Tuesday, 24 January 2017
Within days of Donald Trump becoming President of the United States, news is coming through that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has - according to local reports - been “critically injured in air strikes in northern Iraq”. The bombing raid in Al-Ba’aj (northern Iraq) was led by a US-led coalition.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is, of course, the world's most wanted man. Nonetheless, it now has to be said that it's been reported before that al-Baghdadi has either been hurt or killed.
We can only hope that the bastard is dead.
Just to fill in the gaps. Al-Baghdadi has only just delivered his first message in over a year. This soi-disant caliph, in his most Muhammadan mode, told the Islamic world to make infidel blood “flow like rivers”.
Indeed it was only last month that the US government increased the bounty for Baghdadi from $10 million to $25 million. That bounty will now be given to anyone who comes forward with information about his whereabouts.
Not surprisingly, Baghdadi has kept a low profile in recent months. It's been reported that al-Baghdadi sleeps underground in a suicide vest. Because of all that, the British politician Boris Johnson had this to say on the pious Muslim man:
“It is a cruel irony that some of the intelligence we have, you may know, suggests that the gentleman in question has actually vacated the scene himself and is nonetheless using internet media to encourage people to take part in violence.”
In terms of recent history, Baghdadi has ruled over Mosul for two years. In that time he's applied a full and blood-soaked sharia law to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
If he is dead, then that fact can beg a question: Why didn't this happen before Trump was elected? Why can't a superpower defeat an an enemy in the desert? The situation and geography in Iraq and Syria, after all, isn't at all like the dense and expansive forests of, say, Vietnam.
Perhaps it was because the willpower wasn't really there. Because total war and a quick victory were never on the cards. Wars with much bloodshed don't play well on the TV. And, of course, left-wing professional and amateur demonstrators quickly arrive on the streets. Yet these pretend pacifists make things worse: they prolong the war and the overall death-count. In addition, it's also because Leftist activists, lawyers and newspapers severely limit - through lawfare and negative criticism - the ability of the US to fight for victory and defeat the enemy.
Monday, 23 January 2017
Has the Dalai Lama been placed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's “Hatewatch” list? Has Britain's Hope Not Hate or Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama asked for the British government to ban the Tibetan Buddhist from the United Kingdom?
You may wonder why I'm asking these seemingly curious questions. I'll tell you why.
In May, the Dalai Lama - when interviewed by the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - said that there were “too many” refugees in Europe. He warned that Germany “cannot become an Arab country”. Indeed he went on to say that Arab refugees should only be “admitted temporarily”.
What about the Italian Archbishop - Monsignor Carlo Liberati (the Archbishop Emeritus of Pompeii) - who recently warned that the whole of Europe will “soon be Muslim”?
Is he a Naziracistfascist bigot?
In any case, the Archbishop has predicted the continued ethnic-cleansing and displacement of European Christians; which will be due, primarily, to declining Christian birthrates comparative to Muslim families.
In the Catholic Journal La Fede Quotidiana, Monsignor Carlo Liberati went on to say:
"Parishes are the only thing still standing. We need a true Christian life. All this paves the way to Islam. In addition to this, they have children and we do not. We are in full decline.
"In 10 years we will all be Muslims because of our stupidity."
Now for Moscow's chief rabbi, Pinchas Goldschmidt. He wrote - in the UK's Telegraph - that "we must realise that we have now entered a religious war".
I also wonder or not the Washington Institute (an American think tank) has incurred the righteousness of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Hope not Hate, CAIR and Tell Mama because of its anticipation of a future religious war. After all, the Washington Institute said:
"The Crusades began with a rumour of defilement. In 1095, Pope Urban II denounced the Muslims as 'a race utterly alienated from God'.
"This is exactly how Islam's leaders are demonising the West in the 21st."
The Washington Institute went on to argue that at some point "the crusade" will begin. That crusade "would be a Muslim one". Why? Because "its advance scouts are already at work in Europe".
Are the Dalai Lama, the Archbishop Emeritus of Pompeii and the chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt “far Right”? It seems so. That, by Leftist definition, to be against Islamisation and mass immigration is to be far Right.
So let's happily and freely bite that bullet: We are far Right!
Thus is it any wonder that there's been a rise in popularity for various right-wing parties across Europe?
Is France's Front National – which has seen its support triple in five years - fundamentally at odds with the religious representatives above? And what makes Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD) – which is at its strongest ever - position fundamentally different to that of the Dalai Lama?
Finally, in May 2015, Alternative for Germany party declared - in its manifesto - that "Islam is not part of Germany".
Does Islam really have a place anywhere in Europe?
Saturday, 21 January 2017
Donald Trump's election Is a severe hammer-blow to decades of Leftist elitism and indoctrination. It's the first step to taking back the Gramscian “institutions”.
Antonio Gramsci, in the 1920s and 1930s, soon realised that the working class would never go for a violent revolution which was led by a vanguard of upper-middle-class Marxists. Thus, without a revolution or even a vote, Gramsci realised that the best advice for middle-class Leftists was to “take over the institutions”. (Gramsci openly acknowledged that he was jealous of the Catholic Church in Italy.) The Left has been doing that ever since; especially since the 1960s.
The most important institution is the university (as it was for both the Hitler Youth and the Red Guard). It's the universities which create the future Leftist professionate. And then, from the universities, Leftist graduates take over all the other major institutions.
You will note what none of these Leftist institutions (e.g., universities, the law, charities, NGOs, various churches, the BBC, etc.) rely on the vote – or at least on a vote which is open to those on the outside of the institution. That's the kind of environment Leftists love. It's where they can carry on their social experiments without any threat of being voted out.
And take in that snobbery towards the people who voted for Brexit and those who voted for Trump. Pure unadulterated snobbery! We've heard talk about “red necks”, “knuckle-draggers”, “white van men”, “lager louts”, etc.: all from the snobby Left. You see, the elitist Left no longer feels the need to patronise the working class as it did in former times. After all, the New Left has Muslims - as well as the LGBT (whom Muslims, of course, love) and suchlike - to patronise instead. To use.
So Trump and Brexit are the first firings of this Glorious Counter-Revolution. Let's also hope that Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen do the same in France and Holland respectively.
This is just the beginning.
Friday, 20 January 2017
Many people wouldn't see the BBC as being a place for heavy editorials and blatantly-biased opinion pieces. Yet if one reads BBC News online, you'll see editorials and commentaries coming out of every BBC orifice.
Thus it shouldn't be a surprise that the BBC devotes an entire positive piece to George Soros and his desire to bring down Donald Trump. It's also clear, from the piece, that the BBC is at one with Soros. At one, yes, though in a typically subtle BBC kind-of-a-way.
In the recent elections in the United States, the BBC (in its BBC News) featured a negative piece on Trump every day; sometimes more than once a day! When it came to Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, the BBC was almost uniformly positive.
So when is the BBC actually going to be honest about its gross political biases? I suppose it can't be simply because it's a public- or tax-funded organisation. But do the British people really want to hear the ideological prejudices of a small Leftist (or Left-Liberal) elite (who mainly live in London) every day?
In any case, the BBC quotes George Soros as saying that Trump is "[a]n imposter, a [political] conman and a would-be dictator". Yes a “would-be” dictator. Trump was only inaugurated today. Still, Soros is a futurologist.
Soros, though, is contradictory on this. At least on the surface. This would-be dictator will never be a dictator because, in Soros's own words, Trump “won't be able to get away” with it.
The BBC itself admits that Soros has a much deeper problem with Trump. It tells us:
“Mr Soros has been unrelentingly critical of Mr Trump since his shock election victory, and the pair have a history of friction.”
It's supremely ironic that Soros - the amoral megalomaniac - says that "[a]nyone who disagrees with [Trump] is not part of the people". Yes, that's coming from a loon who's made the division of America into his own full-time political sport. After all, we know Soros funds Black Lives Matter and the Democrats. However, who is he supporting behind the lines (as it were)? CAIR? The New Black Panther Party? The Nation of Islam?
From what we know of this man, Soros would fund and support any group which wants to destroy the United States. Why is that? Simply because George Soros himself wants to destroy the United States. As Alan Partridge once put it: It really is that simple!
A Cambridge professor has called on British people to learn Urdu and Polish in order to make migrants feel welcome. Apparently, we should learn languages such as Polish, Punjabi and Urdu to make immigrant families “feel more at home”.
I hate these kinds of professor.
They think they've the right to pontificate on important political issues; even when such issues aren't in their own academic domain. This is especially true when one bears in mind that theory and political correctness seem to cancel-out inconvenient facts and experiences when it comes to the theo[ry]logical beliefs of most Leftists.
No doubt if we embraced Islam, that would indeed make Muslim immigrants, etc. feel, as she puts it, “more at home”. But if we have to bend over so far backwards, then what will that do to our own homes? Of course a Muslim from Islamabad wants Bradford or even Cambridge to be like his own former shit-hole. But it isn't! Or at least it wasn't (in the case of Bradford).
Think about the obvious logical faux pas of believing that we should learn the languages of immigrants in the UK because some of them have learnt the English language in order to function in our country. Should we also learn their bombing-making or grooming- skills too?
This woman (Wendy Ayres-Bennett) is looking for sacrifice and selflessness from white working-class Brits; though I wonder what she - as a professor probably on more than a £100,000 a year and living in Cambridge - has sacrificed to the Glorious Other. How truly selfless is she in this context? Does the fact that she wants people to make immigrants "feel more at home" make her selfless? No! They're only words. Her life, I can guess, is untouched by radical Islam and mass immigration. The only experience she'll have of immigration will be when it comes to the foreign cleaners, maids or gardeners she employs – all on low wages which undercut the indigenous workforce.
Look at her. The personification of Cambridge University elitism, even down to her middle-class-academic bob-cut and double-barrelled name.
Cambridge University: the home of Leftist elitism and spies for almost a century.
Yes, the elite, today, are thoroughly left-wing.
Thursday, 19 January 2017
In recent months there have been many reports of German biker clubs roaming the streets of German cities and attacking Muslim immigrants. The German newspaper, Express, reports large groups of “rocker and hooligan gangs” are now organizing themselves via Facebook to meet in Cologne and other German cities to start “manhunts” of foreigners.
It was only a matter of time before there was a backlash. There have been slight renderings of vigilante action throughout Europe (against Islamic sex-slavery/grooming, sharia patrols, terrorism, etc.). However, it's never been organised enough to hit the news in a big way. Until now.
Europe became a laboratory animal for Leftists. It became a social experiment. Leftists are trying to create some kind of suicidal Utopia - at our expense. Either that, or Leftists believe that mass immigration will further their own violent revolution.
There was bound to be a backlash. It doesn't matter if I support it. Or if others support it. That's irrelevant. The Left-liberal elite has pushed the faces of various European peoples into the dirt. Deep into the dirt. Relentlessly into the dirt.
And traditional right-wing and conservative groups/parties only want to hang on to capitalism. They want their investments and businesses to thrive, alongside cultural Marxism. Many also require cheap labour. Thus they can't be trusted either.
We don't need to encourage the fight-back. It's going to happen regardless. And, if it occurs sooner than later, we will win. If it happens later, we'll loose.
Germany has branded the UK as “Little Britain”. Other European EU-philes have taken the piss out of Theresa May’s recent Brexit speech
Isn't all this ironic?
The primary purpose of the European Union was said to be that of safeguarding Europe from future nationalisms. Yet here are the tribal supporters of the EU calling the United Kingdom "Little Britain" and England “Little England”. Why? Simply because we don't want to be part of Big Europe. Doesn't all arrogance replicate supposed nationalist bigotry?
The EU was only ever going to replicate the traits and vices of nation states - only on a bigger scale! Indeed Angela Merkel - who's not little - has recently stressed the need for a "European army". The EU also replicates, and then magnifies, state bureaucracy, arrogance, the abuse of power, lawfare, social experimentation, etc. which occurred in nation states. (The EU even has its own flag.) Thus how does enlarging a political territory and jurisdiction automatically stop nationalism and cure all our political ills? It doesn't: it simply replicates and then magnifies them (at least over time).
This is what happened when the adherents of the 18th-century French Revolution substituted the old religion with the religion of Rationalism - complete with churches, ritual and even a clergy. This was also what happened when Marxism became a religion. (In many senses, though, Marxism started out as a religion.)
The fact is that the Old Order and human nature are, to some extent at least, always with us. You can tart things up as the EU attempted to do. Though, just like the revolutions of yore, the EU has started to eat its own children.
Little Britain, however, will not be eaten by Big Europe.