marxists you also disturb an even greater—the greatest—enemy. Counter Currents have an excellent series by Kerry Bolton on this subject using first hand sources: Thus, what was going on behind the scenes was in fact a “strange bedfellow” coalition whereby extremely powerful forces on Wall Street were pushing in the same direction as the Communist Party

USA—the goal being the destruction of the Wisconsin senator and the termination of his investigations.

And: The entire “network” was “solidly united against” McCarthy in what he saw as nothing other than a fight against communism and Soviet influence. What McCarthy thought was communism and Soviet infiltration was actually the “entire East Coast foreign policy establishment” centred on the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations).

Further: It must be recognised that the power that these energetic leftwingers exercised was never their own power nor Communist power but ultimately the power of the international financial coteries, and once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathisers. Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee followed backward to their sources the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whitaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to

Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, it fell into the whole complicated network of tax-exempt foundations.”

And again: While the Communists were using their transmission belt apparatus to get the party line on McCarthy out on the street, Wall Street titans managed the power plays. There was surely no evidence of a knowing alliance between the two or that anyone anywhere was pushing buttons to coordinate it, but the goal was identical—once again certifying that, as has often been said, “not everybody who hated McCarthy was a Communist, but every Communist hated McCarthy.”

And so just as in the Russian Revolution, the “Cultural Revolution” of the West was driven by the toxic, demonic alliance of Jewish financial institutions and Marxism. These twin forces of Globalism can be seen as a cowpat, with the Left as the thick carapace

protecting the putrid stinking goo inside. If our hypothetical reallife George Smiley went poking around in this cowpat too deeply, he’d risk being retired early; a more likely outcome is that the intelligence community would simply be given other priorities by the government. There’s also another problem: if a prominent intelligence operative working for the “capitalist West” started railing against banks and high finance on the premise they were corrupting society then he’d very likely be called a Marxist or communist and fired, or even shot. When the Soviets talked of “the decadent capitalist West” they weren’t joking: they understood what was happening in the West better than we did. Small recompense, perhaps, for living in a shambolic dead horse of a socio-economic system which left them lining up for bread. Yet as we see now, they were spared the racial humiliation, degeneracy, and dead-eyed consumerism which pervades the “Free West” today. As Tom Sunic put it, “Communism kills the body, but liberalism rots the soul”. Throughout Le Carre’s spy series George Smiley’s main adversary is the mysterious Soviet agent known only as “Karla”.

Karla very rarely actually appears but is spoken of frequently. The impression we get have of Karla is of a Soviet reflection of Smiley, nestled deep within the labyrinthine bureaucratic network in Moscow. In one key scene a slightly drunken Smiley recounts a past encounter with his nemesis, Karla, in which Smiley had explained his frustration with the entire Cold War opera: We’re not so very different, you and I, we both spend our lives looking for the weaknesses in one another’s systems. Don’t you think it’s time to recognize that there’s as little worth on your side as there is on mine?

It’s the waste and futility of it all. Such men should be in the service of their people as a people, instead of these grotesque and genocidal “systems”.

The Last Whites Of The East End May 2016

“Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as ‘controversial, ‘extremist’, ‘explosive’, ‘disgraceful’, and overwhelmed with a violence and

venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see.” —Enoch Powell This week the BBC broke with all protocol and historical precedent by airing a documentary which was somewhat sympathetic toward the white British who have been ethnically cleansed by the British establishment. There was some element of the usual BBC trickery. For example, one of the most prominent of the ‘white British’ fleeing Newham, the East London Borough where this was filmed, was mixed race, half Black/white, who was married to a Romanian woman; they had a young daughter. Another young man was half Indian, and one of the people most sympathetic toward the fleeing whites was a Bangladeshi. But nevertheless, the BBC broadcast a documentary in which white British people who are being ethnically cleansed had an

opportunity to look straight into the camera and say “We’re being

ethnically cleansed”. Usually, when the BBC report on “sensitive issues”, they neuter the content by overlaying a moronic slapsticklite soundtrack to make it all seem a bit of lark; Last Whites of the East End was mercifully spared it. The demographic transformation of the old Cockney East End has been brutal. The 2011 census reported that white British were down to 16% of the population. And that was taken 6 years ago; it is now estimated to be 12%. Within the area, wards such as Green Street East and Green Street West are now 4.8% white British (!). It cannot be stated enough, there was no democratic mandate whatsoever for any of this, there was no public debate, nobody voted for it; indeed, as we shall see, the British establishment did everything they could to stop the East End Cockneys voting their way out of it via the BNP. If any other ethnic or racial group had been treat in this manner by their own political class it would be considered a crime against humanity. The general tone of the documentary can be summed up as one of loss and loneliness, the passing of an age. The Oakham family

have always been in the East End. Their ancestors were the ‘salt of the earth’ Cockneys Charles Dickens wrote about. The matriarch of the family, Debbie, is preparing herself for the flight of her one of her daughters. The daughter has two children and, like so many others, has decided they should not be brought up as a white minority. Debbie understands but nevertheless, it’s just another bond being severed, another little strand of East End history being cut.

Muslims don’t drink so all the pubs went under. All that remains is a dilapidated working men’s club held aloft on the pensions of those too old and too poor to leave Newham. The landlord of the club describes the club as an “oasis” where the whites can “mix with their own”. The grizzled old Cockneys spend their time in the club drinking lager and engaging in nostalgia: remember the year

that…what about the time Charlie….oh he was one all right! The imbecilic leftist on Twitter might quip, “they came here because you went there” and the club certainly gives an impression of actually being a long-forgotten colonial outpost: lager, darts and old women ballroom dancing as the black and brown Islamic masses shuffle passed just yards away outside. Mixed-race Tony laments the passing of an age: “It’s all gone”. In times gone by Tony was made to feel uncomfortable because he was too dark; now he’s a minority again because he’s too white, and with a young daughter he too is now fleeing to the white-flight safe haven of Essex. Because as Tony explains, nobody, absolutely nobody, wants to bring up a little girl in an area dominated by Muslim men.

The BBC’s soap opera “Eastenders”, which is set in London’s East End is often criticized for its non-white quota. In reality, as a reflection of the East End, whites are hugely over-represented, making up around 70-80% of the cast. If the soap was to accurately portray London’s East End it would be radically different. There would be subtitles throughout most of the show, non-whites would make up 88% of the actors, and the storylines would centre on the interactions between Somalians, Nigerians, Jamaicans, Pakistanis, etc. The Queen Victoria pub would have closed down years ago and turned into Mosque or governmentfunded African outreach centre. Nobody would watch the show because nobody could possibly identify with such a “community”; they would switch off, just like the real life East Enders ran off. During the course of the documentary various people ask how this could happen. The Bangladeshi interviewed scorns the whites for simply “throwing in the towel” and leaving without a fight. Tony tells an anecdote: a young white woman he knew was physically and verbally attacked by a Somalian girl. She was called a “white slag”. Tony asked the white girl why she didn’t fight back, why put

up with it? She replied that she couldn’t: she was white, and if she tried to do anything she’d be accused of racism and her life would be destroyed; safer and easier to just be insulted—and the nonwhites know it. Others in the documentary have other, similar, stories to tell. So in a sense they’ve answered their question. Whites could never fight back. The game was rigged against them from the start. Anything they did would be called racist, and indeed, when they tried to mount a defence by voting for the BNP, that is exactly what happened.

There’s a recurring theme in British politics. Whites will happily vote for Labour or Conservative, and they’ll carry on voting for

them as their areas begin to change racially, but then, at last, when it’s obvious that it is an attempt to socially engineer them out of existence, they desperately “lurch to the right”—but it’s always too little too late, it’s the last scream before the fall of the axe. This trend was seen in areas of Yorkshire and London during the 2000’s with the BNP. As The Guardian reported at the time: The far right British National party is to field a candidate in the race to become executive mayor of the east London borough of Newham. The news comes on the same day that the home secretary, David Blunkett, attacked the BNP’s “vile racism” and called on politicians of all parties to fight against the far right’s influence in next month’s local elections. Newham has traditionally been Labour-dominated and if the BNP is to win it has to defeat Sir Robin Wales, the council’s current leader and clear favourite for the mayoral job. The party’s platform includes plans to cut back all local spending on projects that promote multiculturalism, halting any expenditure on

asylum seekers and giving “local British people” priority on housing waiting lists.

By 2005 so many of the white British in London boroughs were panicking that the BNP looked to set to make serious electoral gains. So much so that the entire political and metropolitan establishment, with the BBC playing a central role, united in a concerted effort to destroy the BNP. From the Guardian’s “Parties unite to try to drive BNP off London council”: Little has distinguished Warren Northover from any other backroom activist during his five years in the Labour Party. He has attended meetings, stuck down envelopes, handed out leaflets and canvassed for two MPs. But today the silver-haired taxi driver becomes the key figure in a cross-party effort to resist the drive into London of the racist British National Party and to stop it gaining a foothold in the south-east. In today’s byelection in the Goresbrook ward of Barking and Dagenham, Mr Northover, 70, will try to wrest back the BNP’s only council seat in the capital.

It was relinquished when Daniel Kelley, who won the ward last September, stood down citing ill health. But the extremists see the retention of Goresbrook as key to a wider plan to capture a block of seats at next year’s council elections. They have the springboard of having secured 16.9% per cent of the vote in Barking at the general election and the knowledge that 10 council seats could fall with just a 5% swing. But other parties are determined to stop them. Both the liberal Democrats and the Greens have withdrawn their candidates to give Mr Northover a better chance, and the Tories have fought a vigorous campaign. The seat will also be contested by UKIP, which could drain votes away from the far right. In recognition of the importance being accorded to the contest, the Home Office minister Hazel Blears visited the ward on Monday. The campaign has been assisted by a coalition of anti-racist activists, church groups and trades unions.

Many dispute the motivations of the BNP, claiming that Nick Griffin was a stooge and the whole party a setup, but the point here is that the British establishment was absolutely determined to destroy the ethnic and cultural composition of Cockney, white

working class London, and that short of some IRA-style terror campaign there was nothing the whites could do about it. And so they fled. To stay and do nothing meant to live in what amounted to Pakistan, Somalia, or Bangladesh. To protest left you open to attack by the entire governing and media class, as well as violent attacks at the hands of their Unite Against Fascism (UAF) thug gangs. Escape was the only option.

An entire culture and ethnic group, the heart of historical London, now scattered across white-flight zones dotted around South England.

And it still isn’t enough. The reaction of the liberal left to the documentary was tediously predictable. The Mirror reported: The hour-long programme, aired last night, focused on the disappearing traditional Cockney culture in the London borough of Newham. Some who tuned in were so offended by the opinions expressed that they compared it to white supremacy propaganda. “Hitler documentary in the afternoon, #KKK documentary just finished and now #LastwhitesOfTheEastEnd? F**king British TV at its racist best,” fumed one viewer on Twitter. Another then posted: “Just caught up with #LastwhitesOfTheEastEnd on iplayer. A documentary on life in Newham, where I was born & bred. What a load of racist tosh.”

The white British were called racist when they objected to the first immigrants, they were called racist again when they said they were worried about becoming outnumbered and then, finally, they were called racist one last time when they simply left the area.

The rodents of the left are not magnanimous in victory. Their hatred is boundless. It’s quite possible that one of the reasons the liberal left loathed this documentary wasn’t just their ideals being exposed as a sham at best and genocidal at worst. It was because many of the vacating whites were answering questions which preempted left liberal thinking. Debbie’s daughter, Amy, explained straight out that she “preferred her own (white) kind” and then added “nobody minds when the Asians do the same”. The standard response to white flight by the liberals has been to cite “fluctuating house prices”, that it’s just people being upwardly mobile—and they’re saying this in response to the documentary, despite the white British looking directly into the camera and saying “I’m leaving because it feels like a foreign land”. The Last Whites of the East End left me feeling surprisingly optimistic. One of the most terrifying words a nationalist can come across is “integration” and what this documentary made clear was that integration isn’t happening on the scale our enemies

expected. Our people are segregating themselves. It was the story of a battle lost, but not by any means the end of the war.

Part II

Autobiographical

Why I Hate, Part I: Anti-fascists and Friends On Facebook May 2016

I thought I’d add something of a personal touch to the blog with a series of posts which will detail some of the experiences and mental changes I went through which turned a politically aloof young man from northern England into…well, the kind of person who runs a blog like this. It isn’t that my experiences have been particularly brutal or grueling, but rather that millions of white

people will be undergoing something similar, a sense that something is seriously wrong with the world around them. Each of these people will be grappling with mental roadblocks and psychological hurdles. My aim here is to use my experiences living on the European continent with the diversity, and coming across the struggle online, et cetera, to perhaps find a way to identify where our people are in their transition and then to help bump them along a little more swiftly. These posts will not be in any chronological order, each will be a stand-alone post which will go up every so often and will have the label “Why I Hate”…

[Later additions to this series can be found in later volumes of this e-book series, as well as on Morgoth’s blog. —Ed.]

Anti-fascists & Friends On Facebook In 2008 I finally had the internet installed. I worked in Holland for a petrochemical company and though it paid relatively well, I was working with immigrants from Turkey, Morocco, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, Somalia, and pretty much any

other third-world dump you can think of. During these years I spent most of my time utterly baffled at what was taking place, that these people were allowed into Europe. Having installed the internet and allowed myself to be pestered into joining Facebook by friends and family, I went looking for answers on the BNP groups. At this time the BNP were at the height of their “surge” in Britain. To my surprise, the BNP pages and groups did not consist of white men explaining strategy and tactics, providing answers to other white men such as myself. What I discovered was two camps, the first made up by young working class white women, most of whom had children and were posting under their real names. The second was a highly organized group operating under fake names who ruthlessly and relentlessly attacked and insulted the inarticulate and ill-informed working class white women. This was the first time I saw anti-racists at work. The stereotype that working class whites have of middle class whites is of spoiled, university-educated cretin, and these lefty trolls were all that and so much more. But something else had happened to

them: they were warped, brainwashed and twisted. They’d gone rotten.

It had never occurred to me that white people would organize themselves and intellectually arm themselves with the aim of

actually assisting the third-world hordes invading our country. It left me astounded. I began to tentatively make comments questioning their motivation, and each time was met with accusations of “racist” and “bigot” etc. I also noticed that everything that we, as working-class whites, could say in our defense had been preempted and anticipated, countered and made obsolete. We, the white British, were immigrants, we were lazy and too stupid to understand that the economy would collapse; we invaded their countries; we’re violent moronic thugs incapable of understanding common humanity; we were living in the past but that past never existed in the first place; what right does an uneducated chav from Sunderland or Halifax have to complain about the Indian doctor who treats you in the NHS…on and on and on. These working class whites, Tracey from Carlisle, Emma from Sheffield, had no intellectual means by which to combat this leftist onslaught. They were pilloried, eviscerated, day in day out. It fascinated me. Where did this kind of thinking originate? Why was it invented and by whom? For what purpose? The lefty trolls didn’t stop at merely intellectually humiliating the BNP-supporting whites. They stole photos and created fake

accounts to find out personal details, they called their phones and asked them why they were racists. One young woman called Nicola whom I’d “friended” had social services come to her home and spend three hours questioning her on politics and what she discussed with her son. Her son’s school was asked to report if the boy showed any “racist tendencies” and Nicola was informed that indoctrinating children into “hate” was tantamount to child abuse and likely to result in having her son being taken into care.

Much of the discussion was centred on Islam and Muslims, especially the behaviour of Pakistani men. The Asians themselves would join the leftists in attacking the working-class

whites on a daily basis; rape and death threats directed toward working class white women were commonplace. If these threats were put to the anti-racists the response was complete indifference, or the accusation that this was nothing compared to what the (newly-formed) EDL was dishing out to Muslims.

On one occasion a ridiculously “pumped-up” Pakistani called “Ahsan” posted a primitive gif, a video which started playing automatically; he added the comment “LOL! WE RULZ YOUR WHYTE BITCHES!!!” The video began playing and lasted perhaps 10 seconds. In it two young white girls, about fifteen years old, were on their knees performing oral sex on two Pakis who were triumphantly punching black power salutes into the air. My initial reaction to this was one of denial: this must be taken

from a drama or something, it isn’t real, perhaps some arty Channel 4 thing. Except the quality was appalling, there was the guttural laugh of the Paki behind the camera…it was real. My hatred of these lefties and their Muslim allies shifted instantly from an intellectually curious one and general dislike into visceral and emotional hatred, a deep and profound loathing and a feeling of impotence: where was this happening, how can it be stopped; yet I wasn’t even in the country, but surely somebody is doing something?! Of course, the people who were trying to do something were the very people who were being threatened and attacked while trying to organize via Facebook. Trying to compose myself I replied to Ahsan’s post with “I hope all you lefties can see the reality of what you support now”. A female leftist called “Hazel”, who I’d gathered was a big deal within Hope Not Hate circles, then answered with “oh come on, they aren’t the first girls to go a bit crazy on vodka and cock!” You see, for a fourteen-year-old or fifteen-year-old girl to find herself on her knees before a racially triumphant Pakistani is simply all part of what a modern independent woman goes through, “wild nights” etc. And as for the men, oh well, boys will be boys.

There is no “middle ground” possible with such people, there’s nothing left to discuss. What I took away from the whole experience was that there’s nothing within the standard political and cultural discourse to deal with this level of hatred, neither their hatred for us or mine/ours for them. I’d spent my whole life reading the history of the early 20th century (standard narrative of course): the bodies in pits, mass executions, show trials, purges. It seemed totally incomprehensible, that level of barbarity…but not anymore, now I understood it very well.

Part III

The Wars to Come Migration, Demographics, and Strife

Entering 2016: The Wars To Come 1 January 2016 Back in 2009 a Czech Nationalist uploaded a video to YouTube called “The Wars To Come”, in which he predicted just that: a future Europe ravaged by strife. The video gained nigh on 800,000 views before being removed. Since then it has been put back up, and removed, and put back up frequently. The recent surge in the popularity of “alt-right” ideas means that there is a far greater choice in apocalyptic visions of a Europe torn apart by multi-factional ethnic warfare than in 2009. But what’s interesting is that “Europe 2029” was itself created 7 years ago; 7 years from now it will be 2023. Has anything happened since 2009 which makes the horror of the future less likely? We can quibble about whether the 2029 scenario is more likely to be in 2020 or 2032. But the point is, back in 2009 a European was able to predict “The Wars To Come” because he understood the demographic trends changing the ethnic make-up of the continent as well as the politics and ideology of the ruling elite and their leftist attack dogs.

Around one million immigrants entered Germany in 2015 and they continued to flood into Germany and other European countries even as Paris and Brussels had thousands of armed soldiers deployed in the aftermath of yet another massacre. The numbers didn’t actually decrease in any significant way as the winter set in, but in a few months spring will break and the flood will rise once again. What happens when 10,000 soldiers is no longer enough? What happens when the Muslims know that 10,000 soldiers is no longer enough? How far away are we from that? What 2015 did was establish the precedent: Europeans are to be phased out and our historical course toward painful oblivion or self-assertion is set out clearly. These trends had been in play for years, of course, but in 2015 it became explicit.

The German Chancellor Introduces Germany to 2016

The chaos to come is inevitable. Europeans are now locked onto a historical trajectory like a train on its rails and the destination is disaster. There will be more massacres in 2016. We will see more YouTube videos of gloating non-whites who’ve just raped a European girl. Resistance will increase and be met with a new wave of laws to crush it. When on New Year’s Eve Angela Merkel addressed Germany, she did so with Arabic subtitles while then demanding of the Germans, who are quite blatantly being dispossessed, that “we should not follow those who — with coldness and even hatred in their hearts — make judgments

about what it means to be German, and seek to exclude others from this definition.” And she says this while denying Germans any ethnic identity at all. There is no negotiating with this mentality: the peoples of Europe are locked into a death spiral with their own political class. The political class itself increasingly fears the righteous wrath of their people; they feverishly ram through an endless torrent of silencing orders and an increase in jail time for “racism”, knowing that if they lose they will be hanged, their names and legacy despised. In Herman Melville’s great novel, Moby Dick, Captain Ahab muses on his fate: “Come and see if ye can swerve me. Swerve me? Ye cannot swerve me, else ye swerve yourselves! Man has ye there. Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of mountains, under torrents’ beds, unerringly I rush! Naught’s an obstacle, naught’s an angle to the iron way!”

Ahab did not know how his great drama with his whale would play out, but he knew that that was his destiny, just as an increasing number of Europeans understand that their destiny will be to fight

their own rulers. As we ride the rails of European history into 2016 our task must be to win over as many more of our people to our side as possible. We must make the politicians right to fear us and justify their paranoia of a “far right backlash”, and as we do so we can use another line from Captain Ahab: “…To the last, I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart, I stab at thee; for hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”

The Mystery Of Hope Not Hate’s Missing Counter Jihad Report January 2016

At the end of last year the anti-white hate organization called “Hope Not Hate” put together a rather glossy report on the spread of “Islamophobia” and the growth of the Counter Jihad movement throughout the West. Each country in the West has its own arm and Hope Not Hate traced the hierarchy of the Counter Jihad from

the lowliest EDL marcher up through the various regional organizers, the prominent writers and thinkers, and from there to think tanks in New York and Washington. I happened to read the report, which genuinely was interesting, and then I happened across a jubilant Douglas Murray on Twitter:

Douglas Murray is a neocon; indeed, he’s written book entitled

Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. He certainly isn’t the worst of them, and has come close to advocating white European interests, but that’s where his loyalties lie. You see, like the Dwarves of Middle Earth, Hope Not Hate had dug too deep and disturbed a Balrog—in this case, a Zionist Balrog. And then their report was Shut Down. Despite that a screenshot or two still exists:

In pretty much each and every case cited in the Hope Not Hate report, a pro-Israel, Zionist organization was sitting at the top pulling the strings. One example is the “Gatestone Institute”. According to the Gatestone Institute website: The organization is currently forming its Board of Advisors. Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, Jr., Hebrew University professor Petra Heldt and publisher Ahmed Charai are the first individuals to be named to the board.

It’s worth considering how morally awkward this is for Hope Not Hate: the entire New left/Neo-Marxist ideology is predicated on the Jews suffering at the hands of Nazis/white people, and yet Hope Not Hate have revealed that Jews are heading up what they think of as the new Nazi movement in Europe, and in Elie Wiesel they have a real actual “Holocaust” survivor, too! Of course, if Hope Not Hate had a smidgen of integrity, they could have powered on regardless, but they don’t. Hope Not Hate would like us to believe that they get their funding from black bus drivers, coal miners, and Billy Bragg concerts. In actual fact, as Breitbart reported in December: Hope Not Hate’s foreign funding is exclusively being reported on by Breitbart News, who revealed earlier today that the organisation has accepted nearly half a million dollars in recent years from a high profile, hedge-fund manager who also donates to almost every promigration organisation in Europe, as well as the Democratic Party of America, and the hardline “Black Lives Matter” groups.

Mr. Lowles said of his organisation’s foreign funding: “Given Breitbart’s blog this morning on William Reeves there is nothing more I can or wish to add”. The group funding Hope Not Hate is called “Unbound Philanthropy” and its board members are Debbie Berger, Kiki Fordham, Bill Reeves, and Hilary Weinstein. As noted before in my writing, the left are merely willing dupes of the money power they claim to despise, and a quick glance at Debbie Berger’s background proves this point once again: Debbie is Co-Founder and Board Chair of Unbound Philanthropy, a foundation dedicated to promoting the ideal of self-determination for immigrant and refugee populations as well as strengthening the host communities in which they live. Prior to Unbound, she worked for JP Morgan in New York, Tokyo and London as well as for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. She holds a Graduate Degree in Law (UK) and a BA in Economics from Smith College. She serves on the Board of Governors of the Hawaii Community Foundation, is a director of The Institute for Native Pacific Education and Culture (INPEACE) and is a trustee of Punahou School. She was born and raised in Hawaii though she spent much of her youth in Japan.

And these are the people who gave the clowns at Hope Not Hate £320,000 to produce a report claiming (quite rightly as it happens) that Jews, including a “Holocaust” surviving Jew, are behind the hate and anti-Islam organizations sweeping the continent (!). All it would take would be an email or call from a Jew in New York to a Jewish banker in Hawaii…

Obviously, the various Jewish groups and organizations which distanced themselves from Hope Not Hate, as one moves away from a turd in a swimming pool, didn’t see it this way. The Jewish Chronicle sniffed: Hope Not Hate said it wanted the report – published on Wednesday – to highlight the “mainstreaming” of anti-Muslim hatred. But critics said the document libelled some anti-jihadists – both Muslim and non-Muslim - as being Islamophobic, implying they were among those driving organised hatred against Muslims, creating a target list for extreme Muslim groups. The report profiles 920 organisations and individuals in 22 countries, exploring, it said, “the connections between politicians, bloggers, street activists and funders in the widespread ‘counter-jihad’ arena”. Hope Not Hate said the aim was to raise awareness of “the new face of the far-right”.

The list includes individuals such as controversial Jewish American activist Pamela Geller, who has previously been banned from Britain because of her comments about Islam. But it also highlights progressive Muslim voices and Muslim reformers who have attempted to counter jihadi groups, while appearing to label them as Islamophobic. Among those it singles out is Jewish journalist Melanie Phillips, who it describes as a “fierce critic of Islam and supporter of Israel”. The report lists organisations such as the International Free Press Society, an umbrella campaigning group which has in the past given awards to journalists including Ms Phillips for their writing on Islamism. In response, Ms Phillips said: “To support its libellous claim that I promote anti-Muslim hatred, this document headlines me as a ‘supporter of Israel’. It is extraordinary and shocking that supporting Israel, which I am proud to do, is presented as self-evident proof of anti-Muslim hatred and therefore a hateful attitude in itself. This suggests a deeper HNH agenda of anti-Israel hatred and the vilification of those who support it.

Non Pasaran Didn’t Quite Cut It

And so yet another front opens up against the sad shambles that is Hope Not Hate. Even if the Zionist power mongers in Washington and New York didn’t merely give a quick call to “Unbound Philanthropy” suggesting they put the squeeze on this bunch of dopey, hippy, self-loathing cretins, a new narrative was being born in which Hope Not Hate could well be responsible for a terror attack upon such vocal Jews as Melanie Phillips or even the moderate Muslims that Hope Not Hate had named in their report. To be fair, this isn’t an entirely implausible scenario, but Hope Not Hate cannot admit that their report into “Islamophobia” might result in the assassinations of the people who were in that report

calling Islam violent, because then people would ask what in God’s name Hope Not Hate were playing at and why. Hope Not Hate had produced a report on prominent Jews speaking out about how dangerous Islam was, therefore inciting anti-Islamic Hatred; now the Jews had replied that that might mean the Jews in the report were killed by the Muslims—but if Hope Not Hate admitted that those Jews might well be in danger then on what premise was their report based and why ignore an obvious reality? What are they doing? Can they really be this imbecilic? At any rate the Jews had run circles around Hope Not Hate. If we leave aside the Zionist string-puller theory of why Hope Not Hate pulled their own report and take the “Assassination of Mel” theory as valid, there are yet more questions which need to be answered. If Melanie Philips, or Douglas Murray, or the moderate Muslims are at risk from a terror plot then why aren’t white British people, the type of British people Hope Not Hate “expose” daily on their site and Facebook groups?.

The New left maxim in regard to racism is “Power + Prejudice = Racism”. Hope Not Hate understood what the “prejudice” was: as they saw it, dislike of Islam. They then went on to reveal the “power”, and when they did, the power told them to go f*** themselves and Hope Not Hate dutifully obliged. And yet these ghastly bastards, without any shame at all, are now “outing” and “exposing” UKIPers and EDL members who might slip up on Facebook and say “Paki”. They can do this because the latter are a people without power; it’s safer that way, because they aren’t part of a powerful tribe which can complain that they will be terror attacked, or who can threaten to have Hope Not Hate shut down or bankrupted. But this is what we must work towards…

Kafka’s Revenge January 2016

Whenever one comes across the name of Jewish novelist Franz Kafka, the mind conjures images of isolation, paranoia, the surreal, oppression, and a hostile state bureaucracy impossible to negotiate. Indeed, the term “Kafkaesque” is defined as:

used to describe a situation that is confusing and frightening, especially one involving complicated official rules and systems that do not seem to make any sense, e.g., “My attempt to get a new passport turned into a Kafkaesque nightmare.”

Wandering around central Europe in the early 20th century, an ungainly, sickly, and noticeable Jew such as Kafka would indeed have felt very much the outsider. His writing was a reflection of this, and other Jews noticed it too: In the opinion of literary critic Harold Bloom, although Kafka was uneasy with his Jewish heritage, he was the quintessential Jewish writer. Lothar Kahn is likewise unequivocal: “The presence of Jewishness in Kafka’s oeuvre is no longer subject to doubt”. Pavel Eisner, one of Kafka’s first translators, interprets Der Process (The Trial) as the embodiment of the “triple dimension of Jewish existence in Prague … his protagonist Josef K. is (symbolically) arrested by a German (Rabensteiner), a Czech (Kullich) and a Jew (Kaminer). He stands for the ‘guiltless guilt’ that imbues the Jew in the modern world, although there is no evidence that he himself is a Jew”.

In The Castle, Kafka described an individual, the aptly named “K”, desperately trying to gain entry into The Castle, which was closed to him. The Castle represented European society, and K represented, well, the K’s. Indeed, the vast bulk of Jewish intellectualism over the course of the 20th century and up to the present is dealing with their paranoia and seeking for ways to lower the defence systems of European society. The psychological defences that Europeans have, which are perfectly normal and displayed by every group, have been pathologized and associated with evil, ignorance and “hate”. The critique is always that no exclusive identity can be allowed to Europeans, i.e., white people. The trend runs throughout our society; this is fundamentally what Cultural Marxism is all about— indeed, the Left is itself not much more than a Jewish battering ram being used to smash down the walls of “the Castle”. In Kafka’s The Trial Joseph K attempts to get to grips with an oppressive and contradictory leviathan of a civil service which is charging him with a crime, but they will not reveal what that crime is, or when or where it happened; it’s K’s drive to uncover the

truth which keeps incriminating him further. Again, it’s easy to see this actually being the case of a “Euro-centric” Prague of the early 20th century in regard to an ugly outsider such as Kafka. However, let us travel to Britain in the 21st century and consider the following exchange, in which an Englishman called Bill Short is requesting information from the government regarding the placement of “Syrian refugees” in Northeast England, and the government’s response to Mr Short:

Dear Home Office, Could you please indicate if any plans exist to place Syrian refugees in Northumberland. If no plans exist, what plans are there and at what date to develop such a plan? When will a distribution plan be formed for refugees across English counties or county councils? Yours faithfully,

Bill Short The “response”:

W. Short, Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request. This has been assigned to a caseworker (case ref 37284). We will aim to send you a full response by 25/11/2015 which is twenty working days from the date we received your request. If you have any questions then please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you, P. Zebedee FOI Requests Home Office

After giving Bill the runaround for a while the government then come clean as to why it is they will not allow Mr Short to know how many migrants will be arriving on his door step:

The Home Office has obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 and in law generally to protect personal data. We have concluded that the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40. Refugees that we are bringing to the United Kingdom are very vulnerable people. Our prime concern is their safety and protection as they arrive in this country. We believe that the best way to protect their privacy and ensure their recovery and integration is to limit the amount of information about them that we make publicly available. We do not disclose the details of where refugees will be resettled upon arrival in the UK under the Government resettlement scheme.

Of course, the reason Mr Short is so concerned about these migrants arriving where he lives is because he knows for a fact they are not in the least “vulnerable” but are, in reality, a rape army of fighting-age Muslims with a tendency towards terrorism. On arrival in Mr Short’s home town they will constitute the least vulnerable demographic group in that area. However, Mr Short knows not to push the issue too hard or he might end up on a crimethink database. Mr Short is allowed to know what the costs of this will be: the local newspaper informs us that “Northumberland could be latest area in the North East to welcome refugees council reveals” and that “the total cost of housing an adult refugee on benefits would be £23,420, £10,720 for other adults, and £16,220 for 5-18s. The costs are per year but the cost to Northumberland County Council would be £8,520 per person with additional costs picked up by central government.”

And so, Mr Short is an Englishman who’s about to have an African and Arab horde dumped on his home, and he isn’t allowed to know when or how many or where they will go because the government thinks they are vulnerable. But he is allowed to know that he will be paying for them when they arrive and he is allowed to know how much money will be forced out of him to pay for it. To top it all off Mr Short picks up his local left-leaning rag and discovers he’s also “welcoming” the rape army he isn’t allowed to know about but will be paying for. This is what we might call “Kafkaesque”. Bill Short is on the outside of the Castle, he’s in the

role of Kafka trying to get a look into the closed shop of governmental power and the civil service. So what happens when the non-white horde arrive and inevitably start to rape and pillage? YouTuber Havyton explored this brilliantly recently using the example of a Swedish father whose daughter is raped. This hypothetical father could just as easily be a German or Englishman or Frenchmen or Norwegian: this same trend is now spreading across the continent, as is the trend, first seen in relation to Pakistanis and English girls, of governmental cover-up and denial. The European dad is a good guy, despite the suppressed wages and feminism and overt efforts to break down the family and laud homosexualism and hedonism; this guy has managed to find a woman he loves and they have a little girl of 15. His daughter comes home in tatters, she’s been raped by a gang of third-world savages. It’s the end of the world; even people who shy away from “controversial issues” have heard rumours but now it has literally

come home. Angered, enraged, and heartbroken our dad wanders into the local police station to register what is normally seen as one of the gravest violations in a civilized society.

What stares back across the police desk isn’t a fellow white man struggling to hide his rage at what is being reported, but a “dead eyed” zombie, a shell with all the meat scratched out, a coward. He’s heard all of this before, it’s become tedious and he’s had understanding diversity seminars and questionnaires; rather vague orders came down from on high but he got the message, white girls being raped by the “vulnerable” Third World were a matter of inter-communal trust issues and this was a “sensitive area” which could be exploited by hate groups, best to just, you know, get the statement and shuffle dad off the premises. Nothing will be done. And so he goes home. He was unable to stop the Muslim rapists entering his country, he couldn’t stop them raping his little girl, and he can’t seek justice from the police and government, he is defeated, his family is broken, and will never be the same again. He pours a drink and thinks on it. He understands one thing, there’s a power structure and a bureaucracy, a government—a “Castle”, and that Castle has locked its doors to him and is now populated by people who hate him.

He is now on the outside, he is aware of his own isolation, paranoia, oppression, and a hostile state bureaucracy impossible to negotiate; he sits alone, wondering how to get back in and make it serve him once again…

Liberal Media Snowflake Responds To Brussels Bloodbath: “Don’t Send Us Mean Tweets!” March 2016 [Editor’s note: on 22 March three mass-murder/suicide bombers carried out coordinated attacks in Belgium. Thirty-two civilians, as well as the three bombers, were killed. ISIL claimed responsibility for the attacks.]

As the good people of Belgium frantically called their families and friends seeking information on whether a loved one had been blown up, incinerated, decapitated, or beheaded, the people who are largely responsible for the atrocity had a different set of priorities, amounting to “oh God, I’m going to get hell for this on Twitter”. After all, just a few days ago we had “Anti-racism Day”, which combined itself with “Refugees Welcome” in an orgy of white-guilt brown skin worship and hug-a-Muzzie fetishism. And now this. Writing in The Independent—one of so many putrid, liberal trash outlets which constitute the prolefeed of MSM—Chris Hemmings explains what really ruined his day: not his Muslim pets increasing their already massive head count on European soil, no, what really bugged him was how “the right” might react. The headline to his piece:

From #StopIslam to Allison Pearson and Katie Hopkins, the social media response to Brussels has been shocking The piece runs: It didn’t take long for some social-media-savvy Neanderthals to craft their careful messages of bile, determined, before the blood of the dead has even dried, to score political points and lead the charge against a considered approach to terror attack response. For them, bombs going off in Belgium validates all their preconceptions that the EU = immigrants, immigrants = Muslims and Muslims = terrorism.

It’s always “bile” with these people, isn’t it, whereas they adopt the “considered approach”. The considered approach is the liberal left approach. And he’s doing it now: it is to do absolutely nothing about the Islam question while attacking anyone, any white person, who opposes what this lunatic supports, which is the complete surrender of our living space while trying to stop your family being burned alive. To address his point, as a racist and a bigot I agree completely that my views have once again been

validated, that the EU literally forces member countries to accept immigrants, most of those immigrants are Muslims, and Muslims bring terror. That is objectively true, and saying it with a twattish left-wing wink and oodles of sarcasm does not make it untrue. Thus, some Brexit supporters openly used this terrible event to promote an anti-EU message. For them it was clear proof that we should leave the EU, and they’re determined you should know about that as soon as possible. It started early this morning with Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson who, at 7.45am, tweeted a pro-Brexit message citing Brussels as her motive. “Brussels, de facto capital of the EU, is also the jihadist capital of Europe,” she wrote. “And the Remainers dare to say we’re safer in the EU! #Brexit”. This led Sky News’ Kay Burley to respond that it might be a little too soon to be scoring political points out of a terrorist atrocity.

The problem he has here is that his newspaper was carrying a story on this event (alongside his own!) that proves Allison Pearson was totally correct in her statement that Brussels is “Jihadist capital of Europe”:

Then there’s the likes of Katie Hopkins who, just hours later, leapt on this occasion to not only attack the existence of the EU but also the entire religion of Islam. She blames the left for not “joining the dots” when it comes to Muslim refugees and clarified with “Merkel – and her ilk – blew up Brussels #brexit”. “Open borders = open season for Isis”, she continued, and her current pinned tweet reads: “Every one of you who said refugees are welcome, if you said ‘let them in’. You are responsible for Brussels. And you still can’t see.”

You may happen to agree with Hopkins and Pearson. I don’t, but, regardless of your views, this morning was not the time to argue

about Brexit. We don’t know anything about who carried out the attacks, and these hastily sent tweets show nothing more than a complete disregard for those caught up in the violence.

And indeed, he can’t see it, he literally cannot see it. Those of us who’re not brainwashed liberal left cuckolds knew for a fact that Muslims would commit more massacres; it is simply what they do. The reason why we shout about these issues is because we don’t want to grieve for the victims while listening to a shitty John Lennon song: we don’t want there to be victims in the first place. We don’t want Islam here. But the liberal left cleaves to a moral high ground which isn’t in any way actually moral. How moral is it to strive toward creating conditions within which a Muslim terror attack will occur, and then when it has occurred, chicken out of taking any responsibility? And then go further still by insisting the people who were right about the issue silence themselves out of respect for the victims the liberal left have created. He then continues with this absolute gem: On his LBC show today James O’Brien was a voice of reason, telling listeners he wasn’t interested in hearing anything other than

“substantive” debate over Brussels, but clarifying that there probably wasn’t anything substantive to say so soon after events unfolded. On Sky News, Faisal Islam did similar. When asked what the political reaction had been, he said that now wasn’t the time for that discussion.

James O’Brien is an ardent Marxist. What he’s telling his audience, and Hemmings agrees, is that he doesn’t want to hear anything negative about either Islam or leftists; indeed, probably better for everybody to just remain totally silent on the Brussels terror attack. Unsurprisingly, Faisal Islam wasn’t too keen on discussing it either, and this utterly contemptible journalist is fine with that too. In reality these bad people in Brussels probably aren’t recent immigrants. As we learned from the Paris attacks, they’re most likely Belgian nationals. Also, we don’t have open borders. We’re an island with our own strict entry policy, so that’s an irrelevance.

“Bad People”?! This is a main stream British newspaper. He’s also regurgitating a shockingly flawed liberal left argument; we

saw it during the Cologne rape rampage. The point they’re trying to get across is that we can’t blame immigrants or refugees when, in some cases, the Muslims were born in the country where they committed the mass rapes, terror, muggings etc. But this just compounds the utter failure of the multi-racial project: they are saying the previous generation of Muslims are still just as violent and backwards as the incoming ones. And then we finally come to the real issue: it isn’t the terror attacks, it isn’t the innocent people being burned alive and painfully slaughtered which is the issue, it’s confronting the filth with what they are responsible for, it is the collapsing narrative of the liberal left. They are saying, “please, please just leave us alone in our safe spaces!” And now I’m being forced to counter your arguments because you couldn’t bear the thought of not sending that tweet. I’m no better than you now. I’m joining an argument that shouldn’t be happening at all. The more measured among us are, rightly, not trying to score points today. They’re smart enough to know that it’s deeply

disrespectful. But that means social media is solely awash with onesided bile. As most tweet sympathy, the rest to leap on fear. They’re entitled to an opinion, but those involved are also entitled not to have their grief hijacked for personal ends. Think before you tweet, and show some respect.

And to that we must say, “no! You will answer for what you have done”.

The Age Of The European Eloi March 2016

“To adorn themselves with flowers, to dance, to sing in the sunlight; so much was left of the artistic spirit, and no more. Even that would fade in the end into a contented inactivity. We are kept keen on the grindstone of pain and necessity, and, it seemed to me, that here was that hateful grindstone broken at last!”

— H.G. Wells, The Time Machine Modern Europe is a place where a young white couple can head off for a weekend away and, while standing at the airport or train station, the young man can increasingly expect to look into his girlfriend’s eyes as an Islamic nail bomb rips her face off. If they manage to arrive at their romantic location there’s an even greater chance that he will be smacked around as Iraqis, Turks, Algerians, Moroccans, and Somalians gang rape his girl. The media probably won’t even bother reporting the rape; they will report the bombings but it hardly matters: the dominant response by the European public will be one of apathy. There will be no attempt to drag the political class or liberal media out on the streets and hang them. Instead there will be digital ribbons on digital flags, hashtags on Twitter, and sometime soon Samsung or Apple will begin offering a whole range of apps tailored toward mourning the victims of a terror attack. The first time I came across the comparison of modern European liberals with HG Wells’ “Eloi” was in Mark Steyn’s book After

America. And though I’ve grown to despise Steyn’s neoconservative, philo-Semitic, Constitution-obsessed

Americana, his analogy stands up very well. Wells’ protagonist, “The Time Traveler”, depicts humanity in a distant future which evolution has caused to split, one half becoming the docile, effeminate Eloi, plenty and comfort having molded them into a servile race of cattle lacking any will to survive whatsoever. The Morlocks are the flip side of the Eloi, they having evolved into hulking, brutish, retarded subhumans which feed on the Eloi. Comfort and plenty may well have played a role in turning Europeans into Eloi, but so too did a lifetime of having Jews control all of the cultural choke points in Western society and dictating what the morality of Western society should be.

“..But explain HOW diversity is a strength!” The most shocking characteristic of the Eloi is that they are completely indifferent to the suffering of their own kind. In Wells’ novel a young woman falls into a fast flowing river and not one of the men attempts to save her; it’s just something which happens. When a Morlock batters an Eloi over the head and runs off with it, the idea that they should put up a fight, defend themselves, is a non-starter; it’s just the natural order of things. The allotted role of the Eloi is to sit with flowers in their hair, eat berries, have sex, and die violently. In actual fact our situation is worse than that in The Time

Machine. In Well’s novel the Morlocks at least provide food for their Eloi cattle; in modern Europe our third-world Morlocks provide us with nothing at all. We have to provide for them as they kill us! Since November last year, 161 Europeans have been murdered in terrorist attacks, 668 injured. In one night alone in one German city 1200 German women were sexually assaulted, and this happened in at least fifteen German cities on that same night. If we extrapolate that across Europe it is reasonable to estimate

that no fewer than 100,000 European women have been sexually molested, groped, or raped by third-world Morlocks.

The issue of Islamic terrorism and how it is widely perceived is telling. According to the narrative Muslims are not an invading

force which is slaughtering us: the Islamic terrorist is something amorphous and nondescript, it is a geopolitical issue which the Eloi don’t really understand; and anyway, if they dig too deep there’ll probably be a Jewish academic or writer telling them it’s the Eloi’s own fault. So when the bombs go off there’s no actual enemy to point at apart from “terrorists”, and so being blown up becomes a force of nature: like a girl falling into a river and drowning, the victims of Islamic terror are simply “unlucky”. The Eloi take it for granted that this week the Eiffel Tower will be lit up in the colours of the Belgian flag, next week perhaps the German flag, or Swedish. It just depends on whose turn it is. Angela Merkel reacted to the Brussels bombings by saying: “Our strength lies in our unity, and our free societies will prove to be stronger than terrorism.”

And the head honcho of the UN, Ban Ki Moon said he was: “confident that Belgium’s and Europe’s commitment to human rights, democracy and peaceful coexistence will continue to be the true and lasting response to the hatred and violence of which they became a victim today.”

And so the most pressing priority is to perpetuate the values system which is proving to be genocidal to Europeans, but it doesn’t really matter, what matters is that a few buzzwords such as “unity” and “coexistence” are dripped into the Eloi mind once again, and once again they can copy and paste them onto Twitter and Facebook and the rest of the Eloi can marvel at their openmindedness and dedication to love and harmony.

The word “Morlock” is derived from the Phoenician god associated with child sacrifice in the Bible, “Moloch”. The word “Eloi” is also found in the Bible. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus yells

out from the cross, “Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?”: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mass third-world immigration is the Moloch of the European political class: they worship it, they obsess over it, and they feed their own people to it. Will it ever dawn on the Eloi what their liberalism really is? Will they ever get that jolt of lightning as the horror of reality hits them, will they ask:

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Viktor Orbán and The Dune Strategy March 2016

The Hungarian Prime Minister, Victor Orban, recently announced the issue of Hungary accepting “refugees” would be finally settled by putting it to the Hungarian people via a referendum. The question will be:

“Do you want the European Union to prescribe the mandatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary even without the consent of Parliament?” Orban has explained his reasons: “Hungary is under enormous pressure,” he said, “[over] whether or not the EU will succeed in pushing a new EU asylum and migrant system down the throats of the central European countries, including ours. Such a system would authorise [the EU] to distribute migrants among the other EU countries, including those which have not taken in migrants, do not want to, are opposed to this and do not want any part in it.” “The government is responding to public sentiment now, we think that introducing resettlement quotas for migrants without the backing of the people equals an abuse of power,” he said, adding that quotas would redraw the ethnic, cultural and religious map of Hungary and Europe.

It’s rather surprising (or perhaps not?) that the Hungarian referendum has received relatively scant media coverage because the implications for the nationalist vs globalist (for the

sake of brevity I’ll refer to the various tentacles of the EU, traitor politicians, organized Jewry, finance, bureaucrats and the left, collectively as “globalism”) war are quite profound. For the first time a European people will actually be able to decide whether they want their country to become multi-ethnic or not, and even globalist media outlet The Economist admits the answer will be

“Not!” The globalist machine rolls across the white world, replacing populations, deconstructing ancient identities, tearing down traditions, and enslaving nations with debt, while dismantling the very idea of those nations. It seems unstoppable, its destruction is unrelenting. And yet here we have one small country in Eastern Europe which is, literally, going to stand up and say “No!” The question is, how will the globalist new world order react?

A Hungarian watches Globalism Inc Arrive…

In Frank Herbert’s classic sci-fi epic Dune the leader of the religious and nationalist rebellion against an intergalactic empire, Paul Atreides, aims to smash the production of “spice” which can

only be found on Dune and is the most lucrative resource in the universe. The emperor then has two choices: he can simply do nothing and allow the natives to retake control of their world and the spice, though this would drastically weaken the empire and set a precedent with more worlds looking to break free. His other option, the one he ultimately chooses, is to invade Dune with everything he has at his disposal. The risk with this strategy is that he isn’t guaranteed victory, and the natives are more numerous than he knows and will be united in the event of an invasion. Furthermore, invading Dune throws out any semblance of moral authority which the empire still has; it would reveal the empire as a corrupt and venal force of evil and conquest. This is the kind of quagmire Victor Orban may well be creating for the globalists. Like the empire in Dune, the globalists are confronted with a problem in the event of a Hungarian “No”. They can do nothing, and simply allow one European people to remain who and what they are in their land, but that sets a dangerous precedent: if Hungarians can simply vote to remain an ethnically homogeneous

country and be free of the horrors of diversity, then why can’t Norwegians? Or Belgians? Or Dutch? Or Irish? Or Germans? Why weren’t any other European people asked? Indeed, what is the ethical and moral foundation of the multi-ethnic state, does it not require the consent of the population about to be “enriched”? Watching events unfold in Hungary, leaders in countries such as Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Croatia and perhaps even Austria could simply absolve themselves of the problem by tossing it to the public to vote down. There’s also the issue of Hungary remaining an identifiable European nation. As Islamification continues and ethnic tensions increase, eyes throughout Europe will gaze jealously at the relative peace and calm which has been allowed the Hungarian people.

((Peter Sutherland)), anti-white globalist.

It’s highly unlikely that there will be a military invasion of Hungary by the globalist empire; after all, mass immigration and population replacement by proxy is the invasion. The globalist camp does

have the means by which to punish the Hungarian people, whether by relentlessly slurring them in the controlled media (already happening to a degree), sanctions both political and economic, and general harassment and ostracism, specifically via the EU. But this too is a rather dangerous and, potentially, very messy strategy. Orban’s move to allow the people to decide was shrewd because he can absolve himself of the “right wing extremist” tag by simply stating that the people decided, and so globalism would then be in the position of opposing the democratic will of a people. And if they took the option of punishing Hungarians they would have to do so collectively, that is to say, they would be singling out a people for a punishment beating for no other reason than that people chose to retain their identity. The wheels and machinery of the internationalist new world order project are kept oiled and greased with political correctness, liberal platitudes, and “brotherhood of man” ideals. Can those ideals survive the elites taking a huge diversity dump on a European country of 9 million, when everybody everywhere

knows the Hungarian people specifically rejected it? Are those ideals now to be enforced by financially ruining a small nation and making it the North Korea of Europe? The problem for the globalists is that they don’t have a carrot and stick: they offer only death and destruction to a racially aware European people. Their offer, essentially, is: 1. You can be part our club, you get favourable interest rates and a modicum of respect within the club, you get iPhones and pizza and beer, but you will die a slow lingering death through Cultural Marxism and mass immigration. 2. Reject us and we will ruin you, we will ruin you through economics and EU bureaucracy, the media will portray you as a weird throwback, and you will be ostracized. But you will remain a distinct people. This isn’t a carrot and stick approach. It isn’t even a stick and stick approach, it’s more like the choice between having your skull

smashed in by a baseball bat or your head hacked off with an Islamic scimitar. In either case, the agenda of the elites is exposed, and truth and reality to this filth is like garlic to a vampire.

The Beast Must Be Tamed!

Analysis Of A Feminist’s Migrant Fairy Tale April 2016

Feminist, leftist, and advocate of mass immigration, Laurie Penny, recently wrote an article about her trip to a migrant holding centre in Germany. The narrative which holds that you can support importing millions of Muslims into Europe, and maintain that you’re a feminist as the gang rape statistics reach unprecedented heights, has understandably come under a great deal of pressure over the last few months. We know that the ideals that these people hold so dear were cobbled together by Jewish academics, and we know the elite class use these people as killer attack drones against the white world, but how do they internalize and justify their opinions to themselves? Perhaps breaking down one of Laurie’s articles can give us some insight. Her article is called: “For refugee women in Germany, solidarity is non-negotiable”. For refugee women in Germany, solidarity is non-negotiable. These women are trying to eke out an existence in the no-man’s land between the Islamists and far right groups. Acts of compassion and translation - matter. Now, everyone has an opinion on immigration and Islamophobia – but some people’s opinions seem to matter more than others’. That is what I discovered on the

morning after the terrorist attacks in Brussels, sitting down to talk politics over lukewarm coffee with a group of women refugees in Germany. “When things like this attack happens, or when bombs happen, we feel worse, we feel frightened,” says Fatima, a Muslim who escaped a forced marriage in Guinea-Bissau. “It affects us, always. It takes away our position here and it gets worse with every attack.”

Laurie begins her article as she intends to go on—and she intends to go on by deploying an artillery-like barrage of relativist arguments and heart-string tugging. Thus, the German “far right”,

in Germany, are merely a reflection of the Islamists in Germany; neither is more justified in their goals and aims than the other and German men are not justified in moving to nationalist politics because of the very presence of Islam in their country. Laurie then, rather predictably, trots out the Islam-as-victim card by implying that the voices of Muslims are not being heard, protesting that “some people’s opinions seem to matter more than others”. This is rather ironic given that German police regularly arrest ethnic Germans for expressing anti-immigrant opinions on social media—so I guess she has a point, some opinions are

deemed more important than others. Also, note Fatima’s story. She rejected a forced marriage and fled to…Germany? Not one of the 50 countries between Guinea and Germany. But Laurie isn’t too concerned with that; what she has done is cleverly drip a feminist message in: forced marriage=male oppression. I meet Fatima and her friends at a women’s centre in Halle, a shrinking post-industrial city in Saxony-Anhalt. The walls in town are angrily annotated with political graffiti – “No Islam in Europe” jostles for space against “Nazis out”. Public opinion here is split down the middle like an open palm brought down on a knife and the wound is pulling apart, becoming infected with racist resentment and political positioning. In the recent state elections, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party made significant gains, including in Halle.

The historical position of Europeans has overwhelmingly been “No Islam in Europe”. This mindset predates National Socialism by at least a thousand years. What the “Nazis out” slogan does is associate the historical position of Europeans with, to a modern European, the most evil and maniacal political movement of all time.

Laurie then uses a clumsy metaphor, all the more clumsy when we consider that fear of an Islamic blade being brought down on German necks is very likely the cause of what she refers to as “racist resentment”. “I’m under serious stress because of this political direction,” says Roya, a schoolteacher in her late fifties. “I’m frightened that I won’t

get [officially] recognised as a refugee here. If that happens, I would say that death is better than to be exiled.” Refugee women and volunteers meet regularly at the centre to support each other. It is a small miracle of communication across cultures – the conversation today involves five individuals and four languages. This is the daily work of crisis response that gets lost in the fire of public debate. Food and shelter alone do not make a sanctuary. People also need patience, understanding and friendship, even when they are suffering the kind of sustained trauma that can make them anxious and hard to relate to. Roya has cancer and is a huge fan of Jesus Christ, which is the reason that she left Iran and sought asylum in Germany. She wears a pink plastic wristband covered with symbols: this one is about goodness, this one about surrender, this one about sin. It stuns me that a refugee with a life-threatening illness, who just wants the chance to give back to society by taking care of kids, should be so concerned with her own sinfulness. But everyone has their own way of coping with adversity.

When Oscar Wilde reviewed Charles Dicken’s novel “Little Nell” which features the infamously sentimental and mawkish Little Nell death scene, Wilde wrote, “one must have a heart of stone to

read the death of little Nell without laughing”. And indeed, when a left-wing feminist writes an article about the migrant situation in Germany and manages to find a (deep breath) Iranian Christian female teacher in her 50’s who simply wants to teach your kids maths as she dies from cancer, it’s hard not to giggle slightly. What are the chances, eh? The God Roya worships seems very different from the God in whose name parties such as the AfD would expel every asylumseeker from Europe. The women meeting at this centre find themselves caught between violent zealots and frothing misogynists on both sides, trying to salvage some measure of security. “It’s not only Muslim men attacking white women,” says Fatima, looking down at her hands while she talks. “It’s also white or German men attacking migrant women.”

Laurie gets a cheap shot in at Christianity, the implication is that the Western form of Christianity has been subverted by our racist tendencies. It’s possible—though I doubt she’s smart enough— that she’s drawing a parallel with Muslims leaving the true, peaceful interpretation of Islam.

However, we shall focus here on the obvious lie that non-white women are being subjected to equal abuse by German men as German women are by non-white men. Needless to say, a quick Google search of “German men attack Muslim women” results in:

And Laurie can’t get out of this one by citing the “right-wing media”. It is common knowledge that the German media actually covered up the Cologne attacks. And besides, the German state broadcaster produces genocidal content such as a recent video called “Be Deutsch! Achtung! Germans on the rise!” which celebrates the replacement of the real Germans with a host of non-white new “Germans”.

What, in reality, passes for “attacks on migrant women by white, German men” amounts to this: On Thursday, Ms Behari agreed to take off her niqab when giving evidence, but despite her compliance, the defendant was found not guilty of verbal abuse outside Munich’s central train station.

We can speculate as to whether “Roya”, the 50-year-old Iranian school teacher with cancer, is an actual person or not, but it is objectively false that German men are treating Muslim women as abhorrently as Muslim men are treating German women. It is a lie. But, as we shall see, it is a lie Laurie needs to sell in order that her world view makes sense…to herself and other lefty feminists. “I’m very sorry for the things that took place recently, especially in Cologne,” says Roya, who is the last person who needs to apologise. “Not all of us are like this. It happened like it was planned – as if the plan was to show that foreigners are bad, refugees are bad people.”

Whether or not the mysterious “Roya” should feel sorry for Cologne is up for debate. Laurie Penny, however, is most certainly not the “last person who needs to apologise”. It is shocking how few Europeans have grasped that the men who rape and abuse women, who commit acts of terrorism in the name of a vengeful God, are the same men most refugees are running away from. In Germany, I find myself being asked repeatedly how European feminists should respond to sexism among (predominantly Muslim) migrants, particularly the mass sexual assaults that occurred in Cologne at New Year. And I have my opinions. I am angry that women are still held responsible for sexual violence done to them, angry that the issue is being exploited by cultural conservatives and outright fascists who care about violence against women only when it can be used to attack Muslims. But I can afford to be angry – I am someone with a platform and, more importantly, a passport. Roya, Fatima and their friends can’t afford to be angry, at least not in public.

There is no evidence whatsoever, and Laurie certainly doesn’t provide any, to suggest that the migrants raping German women

are the same people who commit terror and rape in the Islamic world. It’s another lie. It is precisely because people are seeing through this incoherent, dishonest mess of a world view that people are questioning Laurie. Laurie then repeats the most grotesque lie which leftists and feminists indulge in, that white men are not interested in white women being raped and abused unless non-white men do it, because then we have an excuse to be racists and fascists.

Warrior of the Vagitopia

So let’s just run with that for a second. If Laurie is to be believed, then the conservative patriarchy of 1950’s Britain would be a better place to be a rapist than a modern progressive society such

as Sweden or Holland. In actual fact, under the conservative patriarchy, “sex beasts” in jail had to be segregated from the other male inmates for their own protection, and even then they were likely to be stabbed to death, have their eyes gouged out with a pencil, or tied to their bunk and burned alive. Even today in unfashionable, un-politically correct, working class areas, the worst thing that can happen to a man is to be accused of a being a “nonce” (child abuser, rapist, etc). In progressive Europe rapists play video games and watch porn for eighteen months then get released to rape again. But Laurie is desperate, absolutely desperate, to portray all men as equally rapey and misogynistic; her whole fairy tale crumbles if she does not. For these women, trying to eke out a life in the no-man’s-land between Islamist extremism and European neo-fascism, solidarity is non-negotiable. The women of this group, migrant and non-migrant, are a vital source of support for one another. What I am supposed to say here is that in this space, every difference of language, background, age, race, religion and culture melts away and we are all just women together, sharing coffee and talking about our feelings. But that’s not true. What connects us is not that we are women but that we are trying.

After yet another huge dollop of relativism, the method in Laurie’s madness truly begins to show itself: it’s the world-wide sisterhood of zher, it is women of all racial and religious backgrounds finding common cause against all men. This is what she is striving for, what we might call the “Vagitopia”. The person working the hardest in this conversation is the 25-yearold Heike, a German citizen who organised the meeting at short notice, found a place for us to convene and is now tirelessly translating from Portuguese to German to English and back again, so that Fatima and I can communicate. Heike is not her real name. She does not want me to use her real name. Most of the women who do this sort of work aren’t in it for the glory.

It’s noteworthy here that Laurie describes Heike as “German citizen” rather than simply German: this is to remove any association with ethnic and racial roots; what matters is her sex, and her role in the sisterhood. Much of the invisible work that goes into managing a crisis on this scale is the work of translation, in every sense of the word. Europe

is a continent where communication of all kinds is breaking down. Ordinary people are falling through the gaps in understanding as public opinion becomes more polarised and violent extremists dominate the news. What everyone in Europe needs – Muslims and Christians, refugees and citizens, men and women – are not just acts of compassion but acts of translation.

It’s hard to communicate when your side of the debate is relentlessly smeared as “Nazi” and “neo-fascist” and your opinion outlawed, where police can kick your door down for Crime Think, and when the media serves us the kind of dishonest tripe that Laurie Penny writes.

Conclusion Throughout the article Laurie has repeatedly attempted to cast men in general, regardless of race or religion, as the enemy, while at the same time casting aspersions on white men as aggressors, as the power to be contained. There’s obviously an element of the Cultural Marxist’s hatred for white people here and their own need not be “racist”. But there’s something more: the feminist activist

simply cannot admit that one group of men are more barbaric than another because it has lethal ramifications for how they view the world. Within the Vagitopian sisterhood all women are equal. An ethnonationalist will view his own immediate group, for example English people, as being his closest kin; beyond that is his concern for other northern Europeans, and then white people everywhere. An English ethno-nationalist will have more of a bond with an Irishman or Dutchman than with an Italian, broadly speaking. However, operating within the confines of feminism and neoMarxism, Laurie (who is actually part Jewish) has replaced such thinking with a flat world in which all women, regardless of race or religion or ethnicity or, as she states above, language, are bonded together equally. Therefore, when an Afghan lands in Germany or Sweden and rapes a local girl it is no more of an issue than if he raped a girl back in Afghanistan, it’s simply another obnoxious man. The raped girl in Germany is not worth more than the girl in Afghanistan because all women are equal within the Vagitopia.

However, if all the sexual predators are coming from non-white groups, the European woman has no stake in the Vagitopian sisterhood; it’s obviously a bum deal. It is at this point that it becomes an emergency for the lefty feminist to establish that German/white men are just as prone to rape as non-white men, and as this isn’t the case, they have to create that case by lying and falsifications. This is a narrative in complete collapse. The new atheist Richard Dawkins’ crowd enjoy needling creationist Christians, pointing out that if the world is really just 6,000 years old then that means there were rabbits in the Precambrian Era and people riding horses who had to dodge a roaming tyrannosaurus rex. Trendy cosmopolitan feminists and lefties such as Laurie Penny are now in the position of trying to find rabbit bones next to dinosaur fossils. They can’t, so they lie, and because they put their dogma before reason or logic women who would have otherwise lived happy rape-free lives are now living in hell. Quite frankly I find it hard to believe anything in Laurie’s article actually happened. It’s not just the arguments and reasoning of

the article which is full of lies and misinformation; I honestly believe that the people and events within the article are all completely fabricated. I think Laurie wrote it in the first class compartment of a train on her way across Germany. The point of the article was not to win converts to her cause by appealing to the wider public, it was to galvanize her fellow activists who are struggling to cope with this garbage being held up to a light brighter than the university common room and Tumblr. She’s saying, “I know it’s bad, but keep fighting and the Vagitopia will

prevail” And because of that more white women will suffer. These people are ghastly, monstrous.

Ramadan 2016: David Cameron’s Message June 2016 Prime Minister David Cameron’s message to mark Ramadan 2016. The following remarks are all by Cameron, though I have selected the photos. It’s the holy month of Ramadan, a time when mosques open their doors, community centres welcome in their neighbours, and even churches and synagogues offer up their spaces, as Muslims break their fasts, and people of all faiths and none are often asked to join.

Coventry Cathedral is holding its own multi-faith iftar. In Manchester, they’re combining an iftar with England’s European

Championships appearance. And homeless shelters up and down the country are holding afters with the homeless.

Of course, fasting is what comes to mind when we think of Ramadan. It’s part of the month that really puts Muslims’ faith to the test, especially during these long, warm days. But there is much more to it. There is all the energy and money people donate to those who are less fortunate, and all the extra time spent in prayer and contemplation.

Uppermost in all our minds this Ramadan are those whose lives have been torn apart by the twin evils of Assad and Daesh, all those families spending this holy month in refugee camps, mourning loved ones, yearning to go back to school or to work, wondering whether they’ll ever return home again. Our thoughts, whatever our backgrounds or beliefs, are with them. And we must continue to support the people of Syria and the region, as we work towards a lasting political solution. Because that’s who we are as a country. We won’t walk on by.

So this Ramadan, let’s renew our resolve to help those victims. Let’s continue to come together for iftars and community events. Let’s celebrate the proud, multi-racial, multi-faith democracy we live in.

To everyone in Britain and around the world, Ramadan Mubarak.

Part IV

Leftists

Yes, Laurie Penny, You Leftists Are to Blame for the Cologne Rape Rampage January 2016

In the wake of the mass sex attacks committed upon German women by non-white male invaders, establishment writer and Cultural Marxist activist Laurie Penny was, presumably along with many other anti-white leftists, accused of being responsible for this outrage. So much so that Penny reacted via Twitter to the accusation:

And just as a reminder of what “that” was… “In the end, I was groped everywhere. It was a nightmare. Although we shouted and beat them, the guys did not stop. I was desperate and I think I was touched around 100 times in the 200 meters. “Fortunately I wore a jacket and trousers. A skirt would probably have been torn away from me.” A student named Evelyn, 24, who was at the train station in Cologne, told German paper Bild: “I had a knee-length skirt on, and suddenly I felt a hand on my backside under my dress. I turned round immediately and saw a grinning face.”

“Thanks For The Rape and Molestation, Anti-Racist Feminists”

She said that she managed to get to the cathedral and sat on a bench and suddenly she was surrounded by men once again, and had only heard them speaking Arabic. She said: “The only English they knew was ‘Hey Baby’. I was grabbed and held by the arm and it was a nightmare. We were trapped in a mass of people.” One anonymous police officer confirmed to the newspaper that there was nothing they could do to stop it.

A police officer, whose name was not revealed to protect his identity, told the newspaper: “We went to the train station because we heard there was an aggressive mass of around 400 people that had gathered. As we arrived, we realised it was considerably more. They were completely drunk, perhaps under the influence of drugs, and they were shooting fireworks into the mass of people.” He said: “It was extremely dangerous. By 1am, we were getting more and more reports from women who had been robbed or sexually assaulted. Every time we turned up though, there was nobody there anymore. We were completely shocked by the extent of the attacks. There was nothing we could do to stop them.”

And so if we take a look at what Penny is part of, the liberal left media, is it then fair to pin the blame for the Cologne outrage on her, and the liberal left as a whole?

The wider question here is whether leftist activists are culpable for the crimes being carried out because of the ideology they endorse being put into practice and forced upon Europeans. Laurie Penny, for example, has replied that “I’m not the government”, meaning she does not have control over policy, she does not have political power. But what the liberal left in the media represent is the ideological vanguard which “softens up” the masses for the power/political wing of the elite. Is there a precedent for this? In actual fact, yes, there is: Julius Streicher was not a member of the military and did not take part in planning the Holocaust, or the invasion of other nations. Yet his pivotal role in inciting the extermination of Jews was significant enough, in the prosecutors’ judgment, to include him in the indictment of Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal – which sat in Nuremberg, where Streicher had once been an unchallenged authority. Most of the evidence against Streicher came from his numerous speeches and articles over the years. In essence, prosecutors contended that Streicher’s articles and speeches were so incendiary that he was an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews (such as Hans Frank and Ernst

Kaltenbrunner). They further argued that he kept them up when he was well aware Jews were being slaughtered. He was acquitted of crimes against peace, but found guilty of crimes against humanity, and sentenced to death on 1 October 1946. The judgment against him read, in part: “… For his 25 years of speaking, writing and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as ‘Jew-Baiter Number One.’ In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution. … Streicher’s incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a crime against humanity.”

The circumstances might be different—indeed, reversed—but the point is that the “I don’t have political power” defense did not work for Julius Streicher, and nor should it work for the left-wing media now. Or in the future…

Commie Bad Goys, Shabbos Good Goys & Those Powerless Jews May 2016 [Editor’s note: in April and May 2016 the media and the usual suspects declared an “anti-Semitism scandal” after British Labour party MP Naz Shaw criticised Israel and was defended by former London mayor Ken Livingstone. The Labour party started suspending members for “anti-Semitism”; Naz Shaw was briefly suspended but reinstated into the party after apologising.]

I’d like to thank the Labour Party for the show. Don’t get me wrong, I still long for the day the bastards responsible for the rape of England stand trial and get shot in the back of the head and thrown into pits face justice, but for now I’m happy enough watching the ongoing meltdown. No political movement pushed the meme that “diversity is our strength” harder than Labour, and now Labour is in a state of collapse as Muslims+Marxists face off against liberal lefties, Zionists/Jews, and their shabbos goy enforcers. It hardly matters anymore that what “Red Ken” Livingstone said was factually accurate. What it really boils down to, as always, and as Jewish sources themselves confirm, is preventing nonJews having any opinion of Jews without a Jewish mandate. What makes it all the more amusing is that the critique of the far left is becoming less centred on Israel oppressing all those nonwhite proletarians, and more on Jewish power in the West, albeit seen through a typically deluded Marxist power dynamics perspective in which Jews are just part of the oppressor class, and not a racially driven force in and of themselves.

Stephen Pollard, head honcho of the Jewish Chronicle, somehow managed to convince The Sun to allow him to write an editorial: And since it’s perfectly OK to criticise Israel, which is simply a country, the label “Zionist” is used to sanitise ideas and accusations that are, in reality, just traditional anti-Semitism rebadged. So we are told about “Zionist” control of the media and business, when what is really meant is Jewish control.

The anti-Semitic trope of Jewish media dominance has been taken so seriously that the Jewish editors and writers at The Sun, The Guardian, Financial Times, The Independent, and The Times all pushed out piece after piece condemning the idea that they have the ability to use the media to further their interests. Hysterical hyperbole is the order of the day here, Jack Lewy writing in The Independent, for example,: There is an important and fundamental difference between antiSemitism and anti-Zionism, but what we have seen on the left is an

unfortunate bridging of the two: an appeal to old-fashioned antiSemitic tropes about a Jewish control over the media, and a conflation of criticisms of Israeli policy in the settlements with an outright attack on Israel’s right to exist…When British Jews read about the comments made by senior politicians we are horrified - but more importantly we are scared.

Nick Cohen for The Guardian: I saw the darkness of antisemitism, but I never thought it would get this dark.

And Jonathon Freedland also in The Guardian: So this is my plea to the left. Treat us the same way you’d treat any other minority. No better and no worse. If opposition to racism means anything, it surely means that.

No reply so far…

It’s fascinating to spend some time watching this play out on Twitter. The Jews who dominate our media and politics are, regardless of party politics or associations with rival newspapers, all busily retweeting each other, quoting each other, and generally working as a team to control the narrative. We can use the analogy of a game of basketball. The narrative is the ball, and the Jewish media the team: Pollard to Freedland, to Cohen, back to Aaronovitch, over to Simon Schama who lobs it to Portes. The British public are in the position of a dwarf hopping about at the kneecaps of the Jewish players as the ball whizzes far above their heads.

The chutzpah of Freedland in The Guardian is astounding. He beseeches the left to view Jews as they would any other minority group, as, for example, how the left would see a black woman. But the problem the left have is with Zionist lobby groups and the Israeli army, so what Freedland is asking is that the left treat multi-billion dollar lobbyists, their media empire, and their military as belonging to a certified PC victim group (!), the implication being that Jews are persecuted if this is to denied them. But sometimes having a monopoly on political discourse simply isn’t enough, and the “Zionist” intelligentsia is nothing if not thorough: sometimes it’s necessary to send in an aggressive, moronic thug to really lay down the law, and for that they have top shabbos goy, John Mann MP. John Mann is to British Jewry what Joe Pesci was to the Mob bosses in Goodfellas: he’s the scary psycho sent in when the schmucks just won’t listen. John Mann has actually stood up in Parliament and proposed people critical of Jews be banned completely from the internet, and more recently he all but smacked geriatric Marxist Ken Livingstone in the mouth for claiming Hitler was a Zionist…

The enforcer, John Mann, is now getting to work on hunting down any and all anti-Zionist elements on the hard left. As Mann quite openly states on Twitter, they have the choice: convert to Zionism or face public ruin and career death. This is actually happening at the highest levels of British politics (!)

Actual Tweets of a British MP!

Where now the golf-club libertarians and classical liberals of the Guido Fawkes blog and Breitbart London? Well, they’re rolling around in an orgasmic frenzy. Finally, finally, the truth is out: the left are Nazis! It isn’t just that they have the word “Socialist” in their name but they really do hate Jews! The Pat-Condell-loving cucked Right of British politics are reveling in it: the hard left and their Muslims can be called “racist” at last. George Galloway, that old bruiser of the British far left, understands exactly what is happening: the (as the left would have it) Zionists are purging the Labour Party of dissent; they never wanted Corbyn and the time has come for a mopping up operation, the Tories having fallen long ago. The articles quoted

above reveal how this is to be achieved. The left have a history of bypassing the “anti-Semite” tag by using the term “Zionism”. But this bolt-hole is being filled in; as Pollard explains, “this is just antiSemitism re-badged”. The “rogue” Jew Norman Finkelstein often points out that no group on earth enjoy the power and privilege of American Jewry, and to see them obsessing over anti-Semitism, sniffing it out and wailing about it constantly, is “grotesque”. As friendly sites have pointed out, the Labour party was caught red-handed in covering up the mass sexual exploitation and torture of white girls at the hands of Muslim immigrants, and the party sailed through it with barely a scratch. A couple of leftists said something about Jews which the Jews didn’t like and Labour is torn apart, purged, and pilloried. Where was the John Mann hard-case enforcer cornering councilors and MP’s involved with Rotherham? Where was the purge and the Tweets threatening public shaming?

The situation is what can only accurately be described as grotesque.

The Jo Cox Murder and the Liberal Elite June 2016 [Editor’s note: on 16 June 2016 Member of Parlaiment for Labour Jo Cox was murdered by a man called Thomas Mair.]

The day after Jo Cox was murdered, the high Queen of Britain’s champagne socialist left, Polly Toynbee, wrote in The Guardian that she lamented the rise of anti-politics and right wing populism. Her piece was called “The mood is ugly, and an MP is dead” and

carried the by-line “It’s wrong to view the killing of Jo Cox in isolation. Hate has been whipped up against the political class”. Excerpt: This attack on a public official cannot be viewed in isolation. It occurs against a backdrop of an ugly public mood in which we have been told to despise the political class, to distrust those who serve, to dehumanise those with whom we do not readily identify. It’s been part of a noxious brew, with a dangerous anti-politics and anti-MP stereotypes fomented by leave and their media backers mixed in. Only an hour before this shooting Nigel Farage unveiled a huge poster showing Syrian refugees fleeing to Slovenia last year, nothing to do with EU free movement – and none arriving here. Leave’s poster read: “Breaking Point. We must break free from the EU and take control of our borders.” Nicola Sturgeon, Caroline Lucas and many others condemned it as “disgusting”, and so it is.

This is the poster in question:

Farage’s poster depicts refugees as they actually are, and contrary to Toynbee’s claims, they will all be able to move to Britain as soon as Angela Merkel grants them EU citizenship, so Farage is correct on that, too. But the objective truth runs counter to the feel-good liberal narrative. The poster the liberal classes would like us to see is this:

And so within one single article Polly Toynbee has perfectly illustrated two points: 1. The liberal classes, media and political, have an agenda which is objectively false, and they will vilify and attack anyone who disagrees and attempts to push a counter-narrative. 2. The liberal classes are truly detested by a massive number of British people and they, the liberals, are unable to understand why.

It is this rift which led to the brutal murder of Jo Cox. To state it as boldly as that instantly invites accusations, especially on a blog such as this, of condoning murder, but to understand and explain something is not to condone it. The problem we face is that the liberal establishment are not just seen to be living in merely an ivory tower or bubble, but in a dark and sinister castle. The decrees and morality which they foist down onto the general population are not “humanitarian” or in any sense morally justifiable. It is ill conceived lunacy at best, genocidal at worst. Jo Cox’s career was largely based upon bringing refugees and immigrants into West Yorkshire, her constituency. To her and others of the liberal class there simply isn’t any higher moral position than to advocate for a humanitarian stance which gets them a pat on the back from their peers; to look at the world and help the needy, relieve people of suffering, and give shelter to the hungry feels just great. Being an “internationalist” they would argue, allows one to get a larger sense of what is going on in the world and aligns one’s priorities etc.

And yet the day after she died the BBC reported a story from Jo’s own West Yorkshire:

Peter Mann, head of the complex casework unit at the Crown Prosecution Service for Yorkshire and Humberside, said: “These

men are responsible for a range of crimes involving child sexual exploitation and abuse. “One victim was sexually assaulted in a car. The second victim was groomed, and systematically exploited by the older men she associated with. Some of her abusers acted together as a group, grooming her and plying her with drink and drugs. Others took advantage of her individually.” The main victim in the case was 13 years old when she was first abused.

Jo Cox’s maiden speech in parliament: Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration, be it of Irish Catholics across the constituency or of Muslims from Gujarat in India or from Pakistan, principally from Kashmir. While we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me time and time again as I travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

The gang rape of underage white girls is so commonplace in Jo Cox’s own area that it took just one day between her murder and

the conviction of a Muslim rape gang. And these liberals are utterly blind to it: they’re pathologically incapable of even comprehending that their student-union, John-Lennon ethos is horrific in practice, and idiotic in theory. Again, to understand is not to condone, but when Thomas Mair gave his name in court as “Death to Traitors”, this is surely what he was alluding to. Sitting in the comfort of his Dorset sea-view mansion, leftist activist Billy Bragg scored a super-hit on Twitter:

The point he’s making here is that the British tabloid press, The Dailies Mail and Express in particular, are indirectly or directly culpable for Thomas Mair’s radicalization because they report something approaching the truth regarding Islamic immigration. However, the difference is that these newspapers do not hold any political power, and despite having readerships many times

greater than the liberal elites outlets, such as The Guardian, their readership is simply sidelined and ignored by the people with true power, and that would be the liberal elite. This takes us back to Polly Toynbee: Democracy is precious and precarious. It relies on a degree of respect for the opinions of others, soliciting support for political ideas without stirring up undue savagery and hatred against opponents. “Elites” are under attack in an anarchic way, when the “elite” justice minister can call on his supporters to ignore all experts. Something close to a chilling culture war is breaking out in Britain, a divide deeper than I have ever known, as I listen to the anger aroused by this referendum campaign. The air is corrosive, it has been rendered so. One can register shock at what has happened, but not complete surprise.

The opinions of people who opposed the liberal left ideal were silenced and, increasingly, made illegal! The liberal left political and media class are no longer seen as humanitarians helping the oppressed, they are the oppressors.

We have an entire upper stratum of British society which despise the lower stratum; they are the upper classes, the “elite”, and they have nothing but contempt, fear, and disgust at the lower, white working class stratum, to the point that they view the mass rape of working class white girls by non-whites with complete indifference. Within this context Thomas Mair is the revolutionary fighting for freedom and the left itself is the oppressor class holding the proles down in servitude. White Wing thought is not pacific when dealing with power dynamics; when a Muslim is radicalized, the left point to neocon interventions in the Middle East; when asked about Black crime statistics they invoke ‘institutional racism’ and the relative powerlessness of Black males. Polly Toynbee’s article is instructive because what she’s describing is a new class of people, a new oppressed class which she and her ilk have created but they can’t admit to because their insurmountable sense of moral superiority would be washed away. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it:

“They have forgotten, quite sincerely—they have entirely forgotten. How difficult it is to remember the evil one has done!”

The Child Soldiers of the Khmer EU June 2016

“You’re standing on the wrong side of history!”

Remember the days when teenagers and youngsters were rebellious and stood up to authority? When they “stuck it to the man” and dreamed of creating a better world? Well, that was in the 60’s, when they were brainwashed into tearing down the traditional Christian conservative order. Those were the grandparents of the youngsters today who are sending Tweets such as this:

The histrionics of the “remain” losers is already the stuff of legend. There’s no handshake and “well played sir’. There’s no “oh well,

that’s democracy”. What we are seeing is borderline psychopathy as these spoiled, self-entitled, narcissistic, effeminate drones throw not just their toys out of the pram, but the pillows and sheets and milk bottle, too. This quite frankly sick behaviour is the result of decades of insidious EU brainwashing and indoctrination being carefully placed within the education system and media. It’s easy to see why a totalitarian system targets the young for indoctrination: they are, as Marxists would have it, an intellectual ‘blank slate’ filled with whatever doctrines and ideology their system desires. Nowhere was this put into practice with more enthusiasm than in Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. Doctors, engineers, bankers and land owners were routinely rounded up by twelve-year-old girls and shot. The point was not to simply exterminate the bourgeoisie, but people who’re old enough to remember another time, a time when twelve-year-old girls played with dolls and made flower arrangements instead of screaming orders while struggling to carry an AK47.

“I literally can’t even right now!”

Thankfully the children of the Khmer EU don’t have Soviet assault rifles; they have Twitter and Facebook instead. They’ve never had to come to terms with any threats to their intellectual indoctrination: it was simply their reality. What this grand triggering event has done is to activate their need to protect the system which has nurtured them. But it’s too late, they’ve already lost, and the people who’ve taken it away from them are not just “old people”—there aren’t enough of them—no, it’s roofers from

Essex called Dave, and factory workers from Bolton called Tracey. Yesterday millions of Traceys and Daves logged onto their Facebook and Twitter and saw a remarkable thing, all of those metrosexual mop-haired uni grads, whom they viewed as “a bit of a trendy liberal”, had gone completely insane. It was working-class whites that did for the EU in Britain; it was not just the elderly, they were always factored in by the establishment. It was, as Peter Hitchens noted, the return and revenge of the group who’ve suffered most at the hands of the globalists. Strictly speaking, not everything which motivated them to turn out in such record numbers was directly related to the EU, Islamification for example, but what they did know is that the establishment cared a great deal for the EU—and so they took it away from them. When working class whites look upon the EU, they think of the swarms of immigrant rapists waiting in Calais, suppressed wages and generally being sidelined and forgotten, even loathed.

The tragedy of the children of the Khmer EU is that their world view is exactly what their masters want it to be—but they can’t see that. To try and explain it to them is like trying to explain the nature of water to a fish. They howl against old people ‘stealing their future’—while peddling the worldview and talking points of an 80-year-old billionaire Jew. They screech that it’s a victory for rich toffs, while ignoring the fact that the EU is essentially a producerconsumer slave farm created by and for high finance. They whimper that the EU has brought peace and prosperity to Europe, while Muslims rape and bomb their way across the continent and the southern Europeans drown in debt and poverty. But what truly makes you wince is that they have the gall to accuse working class whites and old people of “ignorance”.

Part V

“Rightists” Conmen, Gatekeepers, Cucks, and Our Own Useful Idiot

No Thanks, Roosh, We Already Have Enough Rapey Non-whites February 2016

A curious thing happened at work this week. Sitting at the canteen table with the other lads having our dinner break I heard one of them sigh heavily: “Look at this, another black bastard coming to rape, he’s even going to give a speech on it!”

I glanced at the newspaper which had caused this distress to see none other than Roosh V staring back at me. Being a little more familiar with the personalities and cults which constitute the “altright” than my colleague is, I asked him if he knew who “Roosh” was or what this was all about. His reply: “It’s some sort of American thing, this darkie invented it, they get white women drunk and shag them, it’s typical Muzzie shit but this one is clever about it. The lads from the EDL are going along, I reckon he’ll get a good kicking ha ha ha ha. ” There’s a lot in that. Newcastle is a tough, earthy town, and feminism as seen from American “manosphere” chat rooms doesn’t exist beyond the student unions and media. What exists is wage slavery and, in Newcastle itself, hedonism as a substitute for a stable family life. The “Returning Kings” were coming to Newcastle not to challenge anything, but to revel in the debauchery and the lost souls of English girls in post-modernity. The manosphere aren’t antiliberal, they are the epitome of liberalism. But one has to give off

a veneer of rebelliousness and so Roosh and the “neo-masculine” movement have smeared their wafer-thin outlook with some reactionary right talking points: they aren’t slipping a tired 18-yearold an extra vodka so they, like every other man in modern Europe, can get an easy shag; no, they are Uber Men, Returning Kings, testosterone-fueled alphas radically challenging the system. And according to them feminism is the system and not merely a minor tentacle of control. One of the reasons Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh has gained notoriety is the following quote: If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she’ll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with.

After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied.”

Let’s just see how Roosh’s legal rape on private property would play out in an actual situation removed from manosphere huddle groups and their discussions on carbs and armpit waxing: Lady neighbour: “Hi, I just ran out of coffee, any chance you could

lend me a cup till I nip to the shop? Rooshite: “Yeah no problem, just come in.” Lady neighbour: “Great, thanks.” Rooshite: “Surprise! You’re on my property without an adult male

and now I’m going to rape you legally ha ha Bitch!” Lady Neighbour: “Oh shucks! Damn those Jewish inspired

feminists and media bosses and politicians I never agreed with or had any control over! ”

Rooshite: “Too late now stupid slut bitch!” And so what he advocates, as an Iranian immigrant, is tantamount to Sharia law for white women. Presumably if a woman is out late and unaccompanied by an adult male she can also be harassed on the streets or suffer the Cologne “Tarraroosh” thousand-hand enrichment treatment. If Roosh had adorned himself in his native middle-eastern garb and explained to the lefties that treating women like meat was his cultural background, they would’ve given him a free pass. The reaction of the Returning Kings to the Islamic invasion doesn’t seem to be to oppose it, as working class whites do—it is to join the Muslims in loathing and disrespecting European women. Listen carefully and you can actually hear the Sorcerers of Cultural Marxism laughing and rubbing their hands. When I opened my blog I knew about the infighting and schisms, the petty grudges and minor ideological differences which hamper “the far right”. Libertarian vs Socialist, I can see that argument, fair enough. Christian vs Atheist, that’s a debate to be had and

both sides have powerful arguments. I made a pledge that this my would never become involved with any of that in order to try and stay focused on the interests of our people and the forces aligned against them, without compromise. But how are we supposed to react when the most prominent figures in the alt-right movement support this guy:

“Yeah but he carried a couple of articles about Jews so he’s a great guy!”

What is there to understand? What is there to intellectualize? If you endorse the right of an Iranian conman to trick white women into sleeping with him while he spits in your face then what the fuck are you doing in a pro-white movement? And this is what it comes down to. Yes, the SJWs went mad in Newcastle, obviously; but so did the local far right under the guise of the EDL. In other words, actual white men who can and do fight against the “Mudlsime” invasion—they aren’t schooled in Nietzsche, they don’t read MacDonald on the culture of critique, but they

recognize a swarthy shyster with an eye to bedding white women when they see one. You do not need a master class in Heidegger or Evola to recognize this.

As it turns out the returning knights of old didn’t return, or even set foot in the city. The local newspaper explained, “Roosh V cancels neo-masculinist meeting in Newcastle over safety fears”. Presumably the idea a man must overcome and face his fears as a central tenet of masculinity was ditched for another article on how to slyly slip a condom off during sex or how to get legally binding permission from an inebriated Polish girl.

The online fantasy…

Meets reality, reality bites, literally.

The King of Kings, the Alpha Wolf, the Manliest of the Manliest may have fled in panic at the prospect of facing chanting lefties or a smack in the mouth from working class white men, but as the Daily Mail gleefully reports, he hadn’t even managed to cover the most basic right of passage into manhood, namely, breaking free from the protection and sanctuary of mother:

It beggars belief that this obvious scamster now has so many smart people within the alt-right running around defending him. The arguments seem to fall into a few categories: 1. Our enemies hate him so he can’t be that bad. This is obviously absurd because we are defining ourselves as to how our enemies see us. SJWs and leftists probably also hate people who kick puppies to death, shall we then start defending puppy killers? 2. I don’t agree with everything he says but I’m happy to see men

against feminism. Feminism is the smallest and weakest tentacle of the enemy. This is why it is immediately jettisoned when it collides with Muslim

rape. Roosh is a non-white conman who has dressed up a “fuck em good n hard lads” mindset with reactionary right ideas. 3. I disagree with what he says but I’m against him being Shut

Down. Why? Why go full libertarian retard for somebody who mocks everything we stand for? Are we to start supporting white privilege and “white women can’t be raped” seminars on the left because of freedom of speech? The real reason for this baffling behaviour is, I suspect, desperation. He’s famous, and becoming more so, and there’s a chance to piggyback our ideals into a MSM audience. But if that succeeds the masses do not get “white people have the moral right to retain their identity and homelands”, they get “far right supports woman-hating pro-rape campaigner”. How so many intelligent people can miss this is a mystery.

First They Came For Ben Shapiro… March 2016

One of the problems Jews on “the right” have is to perform the juggling act of attacking political correctness while making sure their own ethnic group is shielded by a titanium-like umbrella of social taboo and possible legal action if the gentiles get too uppity.

Consider this piece by Ben Shapiro, Breitbart boss and, increasingly, the most outspoken critic of Donald Trump: Now, I hate political correctness as much as anyone alive. I’m the sort of fellow who goes on national television and refuses to acknowledge politically correct garbage about men being women; I’m the kind of guy who tweets the truth about the circumstances of Trayvon Martin’s death when leftists decide to deify him as a racial martyr; I cut videos about the actual percentage of Muslims on the planet who believe in extremism. I believe political correctness gets Americans killed.

It’s a boon for Zionist Jews to drip pearls of anti-PC wisdom into the conservative mind, a mind which is literally dying for anything even resembling a release from the Marxist-Jewish infection of political correctness. It also serves a purpose. The more Hank in Alabama believes in a Muslim/feminist alliance to take away his guns and freedom of speech while Islam invades the West, the more likely Hank is to send off Hank Junior to die in the desert for Israel.

In order to perpetuate this narrative, it is necessary to allow Islam to be pilloried relentlessly, and we might also get some juicy articles about black criminality which hint at race realism. In other words, the more Zionist-leaning Jews on the Right have been throwing other protected groups under the bus for geopolitical gains, and they have done this as being anti-political correctness, seemingly having forgotten why political correctness was invented. But why be satisfied with the flabby gristle of feminism or the bloody pork chop of Islam when, in the distance, there’s a huge succulent rack of ribs called “the Jewish Question” for the newly awakened dissident mind to grapple with? All it takes is a surge of confidence, or Donald Trump, and the masses begin to return to the source, and worst of all is that Jews such as Ben Shapiro can no longer count on the brain-inhibitor in the gentile mind to dissuade them because that would be “politically correct”. Writing recently at The Wire, Shapiro sniffed:

It’s not just me, of course. Jake Tapper of CNN now says he’s received anti-Semitic tweets “all day.” My friend Bethany Mandel, another orthodox Jew who opposes Trump, just bought herself a gun out of fear of unhinged Trump supporters. John Podhoretz of Commentary says he receives tweets consistently from “literally neo-Nazi white supremacists, all anonymous…I don’t think I can attribute being a supporter of Trump to being a validator or an expresser of these opinions, but something was let loose by him.” Noah Rothman of Commentary tweets, “It never ends. Blocking doesn’t help either. They have lists, on which I seem to find myself.” This isn’t Trump’s fault. Politicians often have supporters they can’t stand and don’t control. But one thing is Trump’s fault: Trump has been reaching out to these supporters. They feel empowered by his rise not merely because they agree with his policies, but because of the language Trump uses and the people with whom he associates.

Shapiro now seems to be realising what his brethren on the left could have told him from the start: once you allow the goyim a certain level of intellectual freedom it’s only a matter of time before they come after the people who took away that freedom in the first place. Writing recently for the Jewish Journal, “Benjamin” Shapiro tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube: Because of his [Trump’s] celebrity, he’s been able to say politically incorrect things many Republicans believe must be said: that

Muslim refugees to the United States must be treated with more care than non-Muslim refugees thanks to the influence of radical Islam, for example, or that illegal immigration brings with it elevated levels of criminality. He’s slapped the leftist media repeatedly, something that thrills frustrated conservatives. But Trump has gone further than fighting political correctness: He has engaged in pure boorishness. His fans have lumped that boorishness in with being politically incorrect. That’s foolishness. It’s politically incorrect — and valuable — to point out that single motherhood rates in the black community contribute to problems of poverty and crime, and that such rates are not the result of white racism but of the problematic values of those involved. It’s simply rude and gauche to mock the disabled, as Trump has, or mock prisoners of war, as Trump has, or mock Megyn Kelly’s period, as Trump has. The list goes on and on. The distinction between being a pig and being politically incorrect is a real one. But Trump and his supporters have obliterated the distinction — and that’s in large part thanks to the pendulum swinging wildly against political correctness.

Obviously, Megyn Kelly’s period isn’t what’s on Shapiro’s mind here. He’s trying to find a way to make it acceptable to call the Prophet of Islam a child raping psychopath (political incorrectness) while at the same time portraying people who ask

why the Republican Party view the borders of Israel as more important than the borders of Arizona as “boorish idiots”. You see, it isn’t about political correctness—asking questions about Jewish influence is just uncouth, vulgar, bad manners.

Ben to us, Benjamin to his own.

It’s hard not laugh at it all. These “right-wing” Jews bought us the drink of political incorrectness, they whispered sweet lines of anti-

Islam sentiment, they caressed us with hints of race realism, then when we reached for their bra-strap they ran from the room screaming “rape!” If this is the future of political discourse then we can expect to see Jews leave the right of the political spectrum and return like refugees to their Marxist brethren on the left, where they will be greeted with a “We told you so…”

And When They Came for Milo Yiannopoulos… April 2016

In a recent article on Ben Shapiro I played around with what happens when a “right-wing” Jewish media personality endorses anti-political correctness and then chickens out when it dawns on them where such activity ultimately leads. When it dawned on Ben Shapiro that the cultural jumbo jet he was sitting in was headed straight toward Anti-Semitism Central he quickly scrambled out of the side doors and parachuted back into the soft centre of political discourse. But what happens when another Jew, a homosexual Jew at that, decides to stay on board? Indeed, why would he want to? The fact is Milo Yiannopoulos doesn’t have much choice, as he would freely admit. His own ego has driven him to create a persona which is “edgy” and “outrageous”; he’s breaking down the taboos and slaying the politically correct dragon. This is, as he notes in his Breitbart article on the alt-right, where all the rebellion is now, it’s where the cool kids are hanging out and where the dull squares of the left and their precious minorities can be pilloried.

Whether you want to call it alt-right or white nationalism or just good old fashioned nationalism, there is a rapidly spreading current of white racial awakening and dissident thought on “the right”. Milo has to walk a tightrope: he can’t “cuck out” and cave into anything which could be perceived as leftist and politically correct because his huge fan base would turn on him; at the same time he can’t fully endorse alt-right ideas because he’d lose his job, and as a homosexual Jew it would be seen as committing intellectual suicide. The fact that any of this is an issue is not down to the centre-right moving further to the right, it is because we have moved in from the fringes and brought the “war of the discourse” to the centre. We are not trapped in here with Milo, he’s trapped in here with us. In a recent interview with a “classical liberal” Jew called Dave Rubin, Milo addresses the “ultimate taboo”, the anti-Semitism of the alt-right, which he is increasingly associated with: Generation Trump, the alt-right people, the people who like me, they’re not anti-Semites. They don’t care about Jews. I mean, they

may have some assumptions about things, how the Jews run everything; well, we do. How the Jews run the banks; well, we do. How the Jews run the media; well, we do. They’re right about all that stuff…It’s a fact, this is not in debate. It’s a statistical fact…Jews are vastly disproportionately represented in all of these professions. It’s just a fact. It’s not anti-Semitic to point out statistics.

In order to get a sense of this “ultimate taboo” we shall take a look at that quote again but as if spoken by a non-Jew to a Jew: Generation Trump, the alt-right people, the people who like me, they’re not anti-Semites. They don’t care about Jews. I mean, they may have some assumptions about things, how the Jews run everything; well, you do. How the Jews run the banks; well, you do. How the Jews run the media; well, you do. We’re right about all that stuff…It’s a fact, this is not in debate. It’s a statistical fact…Jews are vastly disproportionately represented in all of these professions. It’s just a fact. It’s not anti-Semitic to point out statistics.

It’s great to hear Milo speaking like this. You can’t take it away from him, he “named the Jew”. Nevertheless, imagine if a gentile media pundit and popular countercultural icon came out with the second paragraph: we all know the inevitable result, instant

career death and banishment from the mainstream cultural sphere of the West. And yet in his interview above and in his Breitbart article, Milo has it that the people who have recognized Jewish power, and then also recognized that we (white people) are not allowed to address it, are merely making jokes and being a bit cheeky about it, that fundamentally we are not seething with righteous anger at this state of affairs. And this only addresses Jewish power and the taboo surrounding it—not what they have done with that power. Yet as Milo writes in his article: In short, they want what every people fighting for self-determination in history have ever wanted, and what progressives are always telling us people should be allowed — unless those people are white.

And: But – as progressives often observe – they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and collate expressions of hostility toward human

subpopulations in Western culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse most certainly is not.

“Erm…yeah, that’s right Milo…it’s all about the lols”

So Milo has already conceded that “Jews run everything” and he then describes, quite correctly, some of the issues which anger us. But hang on, if Jews run everything, and if the West is dominated by an anti-European zeitgeist which is denying us our right to life and land and which attacks our identity at every turn, then is blaming the people who “run everything” not then a perfectly logical position to take?

Why would we not be angry about it? the idea that people who have joined the dots on all of this are then Tweeting prominent Jews calling them out on it for “shits and giggles” requires the altright to be in basic agreement, while fully understanding, the means by which an ethnocidal conflict is being waged against us, but react by simply laughing it off (!).

“Ha Ha with Jews we lose! but we love you all really (emoticon)”. This is preposterous. The only other response Milo could have given, without resorting to PC Shut It Down speak, would have been: ”The manner in which we have conducted ourselves in the lands of our European hosts has been abominable and the only moral thing to do now would be for us to offer a collective apology and leave en masse for Israel”.

So Milo gets himself out of this bind by relegating the growing anti-Jewish discourse to mere trolling, pinching the chubby cheeks of the powerful. Presumably this is also why his

investigation into the intellectual side of the alt-right mysteriously bypassed Kevin MacDonald completely. The anime memes and /pol/ language are not in and of themselves a movement. They come out something, something infinitely more grounded and serious. Fundamentally it is this: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Milo calls this “unedifying”. I can’t think of anything more edifying or morally sound. So much so that I’m quite happy for Milo to act as a conduit which brings our world view into the mainstream— which, in effect, he is doing. Whether or not Milo understands that the society we want to create does not have a place for a homosexual Jew such as Milo is neither here nor there, and if he wants to tell himself and other Jews, as well as the centre-right, that the bulk of the movement he endorses is just having a cheeky bit of fun, then so be it: he’s still bringing our ideas to a massive audience. All we have to do is remember core principles.

Hopefully one day we can we thank him for all his help and then hand him a one way ticket to Israel, or given his fondness for black men, Africa. Our people are no longer accustomed to thinking in such cold and calculating terms. Embracing—and then, when the time is right— rejecting somebody based upon their usefulness to a cause is an essential part of winning a revolutionary struggle. This is how Muslims see leftists: they understand the left is useful to them now but in time, when Islam’s numbers have increased and their ghastly ideas more widely accepted, the left will be (if they’re lucky) quietly dumped. For our people to sit and watch somebody more or less advancing our arguments into a wider arena, nodding approvingly while knowing that person is a “useful idiot” destined to be cast out might be called too hard-hearted, too cynical. But this is the realpolitik of ethnic interest and racial awareness. Anyone who cringes at such thinking only has to read the Alex Jay report on Rotherham to put things back into perspective. As long as we remain true to the following:

“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Or as “The Meme-Team” might put it:

Game of Thrones: Are We the White Walkers? April 2016

As Game of Thrones rumbles its way back onto our screens, I thought it worth taking the opportunity to look at one of its many interesting story arcs and plot-lines. Game of Thrones is the only television program I bother to watch. I’ve heard that the Jewish director has added layers of gay sex which aren’t in the books, but I’ve also been told the series has been toned down quite a bit. Not having read the books I can’t say.

Most of the intrigue, murder, wars, gratuitous sex, backstabbing, and general brutality which takes place in the Game of Thrones world takes place in “Westeros”, a vast continent comparable with medieval Europe. The political and cultural life of Westeros is centred around several rival aristocratic families, each allying with and then betraying one another. Westeros is a violent and tumultuous place to live, but is relatively stable in that the “system” will always have the same groups struggling for power, and ultimate power resides in control of the “Iron Throne”. It wasn’t always that way, however. Thousands of years ago the ancestors of rival families deemed it necessary, imperative, to build a vast wall right across the northern-most part of the continent. Something existed up there which terrified and appalled them, so much so that they deemed it an emergency to contain it; destroying the threat was beyond them so they walled it off. The various dynasties then spent centuries or more squabbling and plotting against each other. The horror which was still contained in the north, known as the “White Walkers” passed into legend and became myth, something to scare the kids with. A tradition was established wherein tramps and deviants, losers and outcasts

would go to the wall and live out their lives as “watchers on the wall”.

“Oh Christ, have you tried calling them racist?”

In our own cultural and political life the watchers on the wall are the cuckervatives of the controlled right of the political spectrum and overt white racial awareness is the threat which was walled off from the spoiled and infantile centre.

Consider this gem of an article discovered by our friends at Occidental Dissent. It’s by Matthew Continetti, Bill Kristol’s son-inlaw, writing in Commentary Magazine. Excerpt: They call themselves the “alt-right,” a grab-bag category that includes nativists, eugenicists, bigots, anti-Semites, misogynists, reactionaries, aristocrats, monarchists, isolationists—basically anyone who hates today’s America and the modern world and the men and women, of any race or religion, who flourish in it. For a while the alt-right was confined to the comment sections on websites, then it moved to Twitter, then it created websites of its own, and now, most disturbingly, its ideas, such as they are, are being published and defended and celebrated on sites associated with the conservative movement and Republican politics. …”

The cuckservative right, watching the wall which has kept white racial awareness contained for decades are now in that situation, beg and beseech the centre, “you have no idea what is coming, if we fall, we all fall!” And this falls on deaf ears because the liberals and lefties are eating lettuce and discussing inter-sectional transgenderism. “Who cares about a bunch of neo-nazis at the arse end of the internet”, they screech.

One of the reasons Game of Thrones is so entertaining is the clever manner in which plots and mysteries are slowly revealed over the course of years. The white Walkers were whispered about by characters, then we got a glimpse; then the watchers on the wall, forgotten by the world, cried out and begged for more men to be sent to the northern wilderness. The bickering imbeciles back in the capitol didn’t understand, didn’t comprehend or even believe what was happening. The white walkers appear to be ancient warriors, kings from another era. They are undead. Their true, awesome power, was recently finally revealed. The White Walkers raise the dead, they destroy an army, and then raise that army and make it fight for them. Similarly, the plastic cucked right send out philo-Semites, counter jihadists, civic nationalists, and classical liberals—and we “red-pill” them and send them back to fight for our cause. Nationalists might wince at comparing our people to zombies. But let’s be honest, most of them already are zombies. What we aim to do, and are doing, is to bring them back to life.

The supreme arrogance of the Jewish architects of the present system was to presume that they could build a civilization upon a lie. Like the aristocratic dynasties of Game of Thrones, they forgot that it was based upon a lie; they thought it was “just normal” and that white people simply didn’t have racial or ethnic interests. When such a lie is exposed and fought against it loses, and the civilization (if we can even call it that) which it created will collapse. Did George RR Martin, the creator of Game of Thrones, think about this when he set about creating his world? It’s difficult to say. However, Martin is an avowed liberal and the White Walkers are not the only threat facing the centre. Far away, in “Esteros”, is another army, an army of “suppressed” blacks and mulattoes commanded by a liberal white girl. But that’s another article…

“White Walkers to the north of me, feminists and Muslims to the south, here I am, stuck in the middle with Jews”

The “Nazi EU” Conspiracy May 2016

If Only…

There’s a surprisingly large segment within the British cuckservative right who, when they look across the channel at Europe today and the European Union which governs us, at

Europeans suffocating under mountains of falsely generated debt, at millions of Muslims and non-whites flooding our homelands, at the mass rape of European women by those non whites, at the hate-speech laws which silence us. and the fanatical doctrines of anti-racism…these Britcucks look upon all of this and think: “Yes, yes, it’s clear to me now, Nazis won the war and are

running the European Union, we are living in the Fourth Reich!” Boris Johnson recently alluded to the EU being comparable to a Nazi Empire. UKIP MEP Gerard Batten defended Johnson and went further still, pointing to his own research on the subject. You see the “Nazi EU” meme splattered all over comments sections and twitter accounts and blogs leaning toward the EU-sceptic Right of British politics. You hear it in the pub; one of the more common phrases is “the Germans are doing with peace what they couldn’t do by war”. One nut-job has even written a book called

The EU: The Truth About The Fourth Reich - How Hitler Won The Second World War. Some excerpts:

It is no coincidence that just about every country in the European Union is getting poorer while Germany continues to get richer and richer. We may think we won the Second World War. But we lost. It is no surprise that we are all living in the Fourth Reich. “Knowingly or not those who support and defend the European Union are supporting the Nazi legacy. It was Funk who predicted the coming of European economic unity. Funk was also Adolf Hitler’s economics minister and his key economics advisor.

It continues: The Nazis wanted to get rid of the clutter of small nations which made up Europe and their plan was quite simple. The EU was Hitler’s dream.

This conspiracy theory reeks of a petty Little Englander mentality. In an age when all Europeans are being phased out via mass immigration it’s divisive and self-defeating. It also betrays an astounding ignorance of National Socialism and modern Europe.

A blog post by UKIP’s Gerard Batten’s offers us a convenient entry into trying to understand this myth. Batten writes: In 1942 when the German’s still thought they were going to win the war they produced a report entitled the Europaische Wirtschafts

Gemeinschaft – which translates as the European Economic Community. This report was written by various bankers and academics and laid out a plan for how Germany would manage the economies of the conquered countries of Europe after a German victory. The report was drawn up under the leadership of Professor Walter Funk the Reich’s Economics Minister and President of the Reichsbank. The report contained sections on Agriculture, Industry, Employment, Transport, Trade, Economic Agreements, and Currency. It proposed the ‘harmonisation’ of European currencies and a harmonised currency system. If this all sounds all very familiar it is because the basic plan for the European Economic Community of 1942 was very similar to the actual European Economic Community that came into existence in 1957 under the Treaty of Rome.

So the point here is that National Socialist Germany had plans which, in the event of a victory, would be implemented throughout Europe, under German guidance. But what matters is not that such plans existed. but what their ideological and philosophical aims were. A united Europe is one thing—but the question is why unite it and for what end. It isn’t very difficult to imagine how a Nationalist Socialist European Union would be because the National Socialists told us their views on pretty much everything. So it’s simply a matter of comparing the present EU to National Socialist principles and ideals and seeing if they are similar, or even comparable.

A consistent theme within the National Socialist world view is that financial institutions and big business should not rule the people, that they must play a subservient role in the life of the nation and not intrude upon or disrupt the life of the people. As the ‘The Program of the NSDAP’ explains: …Once these two points are achieved, it means a victory of their approaching universalist ordering of society in the true state over the present-day separation of state, nation and economics under the corrupting influence of the individualist theory of society(liberalism) as now constructed. The sham state of today, oppressing the working classes and protecting the pirated gains of bankers and

stock exchange speculators, is the area for reckless private enrichment and for the lowest political profiteering; it gives no thought to its people, and provides no high moral bond of union. The power of money, most ruthless of all powers, holds absolute control, and exercises corrupting, destroying influence on state, nation, society, morals, drama, literature and on all matters of morality, less easy to estimate.

So does the EU of today put the interest of Europeans before the interests of money and business? Well, as The Guardian reports: Thousands of companies, banks, law firms, PR consultancies and trade associations are there to bend ears and influence the regulations and laws that shape Europe’s single market, fix trade deals, and govern economic and commercial behaviour in a union of 507 million. Lobbying is a billion-euro industry in Brussels. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, a watchdog campaigning for greater transparency, there are at least 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, nearly matching the 31,000 staff employed by the European commission and making it second only to Washington in the concentration of those seeking to affect legislation. Lobbyists sign a transparency

register run by the parliament and the commission, though it is not mandatory. By some estimates, they influence 75% of legislation.

It’s safe to assume that a political organization containing 30,000 (!) business lobbyists vying for influence and control over the European populace as a serf class was not what Adolf Hitler or the National Socialist Party had intended. National Socialists were equally damning in their indictment of international banks and their enslavement of Europe through usury/interest as they were of the cooperate lobby groups. Again from ‘The Program of the NSDAP’: Thralldom of interest is the real expression for the antagonisms, capital versus labor, blood versus money, creative work versus exploitation. The necessity of breaking this thralldom is of such vast importance for our nation and our race, that on it alone depends our nation’s hope of rising up from its shame and slavery; in fact, the hope of recovering happiness, prosperity and civilization throughout the world. It is the pivot on which everything turns; it is far more than a mere necessity of financial policy. Whilst its principles and consequences bite deep into political and economic life, it is a

leading question for economic study, and thus affects every single individual and demands a decision from each one: Service to the nation or unlimited private enrichment. It means a solution of the Social Question. The fact that today great economic enterprises cannot be set on foot without recourse to loans is sheer lunacy. Here is where reasonable use of the state’s right to produce money which might produce most beneficial results.

This is absolutely not what any reasonable person could call “fence sitting” on the issue of debt and financial enslavement to debt and interest; it is an unequivocal refutation of it and rejection of it and replacement of it in its entirety. If the European Union was now under the influence of National Socialist ideals Europe would be debt free, indeed, the ((bankers)) would be lucky to be alive. So is this the case in modern Europe?

As we can see, almost all economic activity in the core European Union Nations is predicated on servicing debt and paying interest. The actual debt is never meant to be paid off. The aim is to literally enslave Europeans via interest or ((usury)). So the economic argument for the EU being a Nazi institution is a nonstarter.

Another line of reasoning that Nazi EU theorists use, as they must, is that the German people, as a people, have benefited from the EU being a Nazi plot. For example, under National Socialism the German birth rate soared. If we are all living under a Nazi Empire now then we can expect to see that happening in Germany right now, can’t we? In actual fact, the German birth rate is one of the lowest in the world. This is largely due to German women being shoved into the factory and the office as consumer/prodcer slaves, and feminism—both of which would have appalled National Socialists. Even without immigrants swarming by the million into Germany under these conditions Germans would eventually go extinct. The National Socialist “25 Point Plan” tells us exactly where they stood on immigration and diversity: 4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens. 8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

In 2015 more than one million non-white immigrants entered Germany against the express wishes of the German people. Within just four years Germans in the 18-30 age range will be a minority in their country if these trends continue. And a frighteningly large part of the mainstream right in Britain still believe this is what Adolf Hitler would have wanted for Germany! On New Year’s Eve in Cologne, immigrants carried out a series of mass sexual assaults on German women. Hundreds of German women were molested on the streets of Germany by non-white men, and then the local press buried the story. Now let’s just imagine that by some miracle a few thousand non-whites had managed to enter Nazi Germany, and then organized themselves into rape gangs. Would the German people have reacted with indifference and the media buried the story? Or would every last

non-white male have been rounded up and shot or, if he was lucky, thrown into a concentration camp?

This is the worst conspiracy theory of all time. And yet it infests the weak-tea conservatives of Britain. It took me all of two minutes to go to a Breitbart London thread and find this:

It would be quite easy to write a 10,000 word post detailing just how moronic this thinking is. What’s more important is to try and understand why they think it. Leaving aside petty inter-ethnic squabbling and chauvinism, and ((outside influence)) who encourage this muddled thinking, the problem is really one of

people living in a two-dimensional world trying to understand a three-dimensional world. They resemble the ‘Flatlanders’ of pop scientists:

In their world view Nazis equate to evil, so having established that, the EU, political correctness, and Muslim immigration is evil: they have, logically to them, concluded that somehow Nazis must be involved, even when what they regard as the new evil runs diametrically against everything the Nazis stood for. The two figures in the picture above represent our cuckservatives. The EU and Muslims, say, are the sphere. But living in their Flatworld the

cucks can only see the bottom of the sphere, and are drawing their conclusions from that. One of the great many mistakes the Flatlander cuckservatives have made is to think of National Socialism as an objective evil, and not as a reactionary and anti-liberal political philosophy— because if they did think of it as the latter, then the question has to be answered, “who or what were the Nazis reacting to?” Could it have been people such as Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, a “pioneer of European integration” who wrote the book Pan-Europa decades before Nazis drew up their plans? Coudenhove-Kalergi famously wrote: 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.

Kalergi was, then, what we might call an “internationalist”, and though not Jewish himself he was definitely philo-Semitic:

Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.

And this paid off well, because Kalergi and his work to create a pan-European ‘Eurasian-Negroid’ was enthusiastically backed by extremely powerful Jewish banking magnates: According to his autobiography, at the beginning of 1924 his friend Baron Louis de Rothschild (Jewish) introduced him to Max Warburg (Jewish) who offered to finance his movement for the next three years by giving him 60,000 gold marks. Warburg remained sincerely interested in the movement for the remainder of his life and served as an intermediate for Coudenhove-Kalergi with influential Americans such as banker Paul Warburg (Jewish) and financier Bernard Baruch (Jewish). In April 1924, Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the journal Paneuropa (1924–1938) of which he was editor and principal author. The next year he started publishing his main work, the Kampf um Paneuropa (The Fight for Paneuropa, 1925–

1928, three volumes). In 1926, the first Congress of the PanEuropean Union was held in Vienna and the 2,000 delegates elected Coudenhove-Kalergi as president of the Central Council, a position he held until his death in 1972.

Hitler’s opinion on Kalergi has been recorded: Unfortunately, his Pan-Europeanism earned vivid loathing from Adolf Hitler, who excoriated its pacifism and mechanical economism and belittled its founder as “a bastard.” Hitler’s view of CoudenhoveKalergi was that the “rootless, cosmopolitan, and elitist half-breed”

And so if we’re to investigate what it was the National Socialists were reacting to, then it’s reasonable, indeed, perfectly logical, to conclude that they were reacting to a push by Jewish money power to destroy the ethnic and racial make-up of Europe and reduce the European population to a mongrel slave class—and this isn’t even to mention the Jewish involvement at that time with Bolshevism and Marx, which was only a slightly more unpleasant form of slavery under which Europeans would still toil as slaves under the whip of their Talmudic masters. The same masters who

wrote the draft legislation for the European Union, as they themselves proudly boast: Having experienced the effects of discrimination and racism, many Jews have been at the forefront of advancing humanistic values in their countries. Consciously or unconsciously inspired by the biblical description of the messianic age, many--an among them European political leaders such as Walter Rathenau and Leon Blum as well as the German-born American political scientist Hans Morgenthau-dreamed of a united Europe and sowed the seeds of a wealthy, tolerant, and warless continent. Out of the ashes of the Holocaust, the Jewish jurist Rene Cassin drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose principles would later become the European Union. The idea of a supranational political entity that could protect minorities from unethical and discriminatory national laws was a blessing for European Jews and many of them worked to advance its establishment. The election of Mrs. Simone Veil as the first President of the European Parliament illustrated this intimate link between the new peaceful Europe and its Jews.

What’s remarkable about these conservative Flatlanders is that they’re looking for the right thing, but in the wrong place. The Europe we have today is the Europe that was always in the

making, before Adolf Hitler ever even climbed onto a podium. But the reason that so many people are stuck in two-dimensional thinking is precisely because “history is written by the victors”. Unless, of course, the Flatlanders believe the Nazis also dedicated vast resources into painting themselves as the epitome of evil, and that they should never ever question the official narrative.

Hat-tip to Augur Mayson for providing sourced material

Part VI

Biology and Politics

Rewiring Our Brains To Combat Hate-Think April 2016

Neuroplasticity is one of those areas of medical research which initially seems benign and actually of benefit to people, but on closer inspection its implications become horrifying. Let’s take a look at what it actually is. Consider Wikipedia’s entry:

Neuroplasticity, also known as brain plasticity, is an umbrella term that describes lasting change to the brain throughout an animal’s life course. The term gained prominence in the latter half of the 20th century, when new research showed many aspects of the brain remain changeable (or “plastic”) even into adulthood. This notion

contrasts with the previous scientific consensus that the brain develops during a critical period in early childhood, then remains relatively unchangeable (or “static”) afterward. One of the fundamental principles of how neuroplasticity functions is linked to the concept of synaptic pruning, the idea that individual connections within the brain are constantly being removed or recreated, largely dependent upon how they are used. This concept is captured in the aphorism, “neurons that fire together, wire together”/”neurons that fire apart, wire apart,” summarizing Hebbian theory. If there are two nearby neurons that often produce an impulse simultaneously, their cortical maps may become one. This idea also works in the opposite way, i.e. that neurons which do not regularly produce simultaneous impulses will form different maps.

So in theory the brain can be altered by repetition. An example of this might be a morbidly obese woman who, when feeling the desire to eat yet another cake, instead concentrates on the positives of not eating the cake, such as losing some weight. The neurons and synapses which tell her to eat the cake will eventually weaken and the areas of her brain telling her that she will look great thinner will strengthen.

Another example might be a right-handed man who loses his right hand in an accident. Through repetition, the parts of his brain which make him right-handed will weaken and die off, the previously weak parts of his brain which would enable him to be left-handed strengthened, and so on.

Neuroplasticity, then, is the study of how brainwashing can be achieved—though of course, people far more qualified than I would balk at the use of such language. But that, in effect, is what it is, even if its application is benign. And let’s not be coy, if

nationalists had cultural and political hegemony we would teach our boys to be proud and strong, to love and protect their people against the ((evils)) of the world. We would teach our girls to be feminine and proud mothers and homemakers. But we do not have political and cultural hegemony. People like this guy do:

Forest Kentwell recently wrote an article for an American student site called “Let’s rewrite history to leave our cissexist, imperialist, and racist world in the past”. And Forest thinks neuroplasticity can achieve this:

This mythic hypocrisy that they created has grown and become entrenched in our collective brain. So when we as scholars unequivocally accept the ‘past’ that has been written through the eyes of white, patriarchal males, we are bringing that past into our present and future. Historians have never been objective, passive observers of culture. “History” departments fly in the face of neuroplasticity, attempting to display an objective or ‘True’ version of the world that does not exist, which ignores their foundational biases. The truth is, as long as we have departments like ‘Africana Studies’ and ‘Feminist/Queer’ Theory, classical “History” should be referred to as “Patriarchal, (white-European) Male Studies,” since it almost exclusively draws from those sources and viewpoints With this in mind I ask: How can colleges and universities embrace neuroplasticity? “You cannot be neutral on a moving train,” Howard Zinn famously stated. The train is our culture and it is profoundly affecting us. I now propose that scholars and their students once again become active participants in our education dialogue. We must admit that words hold great power, that education is a reproduction of the past, and that that past creates the world around us and our future. By

seemingly ‘passively’ absorbing what we are taught, we are actually actively enabling the current world order designed around imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy. There is nothing intrinsic or inherent about our way of life. I propose here that we re-tell ourselves history. It is just a myth. A story, fleeting in the wind, but also a rock to which we cling. If we truly want to change the future we must change the perceived ‘historical’ past, because these cultural mythologies mold our brains and perspectives. This is why academics and higher education professionals must join the public sphere in acting creatively and strategically with the myths that will form our futures. They must cross boundaries, integrate themselves and participate in the globalized world, and be intimately involved with local communities and interdisciplinary curricula. This is truly the struggle for higher education.

I usually try and avoid invoking Orwell and 1984 because that’s what everyone does when confronted with Marxian ideas such as Forest’s, but sometimes it simply has to be done. What Forest is proposing is that, via education, society’s understanding of where it came from and how it came to be will be erased in the minds of

the public—because history does not fit the Cultural Marxist narrative. In Orwell’s astoundingly prophetic masterpiece 1984, “The Party” will simply erase and warp or invent history according to the needs of the day. And this can be justified because everything is subjective and therefore not objectively “true”. If somebody actually believes 2+2=5, then it does. If The Party declare war on Eastasia one day, and then declare they have always been our staunchest allies the next, then that becomes the “truth”. If the history of the modern world is a history of white supremacy and oppression, as recorded and written by white male historians, then the oppression continues because our understanding of history is biased. Therefore, according to Cultural Marxists, any interpretation of history is equally valid and the historical narrative we should be accepting is, presumably, one in which Henry VIII was a Somalian poet, or in which George Stephenson, inventor of the steam engine, was a cross dressing transsexual Muslim woman. The idea that white people should take pride in their wondrous achievements is what Marxists would call “false consciousness” and because it oppresses and is exclusive it is

morally wrong…and to allow people to believe that Beethoven was an African bongo dancer is a step in the right direction. The fascinating thing about all of this is that the method of brainwashing advocated by social justice warriors isn’t new. Medical science’s understanding of how it works might be more advanced, but the means by which the powerful indoctrinate those without power have been around for centuries; as the old Jesuit saying goes, “give me the boy at seven and I’ll show you the man”. A Jewish professor of Critical White Studies might quip, “give me the gentile boy at seven and I’ll hand you back a selfloathing lunatic at 18”.

Would it be permissible for Forest to point out to his Jewish professor that the Holocaust was a gigantic lie, a myth, that the camps existed but were really just fun-parks with water-slides and cinemas? Obviously not, but why not? Aren’t we living under

white supremacy, which is built on glorifying European cis-gender males and demonizing minority groups? Isn’t the interpretation of history mere “myth” and subjective? If you ask a white person today, “when was the first time you saw a person naked?”, most will probably answer that they saw their mother undressing or something similar. If you ask, “what was the first picture of a naked human being you saw?”, many, particularly men, will answer that they had a sneaky look at some porn. In actual fact, the first images of naked people most modern Europeans saw as children would have looked like this:

And this:

The brutal and terrible truth is, Europeans already have been subject to neuroplasticity. We’ve been subject to it all our lives and its purpose isn’t to perpetuate “white supremacy”, it is to perpetuate white guilt and Jewish supremacy. It is to associate, at the earliest stages of our lives, pride in ourselves and our civilization with barbarity and death. The neurons and pathways in the brains of our people have been re-forged through repetition: Nazi, Holocaust, racism, hater, bigot, anti-Semite…over and over

and over and over. The parts of the brain which advocate selfassertion and kinship have been ripped asunder and the areas of our brains which include guilt and “love of the other” massively strengthened. People often point out an irritating habit of leftists in debate: the mildest counter argument is met with a shower of emotional hysterics and wailing. It’s quite possible that what is driving this is that the part of the brain which they’ve had enhanced is unable to cope with reality. An example of this could be to put the question to Forest: “if the West is hinged on white males and their supremacy, why are they allowing their most respected universities to create anti-white male intellectual theories?” In any given society, the dominant group will seek to perpetuate their values and agenda via the education system and universities. As noted above, if nationalists were dominant we would use the education system, too, but the difference is that we wouldn’t have to be hypocrites about it. Social justice warriors are in the position of pretending to be against a system which,

blatantly and obviously, fully endorses everything they advocate and every opinion they peddle. The effect on the leftist mind of such reasoning is akin to a chisel pushing against the grain on a piece of wood. Indeed, all left-wing thought runs against nature’s grain. And the end result of this is a social justice warrior cretin wearing a Judaic Marxist slogan and advocating the abolition of our entire history to clear out our minds of a “false consciousness”. They are machines demanding we create more machines like them, without knowing or understanding why they were created or who created them, and they do this as “free thinkers”.

Fear and Loathing In The European Hive-Mind June 2016

Both the Washington Post and The Independent carried the same anti-Trump article this week: according to research coming out of two New York universities, Donald Trump’s voters are far more likely to be preoccupied with death than any other demographic group. The researchers, Sheldon Solomon and Florette Cohen (yeah, I know) have carried out a series of word-association tests and psychological studies and concluded that, subconsciously, the meteoric rise of Donald Trump is due to his ability to tap into a

simmering angst among a vast proportion of America’s population. The Independent: On television and on the stump, at debates and in speeches, Donald Trump is reminding the American people that they are going to die. The reminders aren’t explicit, and they probably aren’t part of an intentional strategy. All the same, much of Trump’s rhetoric could have the effect of bringing his viewers’ omnipresent fear of death closer to their conscious minds, according to Sheldon Solomon, a psychologist at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. That includes his emphasis on terrorism, unsurprisingly, but also his preoccupation with immigration. This focus might be helping Trump, since Solomon’s recent research shows that people who are thinking about death are more likely to say they support him. Study subjects who were prompted to talk about their own death later rated their support for Trump 1.66 points higher on a five-point scale than those who were prompted to talk about pain generally.

“I’m not suggesting that any of this is calculated, but almost everything that he does is demonstrably effective for raising these non-conscious, existential concerns that in turn make his kind of candidacy all the more alluring,” Solomon said.

So let’s get the obvious out of the way. These Jewish academics are talking about white people here. Donald Trump’s voting base is overwhelmingly white, so what Solomon and Cohen are reporting is that the white people voting for Trump are subconsciously thinking about death and despair and are generally gloomy about the future: The participants who had been asked to think about immigration had death on their minds, too — almost to the same extent as those who had been asked to think about death explicitly. Assigned scores from zero to one based on how many words related to death they produced, those who had been asked to think about immigration scored 0.92 on average, while those who had been asked to think about death scored 0.96. Those asked to think about pain scored just 0.19. There was no evidence that the effect was greater for conservative participants in the study.

Yet the results accord with those of similar studies that suggest people interpret challenges to their culture as threats to their very existence. A different group of researchers found that after a group of Canadians read an article in which Canadian cultural tropes were mocked, they were thinking about death, too. Solomon said these results suggest that the fear of death is one of several interrelated psychological concepts that could help explain why Trump has been so successful, including authoritarianism, an aversion to uncertainty and racial prejudice.

It’s highly likely that this data will be hurtling its way onto Critical whiteness studies courses, or some other Social Justice gibberish. But nevertheless, the data, if not the purpose of these tests, is intriguing. What they reveal is that huge numbers of white people are subconsciously associating mass immigration and “cultural change” and the general liberal zeitgeist with…death! The question is, why?

Most of these people would not consider themselves as “racist”. They will view themselves as good citizens: they have the constitution and dislike what the Americans call “identity politics”. And yet, as these Jewish academics have discovered, there is a latent racial awareness there and they’re riddled with angst as a group, as white people. In 1950 a white father could rest easy in his bed at night knowing that the nearest black or Hispanic men were a healthy 1,000 miles or so away; the Blacks which were in America were safely segregated. A Norwegian man could sleep easy knowing that the

nearest Muslim gangs were 3,000 miles away from his daughter. With the possible exception of the Faeroe Islands and the Australian Outback, no white parents can have this peace of mind today. Decade after decade, year on year, they’ve watched as ‘The Other’ has incrementally encroached upon their living space, and thus their security. Today, in many cases, that ‘safe space’ has been reduced to just a few metres. Nationalists often point out that our advantage is in working with nature while our enemies have to work against nature’s grain constantly. If the liberal-left narrative were to be believed, then European Americans would not be associating immigration or demographic change with death, unless they had been directly affected. If a white person had lost a family member due to a Black shooting spree or Islamic bomb, for example, then it would be understandable to associate those groups with death. But for these feelings to be held by such a huge number of white voters suggests they are subconsciously reacting as a group. Professor Frank Salter explains it thus:

Friends form an intermediate pool of kinship concentration lying between the ethny and the clan. Within the clan the nuclear family is the most intense concentration of kinship, while geographical races and humanity as a whole are the least concentrated. In descending order of concentration, kinship runs thus: nuclear family, extended family (clan), friends, ethny, race, humanity.

Whether or not these people are racially aware is beside the point. Their brains are noticing that the territory and security and resources which its own biological group has access to is being reduced drastically and that this is fatal, it is death. The internal workings of the mind do not look at the demographic transformation of, say, California, and see diversity, it sees the extinction of its biological counterparts: the map is literally turning black, the void spreads exponentially. When Solomon and Cohen’s report finds its way into the SJW brainwashing hub they’ll set up a straw-man argument. They’ll assume the subjects are ignorant bigoted hicks because there’s very little chance of their direct families being blown up or shot by non-whites. In actual fact, the concerns and fears of Trump’s voters are hovering around “ethny” (white-American) on Salter’s

scale. A few weeks ago a white woman was terrorized and threatened and had eggs blasted into her eyes by a non-white mob. That image then goes out across the media and internet and other whites see it. What they see is one of their own under attack. The problem, of course, is that here too our Jewish academics and Cultural Marxists have been at work. To view such an attack in racial terms would amount to, they would argue, the latent racism and white privilege of Euro-centric USA.

European-Americans are tangled up in a web here: their brains are trying to sound off the alarm bells over loss of territory and racial invaders, while at the same time being hampered and crippled by Jewish intellectualism. It’s almost as if by design—as if one collective was waging war upon another, a genocidal war at that. It is the paradoxes and double standards, the general situation and their impotence as a whole, which is leading to a preoccupation with death and gloom. The goal of the nationalist is to shift our people’s fears and anxieties from the unconscious to the conscious, from latent to explicit and overt, to make them stand tall and demand their own collective interests be realised and to dismantle any organization which tries to stop us. This is what we often refer to as “The Great Awakening”. All other collective racial and ethnic groups oppose us doing this and, unsurprisingly, the Jewish collective oppose us most of all. Let’s just imagine a hypothetical situation wherein Europeans have achieved a full awakening and regained control of all the

organs of the state and the media and financial institutions. We are now using that power to reclaim our territory and secure a safe and happy future for our people. Two academics, Jones and Watson, approach a young Jewish student (who has not yet moved to Israel) and ask him to take part in a series of psychological tests…what would his subconscious be saying then? They know this already, of course, which is why they want us to be fearful and threatened rather than themselves, and they’re pouring vast resources into maintaining the status-quo, including testing us as a scientist tests rats. It makes sense for them to behave this way from a biological perspective. But by that very same reasoning and morality we are obliged to act for our interests, come what may…

Part VII

Platforms The Legacy Media, and the Rise of Internet Censorship

Analysis of a BBC Immigration Debate February 2016

Scattered around the prole-feed of British MSM television scheduling are little segments dedicated to “debating the issues” such as mass immigration. The establishment is so paranoid (and rightly so) about these “sensitive subjects” that even the terminology used to describe them is an issue. At the moment they prefer the term “refugee crisis”, because the moral highground is thereby superficially bequeathed to the people who

want to see Europeans totally dispossessed and destroyed on their own soil. These segments, which pop up on political shows and as extras to news coverage, follow a standard format, and the one selected here is very typical of what the native British can expect by way of debate on the subject of their End of Days—or Welcoming Refugees, depending on your perspective. The only reason this particular back and forth could be considered noteworthy is that it took place in the immediate aftermath of the Cologne mass sex attacks, or, as the BBC would have it “a few isolated incidents”. For those out here, inhabiting the radical “far right extremist” fringe, the interest is to strip this forcibly subsidized machine down and look at its moving parts and circuitry. And so it begins… * A weird wombat-looking woman (Jo Coburn) opens the segment by explaining that German attitudes are changing and post Cologne, and other mass sex attacks, people are turning against

the non-white influx. A report follows explaining what happened, with German women giving their accounts of being groped and tensions between anti-immigrant groups and leftists. * Coburn then introduces Breitbart London editor, Raheem Kassam, as “right wing” as if to warn the audience, and then asks whether it is right for attitudes to immigration to have changed after the mass sex attacks in German cities, and whether this would also affect attitudes in Britain “after a number of incidents”. Raheem replies that it certainly would and that what happened is exactly what “The Right” warned about in the first place. * Raheem doesn’t even finish his reply and the camera switches to a rather thuggish looking man who looks hurt and angry. As Raheem says “people (Germans) have had to go through a terrible ordeal” the man shakes his head disapprovingly. This is Giles Fraser; we are supposed to know who he is and he acts, and is treated like, a co-host rather than a guest. * The question Coburn puts to Fraser is, “are you surprised that attitudes have changed?” Fraser completely ignores the question,

and whereas Coburn kept haranguing Raheem for an answer, she lets Fraser go off on an angry rant. Fraser begins by reluctantly telling us the sex attacks were “a bad thing and no-one is going to say otherwise but it has been blown out of all proportion”. Fraser becomes more excitable as he tells us that a 16-year-old boy was murdered right next to his parish and it didn’t get anything like the coverage of Cologne.

The boy Fraser refers to, an African immigrant involved with a black street gang riot: “Up to 30 people were seen fighting next to a

children’s playground on the Aylesbury estate before Moe was fatally injured.”

* Fraser then continues by shouting that he’s a “more the merrier” type when it comes to immigrants because they have a hard life where they come from. He acknowledges that there will be “challenges” but that we should “celebrate that fact” and that we should be “up for all the troubles that come”. In other words, Fraser accepts that there will be mass sex attacks and that we should just put up with it. * You would have thought Coburn might challenge Fraser’s lunacy and shockingly cruel diatribe, but she doesn’t, she turns on Raheem and accuses him of “blaming an entire group for a few bad apples”. Raheem explains the absurdity of blaming all apples because of a few bad ones and then patiently tells Coburn and Fraser that there really are rapists and terrorists coming in, it is a fact. Fraser simply points out that we already have rapists and terrorists here and then goes on to say he’s a “let ‘em all in type” free of background checks; simply open up the country completely to everyone in Africa and Asia. You might think

Coburn would finally challenge Fraser on his insane views, but you’d be wrong… * Coburn then accusingly questions Raheem on whether he is simply peddling “Islamophobia” and “playing into the hands of the far right and other extremist groups”. Let’s just pause for a second here. During the course of this debate, Giles Fraser has repeatedly stated that the inflow of immigrants be unending, that they can literally all come into Europe. And he’s said this while acknowledging European women will be raped and molested and that terrorists will also come in and blow us up. The moderator of this discussion didn’t even try to challenge him on any of this but instead deflects it back onto the people who are worried about being raped and bombed and shot; Raheem then has to defend groups such as PEGIDA. * The debate then draws to a close with Fraser going off on another tirade on “Islamophobia” in British society and that the government’s anti-terror strategies are unfairly targeting Muslims and are “nonsense”. The last words, predictably, go to Fraser: “Refugees should be welcome”.

Breitbart has often been the focus of criticism on this blog and we need not get into it again here. Raheem obviously isn’t white but from the perspective of counter-Jihad and civic-nationalist types that’s an advantage because it’s far more difficult to hurl “racist” at him when discussing these topics. That’s pretty straightforward and many white British people will understand that tactic. However, what are the great masses of our people to make of Fraser and Coburn? What is it they actually see? What they will

take away from Coburn is a rather dopey media type who seems weirdly incapable of seeing the wider picture. Fraser will be seen as an extreme example of a “bleeding heart liberal do-gooder” who means well but is misguided and a little moronic. In actual fact both Coburn and Fraser are Jewish. When Fraser advocates “letting ‘em all in” fully in the knowledge of, and admitting to, the rapes and misery and murders that will follow, he isn’t doing so as a deluded white liberal, he’s doing so as a nonwhite person knowing that his people are unlikely to be the ones suffering. The truth isn’t “oh look, another daft do-gooder”, it is “he’s a foreign element openly advocating for our genocide.”

So an Asian and two Jews are on the BBC discussing issues which effect the ethnic interests and future of the white British, and the white British themselves are entirely absent from the debate. Many of us have become so inured to this that it’s worth

transplanting the whole issue to another country in order to make a comparison. Just imagine a Japanese man switched on his television to see the issue of mass immigration being discussed. There’s a civil war in Bangladesh and South Korea has taken in a million or so refugees from Bangladesh, though in reality people from Pakistan and Afghanistan and Africa have flooded in. The Japanese people are aware that these immigrants have carried out mass sex attacks and terror in South Korea. So our hypothetical Japanese man sits down to watch the debate on TV and sees that there is not one Japanese person actually on the panel. The moderator is an Indonesian, and another Indonesian explains that Japan must accept limitless Millions of nonJapanese people despite it being inevitable that Japanese women will be violated, and the only halfway reasonable opinion is voiced by an Indian. This is what the ghastly abomination called the BBC does to us every single day.

The BBC Euphemism Handbook May 2016

Here is a brief guide compiled by my regular readers, which lists and explains some of the trickery and psychological deceit used by the BBC to mislead and misinform our people. Chapter 1 - British Men

Use “British Men” when discussing Blacks, Asians, Muslims, or any other non-British and/or non-white males who perpetrate crime. Chapter 2 - British Women Use “British Women” when discussing Blacks, Asians, Muslims, or any other non-British and/or non-white females who perpetrate crime. Chapter 3 - Community Use “Community” to describe any disparate group of people, especially freaks, to create the impression of harmony. Chapter 4 - Europe Use “Europe” to describe a globalist Empire imposed on the European people without democratic mandate instead of the more political and ideological sounding “European Union”. Chapter 5 - British (insert ethnic group)

Use “British (insert ethnic group)” to describe any non-white immigrant group or groups who share no cultural heritage with white British people. Do not use the term to describe white people who do share a cultural heritage (i.e., “Australians”, not “British Australians”) and do not use the term for white EU migrants (i.e. “Poles”, not “British Poles”). Chapter 6 - Interfaith Meeting Use “Interfaith Meeting” to describe the meeting of any non-white, non-Christian religious leaders who are (1) engaged in active street wars against each other or, (2) plotting against any white and/or Christian groups. Chapter 7 - Accused Use “Accused”, meaning “Guilty of”, to cast a negative moral judgement on any white British person who has transgressed acceptable thought/speech. Chapter 8 - Tolerance

Use “Tolerance” to excuse and/or justify any attack on white British culture, especially white Christian male culture. Chapter 9 - Community Cohesion Use “Community Cohesion” in two contexts, negative & positive. Describe majority white villages, towns, and cities with a small percentage of ethnic diversity as having “poor community cohesion”. Describe villages, towns, and cities with a small percentage of white people, escalating crime, ethnic and religious conflict, and somewhere the police won’t go as having “good community cohesion”.

Chapter 10 - Seeking a Better Life Use the term “seeking a better life” in news reports on migration to instantly put the white family horrified at more Muslim crazies moving into their area on the moral defensive. Chapter 11 - Controversial

Used to describe opinions that are not “on message”. It need never be specified who has found the subject controversial; in fact, the more mysterious the better the sheeple-control. Never to be used for topics such as homo marriage, adoption, or surrogacy; they need no explanation as to why they are “good things”. Chapter 12 - Engineers, Doctors, and Lawyers Use “Engineers, Doctors, and Lawyers” to describe low skilled third-world migrants, especially those attempting to force their way into Europe and/or the UK to access welfare benefits. Chapter 13 - Extremists Use ‘extremists’ to describe anyone with political opinions further right than the Tory party, or for imported Muslims who literally follow what their holy book tells them to do. Chapter 14 - Fearmongering

Use ‘fearmongering’ to describe political arguments that state, or come close to stating, the truth about mass immigration or Islam. Especially effective if used immediately after an immigrant crime epidemic or terrorist attack in reference to the ‘right-wing media’ or ‘populists’. Chapter 15 - UK Use the bland and inoffensive term “UK” when describing the country. Try not to use “Britain” or “England” with their nationalist connotations and tropes. Under no circumstances should you ever use “Great Britain” without sarcasm or irony. Chapter 16 - Fascinating Use the term “fascinating” or “interesting” when wrapping up a segment which could startle the white British audience. Reporting that Islam is the fastest growing religion or that a given city is now minority white should be concluded by giving the white audience the sense that these are naturally occurring phenomenon not to be worried about Chapter 17 - Populist

Use “populist” when describing a political party or individual who is achieving success without paying sufficient lip service to liberalleft mores. The impression given should be that these people are cynically pandering to low intelligence voters and thus anyone who supports them is a dummy. Chapter 18 - Colonialism Use the term “Colonial Britain” rather than “British Empire” with its connotations of oppression, supremacy and nationalism. The term “colonial” offers a more progressive view of the UK’s shameful past. Chapter 19 - So-called Islamic State Use of the term ”so-called Islamic State” allows us to sidestep the tricky issue of an Islamic terror movement actually having the word “Islam” in its title, which Muslims might find offensive and Islamophobes useful to push their hateful agenda. We acknowledge that there is an Islamic terror group which calls itself “Islamic” and uses the Koran as its inspiration, but we must report

on this sensitive issue without confirming that the so-called Islamic state is actually Islamic. Chaper 20 - Sensitive Issues Use “sensitive issues” when reporting on subjects progressives find uncomfortable. An example might be Pakistani rape gangs. We use “sensitive issue” to warn the audience that they’re not sufficiently informed on the topic and should tread very carefully and, better still, leave well alone.

The Meta-Politics of the Great Shutdown February 2016

For some time now there have been murmurs that something is heading our way, that censorship of a nature which we have not yet had to deal with is being drafted in various Jewish-led think tanks and pressure groups. Many of us have noticed this steadily increasing over the last year: a favourite YouTube channel suddenly disappears because of a bizarre copyright infringement, a forum goes quiet, a Twitter account disappears. In many ways Andrew Anglin and the Daily Stormer have been the canary in the

coal mine, with unrelenting attacks upon the hosting of the site, the means by which readers can pay, attempts at hacking, and Disqus disallowing the site from using its comments system. Richard Spencer recently made a thoughtful video on just how far this could potentially lead. Spencer notes the inclusion of high social justice warrior witch, Anita Sarkeesian, and the anti-white Jewish muscle group, the ADL, within the ranks of the new Twitter Thought Police. The aim is to silence us, that is, nationalists, or as is more commonly referred to today the “alt-right”. The question is, why? Why now?. In order to understand why a “far right” sub-culture almost entirely restricted to the internet is scaring the mighty and powerful, we need to look back at what has been happening in the real world over the last year or so. It comes down to four basic areas which are collectively putting unprecedented pressure on “the narrative”: the rise of Trump, the migrant invasion of Europe, the increasing popularity of the altright, and the Cultural Marxist left having had its core ideals trashed by reality.

The big losers have been the Jewish-owned political and media establishment in America who couldn’t control Trump, and in Europe the left who are now in the position of welcoming terrorists and rapists from all over the world into Europe against the express wishes of the European people. Many Nationalists become exasperated by the infighting and quibbling within our ranks, but just imagine what the left has to deal with.

The New Left becomes old The Antifa group “Hope Not Hate” was recently “no-platformed” by blacks because it had carried a few articles on Islamic extremism. This is symptomatic, as the various tentacles of the left retreat into “safe spaces” and newspapers such as the Guardian simply shut down their own comments sections completely on “sensitive issues”. And then the average lefty still has to wrap their head around: Homosexuals vs Transsexuals

Transsexuals vs Women vs Men Non Gender Aligned Trannies vs “Normal” Trannies Women vs Men White Privilege Theory vs White leftists Blacks vs Whites Anti Zionist leftists vs Jews Classical Socialism vs Cultural Marxism Muslims vs Jews Muslims vs Feminists Muslims vs Homosexuals, Trannies, Intersectional-(whatever?!) Muslims vs Atheists Muslims vs Non Muslims in general. Muslims vs Free Speech To name but a few. More important is how the left is now perceived by normal Europeans…

Not a Fake. This is what the left offers European women now

After the bloodbath of Judeo-Bolshevism, a more subtle and sophisticated form of Marxism was cobbled together to attack Western whites. After its “long march through the institutions” was completed, this “new” progressive left galloped into the political and cultural discourse like a knight on a charger: its dazzling armour of equality and its razor sharp lance of social justice and “anti-racism” blinded and subdued our people into abject

surrender of their values and identity. All forms of conservative thought were pilloried, Christianity utterly marginalized and nationalism all but made illegal. Yet this “New Left” is nothing but a colossal fraud. The purpose of Cultural Marxism was to act as a battering ram, vindictively and tenaciously deconstructing the pillars that held white, European civilization—the most marvelous, fair, and successful in history—intact. However, the people with the most to gain from this were the left’s supposed enemies: globalist banking cartels, multinational corporations, and elitist politicians who are distanced from and hold great disdain for the people—all areas, like the New Left itself, that are heavily dominated by Jews. Where the left hails “diversity” the money power seeks a Balkanised populace unable to coalesce and reject their usurious, debt-slave economy. As noted before, the left are willing dupes doing the bidding of the people they claim to oppose. Literally everything the neo-Marxist left stand for benefits the globalist financial elite.

In truth, the left is more like the chief henchman of a sorcerer than a shining knight, more like Darth Vader is to the Emperor or the Witch King of Angmar is to Sauron. The simple fact is, if you’re in the business of corralling all strands of humanity together in order to create a gigantic consumer/producer debt-slave serf population, you need some sort of ethical code to peddle, and the neo-Marxist left provides that code and smashes any dissent.

That is its purpose.

“I want homo marriage legal within two years, can it be done?” “Yes, my Master”

The Dark Lords of Globalism Inc. have, over the last year, exponentially increased the work load and pressures that their

leftist champions have to deal with. The last week alone, for example, has seen the following. There was the EU referendum announcement in Britain, and the left will be defending the Globalism Inc. side of the argument. In America Donald Trump announced he wants to audit the Federal Reserve, but the left attack him and back the Goldman Sachs backed psycho and warmonger Hillary Clinton. In Hungary a referendum has been announced over the validity of multiculturalism, and once again the left will be forced to take the side of universalist principles and bankers over the right of a people to remain who and what they are in their own land. And all they can expect in return is accusations that they’re traitors and lunatics who should be hanged. It’s untenable: the champions of globalism are worn out, exposed, bloodied, and wounded, and the option of skulking off to a “safe space” is increasingly the only option remaining.

The Return of the Nationalist The principles of nationalism can never be truly defeated because they are rooted in nature—our greatest ally and, indeed, the

greatest ally it is possible to have. Without the universities and media and political control, abstract values systems shrivel and die. People do not need to be “educated” into loving their own kind and land; it is innate. The “alt-right” is an embryonic white nationalist movement layered with lashings of irony and rebelliousness topped off with anime memes and a complete disregard for the morality of New/Old Left. It is as the left was 50 years ago, but it isn’t sanctioned by scheming (((merchants))). This new rebooted form of nationalism also knows exactly how to target the left/globalist combo at their weakest points. It is what could prove to be a viral counter cultural narrative, and it collides with a waning neo-Marxist left. As noted above, the tasks demanded of the left by the money power globalist structure are already immense, and now they have to deal with young whites forming a counter-cultural narrative which mocks everything they stand for.

That’s a lot of “Red Pills”

To pick one example of the kind of damage which can be inflicted on the globalist machine by one person with a keyboard or iPhone, the Twitter user above has so many followers that a few comments on the Jewish director JJ Abrams’ Star Wars being anti-white became a “trending topic” worldwide and resulted in the Western media and Abrams himself having to make statements on race and identity politics. When Angela Merkel has to chat to the Jewish boss of Facebook, Mark Zuckerburg, on how to police anti-immigrant sentiment in Germany, it is an admission that the battered old champion of globalism, the “New Left”, can no longer cope. It is saying:

“Our Muscle isn’t what it once was, we’ll have to move to Plan B.”

The Empire Strikes Back

With a burgeoning white Nationalist subculture going viral across the internet and social justice warriors retreating into intersectional post re-alignment gibberish, the money power are now finally being forced to take matters seriously themselves. But with that comes a whole new set of problems. Consider Google,

the Big One, which owns the Blogger platform I blog on. Google’s mission statement is:

“Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” And unofficial motto:

“Don’t be evil” These are the words of Sergey Brin, the “Russian-Jewish” cofounder of Google. Brin is worth $35 Billion and Forbes magazine described him, along with co-founder Larry Page, as the fifth most powerful people on earth. Are such people willing to tolerate the growth of a movement which shares information about Jewish power and networking? Or do they consider that “evil”? Particularly when we consider this quote from Brin’s father: Michael Brin claims Communist Party heads barred Jews from upper professional ranks by denying them entry to universities, and that Jews were excluded from the physics departments in particular. Michael Brin therefore changed his major to mathematics where he

received nearly straight A’s. He said, “Nobody would even consider me for graduate school because I was Jewish.” According to Brin, at Moscow State University, Jews were required to take their entrance exams in different rooms from non-Jewish applicants and they were marked on a harsher scale.

Are people with this background going to “tolerate” a counter argument or explanation by somebody such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whose book on the subject was, mysteriously, never translated into English? “They (Jews) have forgotten,” marvels the author, “quite sincerely— they have entirely forgotten. How difficult it is to remember the evil one has done!”.

They obviously do to a certain degree, but when those ideas begin to question why seemingly everything that matters is owned or dominated by one ethnic group, is that ethnic group going to allow mass red-pilling on the digital media they own so that everyone is staring up wondering why they run and control everything that matters? They can’t, it would be suicidal.

The task now is to figure out how to deal with what is becoming known as “the Great Shutdown”.

Part VIII

Trumpian Storms Gather

Trump-Flight: Where Will Liberals Flee To If Trump Wins? March 2016

I’ve noticed an increasing amount of chatter coming from liberal circles along the lines of :

“But what if it happens? My God what if Trump wins? where will we go?” The Huffington Post even carried an article detailing how frightened liberals can move to Canada. Not Mexico, of course, Canada: “If Donald Trump becomes president, some Americans are gonna want to get out of here FAST.” Indeed, Google searches for “how to move to Canada” have surged 2,450 percent since Trump won more primary elections on Tuesday, a Google spokesperson told HuffPost. Moving to Canada may seem like a dramatic response to an election. But we’re not kidding about it. And you’re not kidding about it. So… how do Americans move to Canada?”

One Blogger went further still and gave us a rundown of what countries liberals should consider moving to if Trump wins: Even I have found this sentence on the tip of my tongue in moments of outrage at Trump’s latest racist/sexist/segregationist media fart,

but I always wonder: where would I go? Canada appears to be the popular choice on the Internet, but I would guess that’s just for convenience’s sake. If you’re going to pack up your entire life and move far away from the giant, hairless, pink-tinged man-baby who somehow ends up running the country, shouldn’t the criteria for your new home be more than just “it’s the closest country that speaks English”?

So what countries does our liberal blogger finally settle on, when it comes time to flee from Trump? Ranked from first to last, they are: Switzerland, Singapore, Luxembourg, Germany, New Zealand, Bahrain, and Equador. So there you have it: American liberals are so terrified of the racist, neo-fascist and white supremacist Donald Trump and his mission to end political correctness and multiculturalism, that they’re stampeding their way to…super rich bolt-holes such as Bahrain and Singapore, or teaching their kids the merits of diversity from all-white, rural New Zealand.

Donald Trump, Islam & Europe June 2016

You wouldn’t think it by paying attention to the whores of Europe’s political and media class, but Europeans are potentially just one year away from living in a world in which America has banned Islamic immigration or is in the process of doing so. The fact is, a Trump victory in America will expose the European elites, their lefty henchmen, and the liberal media as the genocidal obscenities they are—and they are either too stupid to see it or in denial.

What the liberal class call “far right” parties are on the rise across Europe. Even Germany shows some signs of life. This puts the European elites into a game of whack-a-mole in which they frantically run around the continent trying to bash the latest insurgency back into the ground, Austria one week, Hungary the next, France soon. They can play this game because they know they have the tacit approval of their fellow anti-white liberals in the U.S. But what happens when they turn around and discover that the U.S has transformed, not just into another mole, but a fifteenfoot, half-tonne bear, and he’s no longer on their side? Who you gonna run to now, libshits?

Unlike the Islamic invasion, or the suffocating funk of political correctness, or the existence of the EU itself, Trump’s moratorium on Muslims will be the will of the American people: they will have voted for it. And no amount of howling by blubbery social justice weirdos and hysterical editorials in the Guardian can change that. Consequently, Europeans are going to begin asking a few questions: if Americans can vote to stop mass raping terrorists being forced on them then why can’t we? Who is doing this to us? The inevitability of “diversity” will be brought into doubt.

A few weeks ago the supposedly conservative Prime Minister of Britain invited the far left Half-Caste in Chief of the U.S to lecture Britons on why we should hand over our freedom and sovereignty to the EU. The President’s word carries weight, he’s the “Leader of the Free World”. In reality, few people think of Obama in those terms, and indeed, leftists such as Obama would wince at the very term “Free World” and its implications of European, white superiority. But Donald Trump certainly will assert himself as the leader of the free world. So how will Europe’s liberals react when the most powerful man on earth says things such as:

We’ve long since passed the point when people thought of the liberal left as just a bunch of well-meaning dopey hippies; even the Dalai Lama thinks they’re nuts. The masses are starting to notice there’s something at the heart of modern liberalism, something ((dark)), something ((evil)), something more ((sinister)) and ((vindictive)) than we ever managed. It’s the moment of realising that little Bobby doesn’t just like standing on spiders, he has many jars full of spiders with their legs ripped off which he gazes at obsessively. And a Trump presidency is going to be like an angry father coming home and asking “What the hell is going on?!”

Part IX

Nothing is Written: Brexit

Brexit Special June 2016 [Editor’s note: this article was first written shortly before the Brexit vote of 23 June 2016 and then updated during the election campaign.]

The British people stand on the cusp of giving the globalist monster a serious poke in the eye. If the British people vote to leave the EU it will not destroy it, but it will mortally wound it as the EU desperately tries to contain nationalistic feeling arising

within the subjugated people of Europe. Nationalists, conservatives, alt-righters and far rightists everywhere, after decades of defeat, will finally be able to say that we won something, not by any means the war, but at least a battle, and who knows, perhaps one day we shall look back and think of Brexit as the turning of the tide, of the beginning of the end of globalism. By extricating ourselves from the EU we do not solve all of our problems, but we do cut them down to a more manageable size. Right now when we ask ‘who is doing this to us’, the mind whirls with labyrinthine plots and spaghetti-like bureaucracies operating down dark corridors far away, and, of course, myriad Jewish-led think tanks and lobby groups. If we leave then we can simply point to our own ruling classes and more easily hold them to account. Our task as Nationalists outside the EU will be to needle and undermine the EU at every opportunity and to never miss a chance to give aid and support to our brothers and sisters on the continent in this great struggle. We must be like dogs against a

bear, alone we don’t stand a chance, but together we can wear it down, grind it away and exhaust it…and finally kill it. Because the British referendum on the EU is an ongoing story this post will be unlike others posts in that it will be updated as more articles or insightful YouTube Videos or Tweets etc appear, this post will be ‘live’ for the next few days.

[Those updates follow below, and continue through the election. —Ed.]

• Shut

It Down! “Stop the populist suicide”: Jewish lawyer calls for

referendums to be prohibited by treaty. • Nick

Griffin writing for Occidental Observer: The

#StolenReferendum: How Cameron & Co have ruthlessly exploited the murder of MP Jo Cox to save their skins and the EU ‘Project’

• Haaretz:

Voting to Leave Europe Is the Most un-Jewish Thing

You Can Do

• Elizabeth

Hurley backs Brexit:

• Twitter

Trends:

• The

issue of polling stations providing pencils instead of pens is

becoming a major talking point, here some sort of Asian mocks the concern of Brexiters using a common leftist ‘trope’:

• Victory!!!

• Liberal

politician Paddy Ashdown: “God help our country!!”

• Liberals

and non whites react with tolerance and respect for

democracy:

• Nigel

Farage: “We have done it without having to fight, we have

done it without a bullet being fired. Dare to dream that the dawn is breaking on an independent nation.” “This is a victory for ordinary people, for good people, for decent people,” he said. “The people who’ve “had enough of the merchant bankers.” • The

British public on the BBC live feed:

• Hardcore

Marxist Feminist reacts to people standing up to

Global Finance:

• Loony

liberal having hilarious meltdowns on hearing that the

bigots and racists have won • Stefan

Molyneux: Brexit Wins! globalists Lose! United Kingdom’s

EU Referendum

• Cameron

• Donald

resigns after defeat:

Trump: Brexit is a ‘great thing’

Nothing Is Written… June 2016

As we bask in the aftermath of the seismic decision of the British public to leave the European Union, the shockwave is still being felt by everyone, not just the general public, or the British political class which is in a state of collapse, or the pampered goons sitting in Brussels, but perhaps most of all it is we nationalists who are still trying to wrap our heads around it all.

The simple fact is the globalists are never supposed to lose anything, and that mindset had infected nationalists as much as the globalists themselves. The trajectory of western civilization seemed always to point to a furthering of the liberal internationalist agenda, and with each passing year their plans came closer to fruition than the creation of a world in which we wanted to live. Nothing encapsulated this triumphalism—or despondency, depending on how look at it—more than the phrase “on the wrong side of history”. There was always another Zionist plot, another Jewish think tank, another gentile traitor, whatever the situation or the issue our side had become inured to losing…before the fight had even begun. And then Brexit happened. Thinking all of this over these last few days brought to mind one of my favourite films of all time, David Lean’s masterful Lawrence of Arabia, and the often used phrase within that film, “nothing is written.” Lawrence, both the man in real life and in the film, was a classic ‘warrior-poet’ and had something of a Nietzschean “will to power” ethos. When we are first introduced to lieutenant Lawrence in his barracks he’s performing a trick with a

matchstick. He holds it between his fingers and lets the flame lap against his finger tips and tries to withstand the pain. When asked how he performs this ‘trick’ by another soldier he replies, “the trick, William Potter, is not minding that it hurts!” Lawrence is constantly trying to overcome the limitations imposed on him by his own body and will. The question then becomes one of, what will such a mentality be capable of when the matchstick is swapped for war and the desert.

The task given to Lawrence by his superiors is to tie down, disrupt, destroy, and generally wreak havoc upon the Turkish forces operating in the Arabian desert by using Arab fighting men granted to him by King Feisel. After some rumination Lawrence

decides that the best course of action is to march 300 miles across the most scorching desert sands on earth and attack the Turk garrison at the port of Akaba; the Turk guns are facing the sea because, quite understandably, they’d deemed it incomprehensible that an attack from the desert could happen. The Turks weren’t alone: Lawrence’s Arab cohort are astonished that anyone could be so foolish as to propose an eight week march through the Nefud. The simpleminded and superstitious Arabs proclaim Lawrence to be a blasphemer, it would be against Allah, they say, to which Lawrence replies with, “nothing is written, except what is written in here”, tapping the side of his head. Still the Arabs remain reluctant, it’s suicide, it’s never been done before. Lawrence points across the desert: “Akaba is that way, it’s only a matter of going!” The point Lawrence is making here is that the man of superior will, an ‘over-man’, is not dictated to by superstitions or trends, or his surroundings; such things are trivialities which breed weakness and must be overcome. When the small army sets off across the Nefud desert, one of the Arab peasants gets lost. His fellow Arabs decide to simply leave him for dead because it was Allah’s will. Lawrence once again confounds his men by going

back into the desert for a prolonged period to find the man. Not for humanitarian reasons alone; Lawrence later shoots him for thievery and murder. Lawrence saves him because, as one of his awestruck comrades quips, “truly, for some men nothing is written unless they write it.” Nothing is preordained, nobody is on the right or wrong side of history, history belongs to whomever has the superior will to make it do their bidding. It was not written that Britain would leave the EU globalist plantation, and it isn’t written that we shall forever be dominated by a Jewish-owned media and political and banking class. It isn’t written that white people will become minorities and eventually go extinct. In Seven Pillars of Wisdom T.E Lawrence wrote: All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did.

And so shall we, leaving the EU was a wonderful victory, but it is just holding a burning matchstick compared to what we must and shall do, as we write our own history…