“We can’t draw negative attention to our great ally.”

It’s a well known fact that America and Europe’s greatest ally in the Middle East is Israel. What isn’t as well known, is that their second greatest ally is Saudi Arabia. You know Saudi Arabia right? That’s the country which carries out public beheadings, has the death penalty for homosexuality, punishes victims of rape for the “crime of adultery” etc. Basically, Saudi Arabia is what you would get, if ISIS was a country. Yet somehow, this country is apparently a key ally of the liberal West, whose value system is supposed to be the exact opposite of all this.

Anyway, an investigation was conducted in the UK with regards to foreign funding of terrorism in the country. Apparently the report might not ever see the light of day, because it reveals something that is pretty well known to anyone who actually pays attention and researches this topic… that Saudi Arabia are the ones to blame.

From The Independent


Sure why would the public want to know something like that? Why would the public care about finding out who is financing the terrorists that keep killing them?

“Who really cares about learning what caused this? Lets just go back to watching our Premier League football and X-Factor instead.”


Yeah, sure. Airstrikes against ISIS. The same ISIS who are at war with Assad. The same Assad that David Cameron said, needs to be removed from power. Are we really supposed to believe that Cameron was bombing ISIS at the same time he was saying that Assad has to go?

“We want Assad gone. We want to stop ISIS. ISIS want Assad gone. Assad wants to stop ISIS. We’re counting on the public being too stupid to see the contradiction here.”


“Sensitive”, meaning that it might anger the British public to learn that their government, as well as other governments all across the Western world, are allied with a country which finances the terrorists that are responsible for the spate of attacks in Europe the last few years.

A country we call an ally, is responsible for this…
…and this…
…as well as this, and many more.


The UK (and the US), as well as other Western states, arm Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia then arms terrorists. Terrorists then use arms to kill Western citizens. Therefore, Western governments are directly responsible for their own citizens being killed by terrorists.

And this is why ISIS are always so well armed.

A spokesperson from the Home Office told The Independent a decision on the publication of the report would be taken “after the election by the next government”.

Of course. It might effect the way the people choose to vote, if they found out that their government is arming the people who keep murdering them on the streets. My guess as well, is that the report won’t actually get published (at least not if the Conservative Party win). It will be flushed down the memory hole.

But in a separate interview with The Guardian, a spokesperson said the report may never be published, describing its contents were “very sensitive”.

It might offend our great ally Saudi Arabia. Sure, they share absolutely none of our values, and they’re directly responsible for so many deaths in our country, but we need them. They’re a great and trusted ally in our conflicts with all those other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya etc, that never actually did anything to us.

Tom Brake, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, has written a letter to the Prime Minister pressing her on when the report will be published and what steps she proposes to take to address “one of the root causes of violent extremism in the UK”.

She’ll take absolutely no steps whatsoever. Not only that, she won’t even try to defend it, because there is literally no defence whatsoever. For example, lets look at this video, where an official is asked to justify their condemnation of Iran’s alleged lack of democracy, while turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s much more blatant lack of democracy.

It’s absolutely incredible. The awkward silence is so long, that you could genuinely believe that the video had frozen for a while. There’s no moral justification whatsoever for the West’s undying defence of Saudi Arabia, while at the same time, they condemn countries like Syria and Iran for their alleged lack of democracy and human rights. The fact is, they don’t give a damn about either of these things. They’re just an excuse that they use to cover for their real motivations, whenever they want to launch a war or regime change against a targeted country.

“You will agree with me that the protection of our country, of the British people, is the most important job of any government,” he wrote. “Certainly, more important than potential trade deals with questionable regimes, which appear to be the only explanation for your reticence.

No, they don’t agree with you at all. They don’t give a damn about protecting the British people.

“When will this report be finished and published? And what steps do you propose to take to address one of the root causes of violent extremism in the UK?”

“Never” and “none”.

Mr Brake accused Ms May of adopting a “short-sighted approach” to the funding of violent Islamist groups in the UK and urged that those who fund them should be called out publicly.

Accusing the Conservatives of being “worried about upsetting their dodgy friends in the Middle East”, he said party had “broken their pledge to investigate funding of violent Islamist groups in the UK”.

He added: “That short-sighted approach needs to change. It is critical that these extreme, hard line views are confronted head on, and that those who fund them are called out publicly.”

But…but… that might offend our great and trusted ally. We need to be more tolerant and accepting of them, when they finance the terrorists that kill our people.

It comes after Home Secretary Amber Rudd suggested during a leadership debate, that UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia are good for industry. 

That’s all that matters to these people. Making money. Who cares about the long term effects of their short term greed?

This is essentially what’s happening in Europe right now with the migrant crisis. Short term, it might raise a countries GDP by a percent or two. Long term… “oh who cares about that?”.

The Government has recently approved £3.5bn worth of arms export licences to Saudi Arabia and a stream of British ministers have visited the kingdom to solicit trade, despite its ongoing involvement in the bombing campaign in Yemen.

Meanwhile they constantly condemn Assad and Russia for bombing ISIS strongholds

Government figures compiled by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) show the UK has licenced over £4.1 billion of arms to the Middle East since the last election in May 2015, and that two thirds of UK arms exports go to the Middle East.

And then some of those exported arms come right back into the UK and get used against UK citizens.

Democracy sucks.

Good job French people. You’ve voted in favour of further globalisation, a continuation of the constant terror attacks and race riots, and your own inevitable demographic annihilation. But at least you aren’t racist, which is far worse than your own genocide.

I’m feeling very cynical about democracy and electoral politics in general these days. The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that democracy just isn’t a viable system of government at all. I mean in all honesty, is anyone ever really happy with what they get? Just take our situation here in Ireland for example. Is anybody, even the people who voted for Fine Gael or Fianna Fail actually happy with the current government? How about the previous Fine Gael/Labour coalition? Was anyone pleased with that government? Or the Fianna Fail led one before that, etc.? Honestly, I can’t think of anyone who feels that any recent democratically elected Irish government actually represents the interests of the Irish people. But yet, we keep voting every single election, expecting things to be different next time, and we keep getting let down.

This conclusion is reflected when I look elsewhere. Take Britain for example. The yes side in the Brexit campaign won by a very slim majority. The 48% who voted against it are furious and have been restless in their attempts to get the result overturned in their favour. The political establishment is almost entirely anti-Brexit in its leanings and seems to be on the side of the losing minority, rather than the winning majority. No matter what happens, the end result is going to leave roughly half the country feeling screwed over. Either the large minority who only just barely lost, will resent being removed from the EU, or somehow by hook or by crook, the political establishment will find a way to overturn it eventually, thus screwing over the small majority who won.

In America, I look at the situation between Trump and Hillary. We had one candidate who was in favour of mass immigration, destructive freed trade deals, escalating conflicts around the world, etc., and then we had one candidate who opposed this. The candidate who opposed this won by the rules of their electoral system, but lost the popular vote, therefore undermining his legitimacy right away.  To make matters worse, after a few good months were he seemed to be sticking to his promises, he suddenly, roughly a little over a month ago has started doing a U-Turn. No sign of the Mexican border wall. No desire anymore to pull out of the destructive NAFTA agreement. Attacking Syria and therefore making their relationship with Russia worse, after having promised to leave Syria alone and work on improving their relationship with Russia.

Smug, anti-Trump types will sneer at Trump voters for being “stupid enough to vote for him”. But realistically, what else could they do? Trump was saying he would stop illegal immigration and immigration from incompatible cultures, stop getting into pointless wars, move away from free trade agreements etc. Hillary said the exact opposite. If people wanted to see these policies implemented then obviously they’re going to vote for the person who said that they’ll do them, not the one who said they won’t. Sneering at disillusioned Trump voters for doing a U-Turn is basically victim-blaming. They had no way of knowing that he would betray them, but they did know for certain that Hillary would implement policies they didn’t want (well unless she too was to do a U-Turn, but that of course would have necessitated a betrayal of HER voters), so unless his supporters had psychic powers of some kind, and could see the future, they aren’t to blame. The democratic system, which allows people to lie their way into power with fake promises, and then doesn’t hold them to account when they break these promises is to blame.

However, it is France specifically that I want to draw my attention to. Yesterday, they had their presidential election.  For the past few years they’ve been led by Francois Hollande, a “leader” so pathetic that by the end of his run, he literally only had a 4% approval rate. During his presidency, they’ve had terrorist attacks occur every few months (and that’s not even counting the many attempted ones that were successfully prevented before-hand),  and they’ve had near constant riots in Paris, orchestrated primarily by people of Middle Eastern and African descent.

This is a scene from Paris, and this is the least of the problems that these invaders are causing.

So you would think the French would be pretty angry about what has been happening, and indeed they sure seem to be. You would also think that after the failures of both Sarkozy and Hollande, that they would want someone different from the usual political establishment. In the end, they were left with two possible candidates to choose from. They could go with either Marine Le Pen, the candidate who seemed to want to put an end to the these problems, by giving the French people a referendum on EU membership, and putting an end to mass immigration (which of course, makes her a racist). Or they could go with Emmanuel Macron… a man who worked as an investment banker for a Rothschild bank no less (even his Wikipedia page openly mentions this), a man who seems to have a vast history of corruption, a man who supports the Islamisation of Europe, a man who has an offshore bank account to facilitate tax evasion, and a man who said this…

… about his own country. Just on the surface, the idea of saying that there is no such thing as French culture, sounds laughable, because we all have a natural vision of what symbolises France and “French” in our minds. However, it’s a lot more sinister than it sounds. As I’ve mentioned before, under the UN’s own definition, what is happening in Europe right now, fits the criteria of genocide.


By making the claim that French culture doesn’t even exist, then technically speaking there is no French culture to protect and preserve. How can he be accused of destroying French culture and by extension, the French people, if there is no such thing? This is essentially how a genocide begins. The first step is to dehumanise the target. In the case of a concept like culture, the first step is to deny it even exists. Then when that is done, you undermine and eliminate it. It’s no big deal of course, because you’re just undermining and eliminating something that doesn’t even exist.

I was hoping that the French people would be able to see what’s going on and vote for Le Pen. Just to be clear, I doubt Le Pen would have actually done anything that she promised. This is democracy after all. Most likely, if she had gotten into power, she would have ended up going back on her promises, just like Trump did. However, having her in power would have served two purposes. One, it would serve as a symbol that the people are fed up with globalisation and the disastrous consequences of multiculturalism, which could have energised even more people to stand up against it. Two, when she inevitably did a U-Turn, it would have served as yet another example of what a sham democracy really is, and brought us closer to having people wake up to the fact that it doesn’t really exist. By not voting for Le Pen, they’ve basically said that they’re ok with constant terrorism (which Macron admits will be a part of their daily lives for years to come), and when he does inevitably fuck up, there will still be people buying into the idea that electoral politics could have still solved the problems facing us, “if only we had voted for Le Pen when we had the chance”.

The fact is, democracy is ridiculous. Nobody seems to get what they really want. I can’t think of any examples of a democratic society in which a large majority of the people actually approve of their leader, beyond the short time after the initial victory, because they always let the people down eventually. Even a leader who was supposedly very popular like Obama, had approval rates that tended to fluctuate within the 40s and 50s percent range for most of his time in office. As I already mentioned, Francois Hollande had a 4% approval rating in the end. Justin Trudeau’s party in Canada are currently on around a 36% approval rate. Angela Merkel is still somehow the most popular leader in Germany, but even she has seen her approval decline to just 43%, which of course means that 57% don’t approve of her.

Then on the other hand I look at the leaders that the west demonises, the so called “dictators” and “undemocratic” leaders. Vladimir Putin has an approval rate of about 86%, and this is even after Russia has had its economy devastated by Western sanctions. The Russian people don’t care about the economic hardship they’re experiencing. If anything, because they know the west are responsible, it just causes them to support him even more. Assad, a man who the West claim is a brutal dictator who kills his own citizens for no reason, won a contested election in 2014, with 88.7% of the vote, and there is no indication that his popularity is declining. Duterte in the Philippines, a man who has essentially made murder legal (as long as you claim that the person you killed was a drug dealer or addict), enjoys an approval rating of 83%, down from the 91% he once enjoyed, but still far higher than any Western leader.

So when you really think about that, how insane does it all sound? Here in the West, where we have democracy and electoral politics, we don’t approve of our leaders. Meanwhile, in countries that the West condemns for their alleged lack of democracy, the leaders enjoy far more popularity than any Western leader that you can think of. The difference of course is that in these countries, the leaders actually represent the will of their people. In the west, where we’re supposedly free to choose the leaders that we want to represent us, they don’t represent us at all. Having our will represented is what we really want.

So if that’s the case, then what is the point of democracy? Yes, in theory I like the idea of being able to choose who will lead my country, but if they don’t implement policies that I support, then in practice, it’s useless anyway. We may as well just have a dictator in power. On the other hand, if we were to be represented by a strong decisive leader, who does implement the will of the people, then it really wouldn’t matter if I chose him or not. All that would matter to me is that he’s implementing policies that I approve of.

And that’s the point I want to end on. Does democracy really matter? If the choice is between an elected leader who doesn’t implement the policies that I want, and an unelected leader who does implement them, then the better choice seems obvious to me.

Two lame ducks: “We need a plan for Europe post Brexit.”

A photo of this historic meeting

So two of the worst leaders in modern European history met recently to discuss the future of the EU in the post Brexit world. Not much to discuss really, but I figured I could get a quick post out of it.

From Euronews

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was in Paris to meet the French President to swap notes ahead of the Bratislava summit of EU leaders, minus Britain on Friday.

I really don’t see any point in either of these two making any plans for Europe’s future. Both France and Germany will have elections in 2017, and I’d be amazed if either of them will see a return to power, unless there is a drastic change in how they operate between now and then. Merkel, who once enjoyed a 67% approval rate, is now sitting at just 45%. This is primarily due to her insane and unwavering support for the fake refugees, who have been running rampant in Germany, which has led to an increase in sexual assaults on German women and girls, terrorists attacks, and other cases of “random” violence, against the German population who were at one point, very open and welcoming towards the migrants. If it’s at 45% now, with so many months to go until the election itself, who knows how much lower it could be by the time it does happen, as the number of incoming migrants, and by extension, migrant crimes increases.

Hollande meanwhile is currently polling at a laughably pathetic figure of just 16% approval. I could probably at least see some small chance of Merkel scraping her way back into power (but with a significantly reduced amount of support), but I think Hollande has absolutely no chance at all. So for that reason, I don’t see why either of these two should be making plans for the future of Europe when in all likelihood, neither of them will be around long enough to implement them.

Merkel said it was crucial that the EU addresses its weakness, before describing the challenges of security, immigration and youth unemployment.

I love how she mentions immigration and youth unemployment as being problems that need to be solved, when it’s quite frankly impossible to solve the youth unemployment problem, while at the same time, sticking to her insane immigration policy of infinity illiterate, useless, welfare leeches from Africa and the Middle East. One of the main reasons why there is such a problem with youth unemployment in Europe at all is because there simply aren’t enough jobs available to employ them. At the same time, importing countless uneducated people who have no useful skills, will just lead to even greater competition for the few available entry level jobs that a young unemployed European could potentially use to get their foot on the career ladder. In fact, Merkel is literally pressuring employers to hire these useless migrants ahead of Germans. How does that make sense? How can she seriously claim to want to solve the youth unemployment problem, when implementing a policy like that?

“Hello infidel. My name is Muhammad. I come to Germany as refugee after escaping brutal Syrian civil war in Turkey. I was hired by German company ahead of qualified German youth, even though my only notable skills are in gang rape, and beheading the non-believers. Allahu Akbar”.

While Francois Hollande said:

“I believe we must be clear about the situation in Europe. As I have often recalled, this is not one more crisis, it could be the crisis of its existence, its very foundations. That is why we must have in mind to give to Europeans a clear vision of what can be and what will be their future”.

A lot of Europeans don’t think there is a future for them, and it’s because of the decisions that people like you two have undertaken, that we feel this way. We didn’t want to let infinity third world savages come to Europe to live on welfare while they periodically murder and gang rape us, until they eventually outbreed us and finish us off entirely in  a couple of generations, but that’s what’s happening now, whether we like it or not. Fortunately, people have had enough and are starting to look elsewhere for solutions. It won’t be people like you making the decisions in the near future. We will find others who represent our actual beliefs instead, and no amount of shaming tactics in the controlled mainstream media will change that. They can call us racist or xenophobic all they want, but if the choice is between our survival, or not being called mean names by an enemy that wants us dead anyway, I think the choice is obvious.

From the political soul-searching the pair picked three main points of focus: security and defence, the digital future and youth unemployment.

By “Security and Defence” they mean security and defence against anyone who opposes their evil plans to destroy us.

By “Digital Future” they mean finding ways to control the internet, so we can’t share the truth about what is going on, with one another.

By “youth unemployment” they mean migrants, not European youths.

They could not be more transparent. But there actions won’t be forgotten. When we finally have representatives who truly represent us, they will have to answer for their crimes against the European people. Justice will be done.


France may be on the brink of civil war.

So some interesting news from France.While everybody is distracted by the stupid racist cop hoax in America, there are things that actually matter happening right now. Now admittedly when looking at the title of the article, and actually reading the content, it seems to be scaremongering a little. Nevertheless, it deserves some attention.

From Blacklisted News

The internal terrorist threat in France is so urgent that the commander of the French security services has twice warned the French Parliament about the possibility of new terrorist attacks could trigger a civil war.

There wouldn’t be a possibility of new terrorists attacks if potential terrorists weren’t in France to begin with. Seeing as it isn’t the indigenous white French people who are committing acts of terrorism, then the problem is easy to solve. Stop importing people who come from terrorism hotspots, and deport any of those already in the country who haven’t bothered to assimilate. The people living in unassimilated ghettos are of no benefit to French society and you don’t owe them anything. Get rid of them before it’s too late. Any non-natives who have made the effort to integrate can stay, but any who haven’t, should be removed. It’s really that simple. It just takes a bit of willpower to implement.

The chief of security, Patrick Calvar, is considered one of those in France with the best insight into the inner threat situation in the country, writes Le Figaro.



In connection with the violent terrorist attack on Friday 13 November last year, which led to the French government appointed a commission of inquiry, he stated behind closed doors in parliament this year that France “stands on the brink of civil war.” He has also warned the Parliament’s defense committee that if there are more terrorist attacks from Islamic ranks, the far right could exploit the situation to trigger a civil war.

So if Muslim terrorists launch attacks against the native white French people, and the so called “far right” retaliates… the far right are to blame? Excellent logic there.

The West is now like “Bizarro World” where everything we’re led to believe is the opposite of what makes sense.

After the terrorist attack on November 13 last year, France introduced a state of emergency. The state of emergency persists to this day, and could earliest cease after the European Football Championships and Tour de France. However, it will probably persist longer than this summer, as long as there are no signs of the terrorist threat increasing. On the contrary.

“Sorry French people, but because all these Muslim terrorists we imported without giving you a vote on the matter keep killing you, we’ll have to take away your freedoms in order to protect you, instead of just removing the actual problem.”

Bizzaro World logic yet again.

Calvar also points out that mass assaults against women like the one we saw in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, could likely trigger civil war like conditions.

And I guess that would be the “far right’s” fault too if that happens. Sure what are you worried about? There’s absolutely no possibility that another mass sexual assault like that could happen again. It was just an isolated incident. Even if it does, it could just as easily be native white French men who do it, seeing as the problem is with men in general, so you wouldn’t need to worry about a civil war happening then.

Damn you “men”. How could all you “men” rape all those little girls? Why is it that “men” have suddenly started committing sexual crimes on a larger scale than ever since we opened our borders? What is that could have possibly caused “men” to change in the last few years?

Just the female perspective may be crucial in the development of Western Europe. There are limits to how long the native population silently and without action allows mothers, wives and daughters to be victims of sexual abuse in public, in what was once the world’s best continent for women.

And yet if you were to listen to a lot of third wave feminists, you would think Europe was Saudi Arabia. Hopefully they might appreciate just how progressive and liberal Europe is when it comes to women’s rights and safety after getting a preview of the alternative.


But I doubt it.

Calvar also points to a growing Islamic extremism in the suburbs of large cities, so-called banlieus.

But of course nothing will be done about it. And then when there’s an attack there will be the usual “shock” and statements of “nobody saw it coming” and people will change their Facebook profile picture to the French flag for a few days, forget all about it, until the next attack and the cycle happens all over again.





Somebody get this poor man a pig to cheer himself up with.

Wow, I’ll be damned.  I was starting to buy into the propaganda that it wouldn’t actually happen. Yet here it is. The UK actually voted to leave the EU. With all the negativity in the media surrounding it, I was expecting a very close win for the remain side (like literally around 50.1% to 49.9% in favour of remain), or even for them to rig the vote somehow. I am shocked to see that it really has happened. It feels surreal.

Sorry Angela, you’ll just have to deal with the migrant situation that you orchestrated by yourself now.

There’s a lot of fear and worry about what this will mean, not just for Britain, but for the rest of Europe as well. Most people on social media (at least in my social circles) seem to be convinced that this will be a disaster. The way I see it though, we don’t actually know yet what will happen. It could indeed be a disaster, or it could end up being  the best decision that Britain has ever made.

Have the Brits done this…
…or this?

I do however believe that the EU, in its current form at least, was inevitably doomed no matter what. I think the mishandling of the migrant situation, the Eurozone financial problems, and the rising popularity of extreme parties would have caused the EU to either collapse eventually under its own weight, or force it to become more authoritarian and centralised in its power structure, in order to survive…completely contrary to the ideals it was supposedly set up under. When choosing between the guaranteed misery of less sovereignty, less democracy, and less control of your own destiny, along with the increases in terrorism, riots, rapes, and welfare payments due to the migrant situation, or the great unknown which could go either way… can you really blame people for taking the risk on the great unknown? In fact, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if other countries eventually follow suit, and bring the whole project down with them in the process. I could see economically devastated countries like Greece or Italy getting fed up and leaving at some point. Maybe France might leave as well due to their own growing resentment towards the problems they are dealing with. The UK leaving could just be the first in a domino effect.

Personally, I do believe that there will be a lot of hardship, for the EU and the UK alike, at least in the short term. I can see the EU levying heavy sanctions at the UK, both to spite them, and to make an example of them to any other country which thinks about doing the same thing. In the long term though as I said, I think the EU project itself is doomed so by that point, any sanctions will be meaningless. We’ll all be fending for ourselves as individual nations and will be looking to do what’s best for us including, if necessary, getting back on good terms with the UK.

Black Pigeon speaks made a video where he gives his theories as to what could happen.

Whatever happens, all I know is this. We’re seeing huge historical events unfold before our eyes in real time. These are the times that we’ll be telling our grandchildren about. I’m genuinely excited to see what happens next. Maybe, just maybe…






London’s Muslim Mayor has a warning for Trump

Remember folks, if Muslim terrorists launch any future attacks against America, the blame shouldn’t go to the terrorists themselves. It should instead go to Donald Trump, for saying mean things that hurt their feelings.

When Muslim terrorists kill people, it’s all his fault.

From Daily Caller


This sounds like a threat to me.

“We are from the religion of peace. We are a peaceful and moderate people. We are completely non-violent, and safe to be around. But if you don’t submit to our will, and give us what we want, we’ll kill innocent people in your country, and it will be entirely your fault.”

This is literally what he’s saying.


But…but…but… the media led me to believe that Trump was a stubborn old fool, who only sees things in black and white terms, and would be incapable of compromising with foreign leaders on policy, for the sake of diplomacy. This makes no sense… IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!

But in a statement Tuesday, Khan dismissed Trump’s invitation, and also denounced his views on Islam as “ignorant,” suggesting Trump’s policies would increase the terrorist threat in both the U.S. and U.K. (RELATED: Khan Rejects Trump’s Invitation, Endorses Hillary)

So keeping Muslims out of America, will somehow result in America getting attacked more by Muslim terrorists. How exactly? If they aren’t in the country, then how are they supposed to make their attacks, when their attacks require them to be present to do so?

Experts believe that Jihadists will be so motivated to attack America, that they’ll train camels to swim across the Atlantic ocean with them on their backs. Therefore, there is no way of keeping them out, so we may as well not even try.


Again, he’s literally saying that these “mainstream Muslims” have such little will of their own, that they’ll be driven into the arms of extremist recruiters, just because they’re offended by the idea of America putting the interests of its own people first and foremost. If they’re good people, they’re not going to kill no matter what. If they’re bad people, then no amount of appeasement is going to change that, as evident by the fact that Europe has been bending over backwards to welcome these people for decades, and they still keep attacking us, no matter how hard we try to accommodate them.


Has it really?


Just because the indigenous British population have been gradually ethnically cleansed from their own capital city, and the new population have elected one of their own as its Mayor, does not prove anything. Is there even one Islamic majority country in the world with values similar to that of Western liberal ones? Is there even one Western liberal society which has a substantial Islamic minority of more than 2% of the population, where that minority isn’t causing trouble and is at odds with those values? Because I personally can’t think of even one.

While Khan touted the liberal values of British Muslims, some polls have found worrying indicators that their assimilation is incomplete.

It will never be complete, because on the whole, they never ever assimilate. They just conquer. That has been the entire history of their existence, and there has been absolutely no evidence to suggest that this has changed. Again let me stress, that I’m not saying that moderate Muslims don’t exist at all. I’m just saying that a very significant amount of them aren’t moderate, and they never will be.

A poll in April, for instance, found that two-thirds of British Muslims would not tell the government if a friend or family member became involved with extremists. Half of them said homosexuality should be illegal and over 20 percent supported establishing sharia in the U.K.

And with figures like that, can you really blame Trump for being against bringing them into America? If those figures are proportionally accurate, then of the 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world, approximately 1.067 Billion would not report on terrorism, 800 Million believe that homosexuality should be illegal, and 320 Million support establishing Sharia law. However when you take into consideration that Muslims are allowed to lie about their true beliefs in certain circumstances, and that the UK are likely to have more moderates than in Muslim majority countries, then the true numbers might be even higher still.

Can anyone honestly explain why America needs these people so badly?

It could finally be happening: Golden Dawn to form Greek government.

After watching Alexis fail spectacularly as Greek Prime Minister, people were shocked when he had the integrity to do the decent thing, and resign his position, after just 8 months in power. This throws the already chaotic Greek state into further chaos. What options are left for the people to choose from after going from failure, to failure, to failure?

Well… there is one option left that hasn’t yet been tried, and it looks as if the desperate Greek people now have no other choice.



Golden Dawn party members


From Sputnik News

A Greek lawmaker told Sputnik that Golden Dawn party will be given a mandate to form the government.

 MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The third party to be granted a mandate to form a new Greek government will be the far-right Golden Dawn, MP from the New Democracy Party, Makis Voridis, told Sputnik on Friday.

“The third party to receive a proposal to create a government will be the Golden Dawn,” Voridis who is a former Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Networks, said. 

“I do not think that New Democracy will manage to create a new government, it will not manage to form a parliamentarian majority,” Voridis, who is a former Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Networks, said.

Main opposition New Democracy Party will refuse to form coalition with the left-wing SYRIZA party in case it wins the snap parliamentary elections.   

“SYRIZA, the party of the resigned Prime minister, will not participate in any kind of discussion around creating a coalition right now. Without their votes, with actually now are 118, it is practically impossible to form any kind of government,” Voridis stressed.

Earlier on Friday, Greek President Prokopis Pavlopoulos granted the leader of Greece’s official opposition and head of the center-right New Democracy party Vangelis Meimarakis a mandate to form a new government.

Under the Greek Constitution, Meimarakis has three days to determine if his party can create a viable government before a caretaker regime is put in place.

Golden Dawn is a radical right party, whose 69 members have been accused of creating and running a criminal organization.

This is just history repeating itself. In the early 1930s, Germany was in economic chaos, and was easily the most impoverished nation in Europe. There were constant battles for supremacy between the far left and the far right, all while the average German suffered greatly due to Germany’s crippling international debts. In early 1933, after having exhausted so many other options, it was decided that a coalition government should be set up under the leadership of some guy with a mustache, who held some very “extreme” ideologies, in the hopes of bringing stability to the chaos.

The guy who led that coalition.
The guy who led that coalition.

And you know what happened? In many ways, he did bring stability. Just Google “German economic recovery 1930s” to read up about it. I’m not posting any links here, because every link I do see, seems to be biased in some way. Some try to downplay the economic recovery, or make excuses for it. Others, talk it up as if Hitler was a saint, and the greatest economic genius who ever lived. Rather than posting a link to any of these views, I’d prefer to encourage others to read up on it themselves and form their own opinions on what happened.

Anyway, I’ll just leave it at that. I just thought it was very interesting to see what’s going on in Greece at the moment. I can guarantee that a lot of very powerful people in international politics, media, and banking are not happy about this development. I’m sure if this actually goes ahead, we’ll be reading a lot of stories about how evil the Greeks are, and how they need to be invaded, in order to restore “democracy” or “human rights” or something to that effect. The question is, what happens if they actually succeed in turning Greece around? What will that mean for the rest of Europe? Very interesting times ahead.

Good news for Athens

If there's one thing that Europeans just can't get enough of, it's Mosques.
If there’s one thing that Europeans just can’t get enough of, it’s Mosques.

I swear this Alexis Tsipras guy is probably the best Prime minister in Greek history. Even our own greatest, Brian Cowen, has nothing on this guy. After that incredible deal he negotiated with the troika (even more brutal than the original one that the Greeks voted in a referendum to reject), he could have easily stepped down and retired, with a brilliant legacy that would be remembered by the Greek people forever. I didn’t think he could possibly outdo himself, but he’s managed to do so somehow, by giving the Greek people the thing they wanted most of all in the world.

From Greek Reporter

Construction of the first mosque in Athens will start as soon as final details of the much-delayed project are ironed out and the building permit is about to be issued.

It has been seventy years since it was decided to build a mosque in Athens. The delays have been a constant source of tension with the Muslim world. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has been highly critical of the delays, with the Minister of Culture, Education and Religious Affairs Aristides Baltas stressing that these delays are used to defame Greece.

In recent years the tender for the construction had been repeated five times and a successful bidder was selected in November 2013. The project has a budget of 964,000 euros and it will be constructed on a plot of land owned by the Greek Navy. It is located in the area of Eleonas in Athens where a former Navy workshop building will be converted into a mosque.

The last detail remaining is the settlement of a stream that should not cause any more delays.

The building of the Athens mosque is one of the priorities of the SYRIZA government and Alexis Tsipras has promised that he will complete it. The project, however, is met with many reactions from the Greek Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Bishop of Piraeus Seraphim has appealed to stop the construction.

Just incredible really. Alexis really is an incredible leader, who obviously understands the needs of his people. The Greek people have wanted a Mosque in their capital, more than anything else in the world for decades now. They have literally been on their hands and knees begging for it, and now Alexis is going to make sure they get it. Sure, Greek public spending and their debt to GDP ratio are out of control, but Alexis is not going to allow trivial matters like that get in the way of giving the people what they so clearly want. Clearly, he’s listening to the will of the people, just like he did when they had that recent referendum to reject the troika bailout (because its terms weren’t harsh enough and the masochistic Greeks wanted something more punishing).

Alexis looking on proudly at the site for the upcoming mosque.
Alexis looking on proudly at the site for the upcoming mosque.

I bet the Greeks are so excited about this wonderful news. It will probably bring back wonderful memories of being part of the Ottoman Empire. I bet every Greek who voted for Syriza realises that they made the right choice and I doubt we’ll ever see another party come close to toppling Syriza in any future elections.

Thank you Alexis, for demonstrating what the far left is really all about. You have provided perfect evidence of all the vast benefits that will be brought to the rest of Europe, if we ever choose to vote for parties with ideologies similar to yours. Punishing debt, and Mosques in our cities. How could anyone say no to that?

EU report on Hungary: It’s racist to want to protect your borders.

So last week I wrote about how the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is one of the few sane leaders in the EU, because he’s actually willing to point out the obvious reality about the African migrant situation and its potential impact on the future of Europe. He quite rightly pointed out that letting in limitless numbers of uneducated, unskilled, African migrants would eventually put such a strain on European services, that it would just simply drag Europe down to African living standards. He would much rather use his country’s resources to help his own people, rather than helping people he has absolutely no legal or moral obligation to.

Angela Merkel was not impressed that another EU leader had the audacity to reject her ridiculous migrant quotas idea.

This kind of policy apparently has no place in the EU. You see, their entire strategy to get people to accept limitless numbers of migrants, is to use shaming tactics. Someone like Orban could say “No, we’re not taking in anymore migrants because of the negative impact they’ll have on our society. For examples of how they’ll negatively impact our society, here’s a list of logical, irrefutable reasons”. The EU’s response is essentially “You just hate them because you’re narrow minded racists who don’t like the colour of their skin”.

From DW

Migrants aren’t welcome in Hungary. The government made that pretty clear with deeply leading questions in a national consultation. Sent out to 8 million citizens aged 18 or older, the survey compares Syrians fleeing civil war to “economic migrants.” The survey also asks Hungarians whether they think that refugees should be deported, locked up or sentenced to forced labor during their stay in Hungary. That’s just one recent example of the right-wing government’s attitude toward migrants.

How dare a government actually ask the people of the country how they feel about letting migrants in? What do they think this is, a democracy? Now, assuming they really did provide leading questions like that with no “let them stay” answer, I’m willing to concede that that is wrong. Citizens should be allowed access to all potential choices on how to deal with the situation. I don’t really see a problem with forced labour as a choice though. I’m not saying they should be subjected to back breaking slave labour, but getting them to actually earn their keep by providing some service to the country makes sense to me, rather than just containing them somewhere doing nothing. Not only will it keep them busy so they won’t get bored and potentially turn to crime, but it will also give them an opportunity to demonstrate their value to Hungarian society.

It doesn't necessarily have to be something like this, but keep them occupied and have them contribute to their new host society.

If these really are desperate people and not just economic migrants coming to leech off of Europe, then surely doing a bit of work wouldn’t be a big deal and they’d simply be grateful to escape from whatever danger they fled from…right? Of course, as I’ve already discussed time and time again, we know that the majority of these people ARE economic migrants who aren’t even from the warzones they’re supposedly fleeing from, so I’m sure they aren’t so desperate.

Now, the Council of Europe has published a report that strongly criticizes widespread racism in Hungary. The authors, from the Council’s European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), emphasize that not only is the radical nationalist Jobbik, the third-largest party in Hungary’s parliament, to blame for the country’s xenophobic atmosphere – the entire political spectrum shares in the guilt.

Jobbik is the third largest party because people vote for them. They aren’t causing racism in Hungary, their success is a result of the existent racist views held by Hungarian society.

The ECRI report praises recent Hungarian initiatives like the introduction of a hate crime unit for police and a new network for consultants to assist Hungary’s Equal Treatment Authority, which pursues cases of discrimination and racism. However, the report’s authors have found, none of this makes up for the hatred and vitriol that Jews, homosexuals, Roma, migrants and other groups encounter.

I think it’s interesting that it points out that all these groups receive a lot of hatred, but it doesn’t make any effort to find out WHY they’re hated. For example, I can easily answer why the Gypsies (I don’t use the term Roma because it makes people think of Romanians who don’t deserve to be lumped in with the gypsies) are so hated. It’s because they do nothing but commit crimes and refuse to contribute anything to society. They never have anywhere they’ve gone and I’ve never heard anyone from Eastern Europe (who have dealt with them for centuries) say anything good about them. The point is, people hate, either because of a genuine reason, or because of a misconception. If there is a genuine reason, why shouldn’t they feel hatred? Are they not entitled to feel anger in those situations? In the case of misconception, then they simply need to be educated with the correct information that refutes the misconceptions.

The Hungarian government rejects the report as “incorrect” in several respects, alleging that it used “false and outdated information,” especially concerning the situation of migrants.

Rights workers in Hungary say, however, that the government’s response is what’s incorrect. Marta Pardavi is the co-director of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, an NGO that fights for refugees and human rights. She says that the ECRI report is based on extensive and factual documentation – and is even too positive, because it only describes the situation up to and including 2014. Since then, Pardavi says, things have gotten worse.

I’m sure they have gotten worse since then because the number of economic migrants has increased since then. This is called cause and effect.

Young, healthy black men.
Did this happen on a weekly basis in before 2015? No? Then it’s no wonder the anger wasn’t as strong back then.

“The report praises policies for integrating immigrants,” Pardavi told DW. “Meanwhile, refugees are presented as dangerous and problematic in Hungary and immigration as harmful and bad.”

Might have something to do with the fact that they are harmful and bad. Sweden’s rape statistics, plummeting living standards, gang warfare, and no-go zones as a result of mass immigration prove this. I see no reason why the same couldn’t happen elsewhere in Europe.

‘A domestic spectacle’

Prime Minister Viktor Orban, of the right-wing Fidesz party, doesn’t want more immigrants in Hungary. He has called a plan to distribute applicants for asylum among EU member states “absurd, bordering on insanity.”

He’s correct. There’s literally no sane reason to go through with this. All I’ve heard so far is a bunch of emotional nonsense that rejects logic and sanity altogether.

In connection with the national consultation on immigration, the government has erected signs that tell refugees to respect Hungarian culture, follow the laws and not take jobs away from nationals.

Such a hate crime. How dare Hungary actually asks immigrants to respect their way of life?

“Of course the European Union can’t do anything about the domestic campaigns of member nations’ heads of state,” Rudolf Ungvary, a writer who frequently criticizes Hungary’s government, told DW. “It’s a domestic spectacle. But the way he fights against EU refugee policy is very provocative.”

Preventing a multicultural society

In early June, Prime Minister Orban told the daily newspaper “Napi Gazdasag” that he wanted to protect the Hungarian people from “dying out.” He said he opposed a multicultural society brought about by immigration: “We will do everything to save Hungary from that fate.”

And what’s wrong with that? We always try to promote the rights of native groups to have their own land, culture and way of life. What’s wrong with Hungary doing the sa…

Oh silly me, I forgot.
Oh silly me, I forgot.

The country has received about 50,000 asylum requests for 2015 so far, according to the Associated Press news agency. Roughly 43,000 asylum requests were registered for all of 2014. There are about 9.9 million people living in Hungary.

Key words, “so far”. We know they’re just going to keep on coming. As I mentioned before, Africa has a population of over a billion people (projected to quadruple by 2100). The vast majority of them would love to come to Europe. How many of them can we look after before Europe collapses from the strain?

To stop people from coming into the country illegally, Fidesz officials said they were planning on tightening Hungary’s border with Serbia. While there was no talk of a fence or similar enforcements, Fidesz Vice Chairman Lajos Kosa said that migrants “simply will not be allowed in.”

How democratic is Fidesz?

Antal Rogan, head of the Fidesz parliamentary group, said Hungary would like to go back to arresting everyone who entered illegally. According to the ECRI, about 22 percent of applicants for asylum are already “deprived of their liberty.”

Arresting people for committing a crime (entering illegally is a crime).

My thoughts on how they’re being deprived of their liberty?


Can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

The writer Ungvary does not believe that the report will change anything about Hungary’s political situation. He said that only “naive liberals” would believe that EU statements like this had any effect on the Orban government.

Ungvary added that the measures that ECRI praised in the report were democratic only on the surface: “The government is merely using them as window dressing,” he said.

Now look, if Hungary is actually preventing genuine refugees from dangerous parts of the world, from coming in, then fair enough, that’s a problem. They shouldn’t be doing that. as it stands though, I only see them rejecting obvious economic migrants from coming in and parasiting off their country. I see no problem with that.

Hopefully Hungary stands strong as an example to the rest of us and doesn’t let the EUs insults wear them down.

At least there’s one European leader who tells it like it is.

The Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban weighed in on the migrant crises and its consequences for Europe.

From The Telegraph

Mass migration threatens European civilisation, Hungary’s controversial Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Tuesday.

“Today mass migration is taking place around the globe that could change the face of Europe’s civilisation. If that happens, that is irreversible,” Mr Orban said at a conference in honour of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who recently turned 85.

“There is no way back from a multicultural Europe. Neither to a Christian Europe, nor to the world of national cultures,” Mr Orban added.

He insisted that migration needs to be addressed seriously.

“If we make a mistake now, it will be forever,” Mr Orban, 52, said.

He is of course 100% correct. There are a lot of potentially mistaken policies that can be undone at a later date, but this immigrant issue is a killshot. We get it wrong, there’s no chance of coming back from it. You might ask me why I care so much seeing as by the time it’s too late, and the Europe we know now is gone, I’ll probably be dead  or close to death myself. Well my response is quite simple. This is bigger than me, and it’s bigger than anyone alive today. This is about the legacy we leave for our descendants. I may have children myself someday. They might have children of their own, who’ll have children of their own etc. Just because I won’t be around to witness all hell break loose in Europe when things reach a tipping point, doesn’t mean I’m OK with people in the future having to experience it.

Quite honestly, I think people today are being very selfish with their behaviour. They get to pat themselves on the back and act all smug about how generous and caring they are towards the third world immigrants who cross our borders. They don’t for a second care about the fact that by having such attitudes, they’re effectively ensuring the genocide of their own descendants.











As I’ve said before, I don’t say these things to start controversy. I say them because this is what I genuinely believe and genuinely fear based on the evidence available. If someone could prove me wrong using actual facts and logic (not emotional rhetoric or by using insults such as saying I’m being racist) I’d actually be happy because it would relieve my fears for the future. Unfortunately, I have yet to see anyone ever provide such logical arguments, and I’m not optimistic that they actually can.