September 9, 2015 Stereotyping While Waiting In Line At Ralphs Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Stereotyping While Waiting In Line At Ralphs

Posted on September 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

It was a mess at Ralphs this afternoon. As I waited in line, I noticed patterns.

WASPs are the best behaved group. They are the best at waiting in line and they are the best, in general, in acting like good citizens. They create the best countries (think England, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand).

Bad Behavior Index
Blacks 106
Mexicans 85
American Indians 85
Italians 70
Irish 67
Jews 64
Germans 56
English/Welsh 47

Low IQ people are a horror show to try to deal with in life, not just on the roads and at work, but also in the line at Ralphs. People on welfare tend to be worse behaved than other groups and they often seem to feel more entitled to make other people pay for their bad behavior. Jews often seem to me like the most aggressive people around (in all ways except crime and violence). The Ralphs 90035 checkout line reminds me of the nightmare of driving in Israel.

So while I sweat in line, it’s 100 degrees outside, I am not in the best of moods to read on my phone Rabbi Abraham Cooper’s latest pathologizing of the goyim. The goyim I know are very good at conducting themselves efficiently and courteously in a supermarket checkout line and so I am not eager to read the rabbi rip the goyim for trying to maintain their traditions and to resist the invasion of their Islamic and African enemies.

Why Europe is so woefully unprepared for the new refugee crisis
by Rabbi Abraham Cooper
Posted on Sep. 8, 2015 at 3:07 pm
No time is a good time for an epic humanitarian crisis. But Europe today seems woefully unprepared for the human wave from the Maghreb, the Horn of Africa and lands reaching all the way to Afghanistan…
It is not only about the lack of political will and social cohesion. For even as French, British and German leaders talk about evenly distributing the burden, others such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban have made it brutally clear that they want no part of the migrant/refugee wave; they simply want them gone. If it means constructing barbed-wire fences, posting a phalanx of police at the central train station in Budapest and duping refugees to board trains to camps, so be it.
Of course, when we see people so desperate to escape their homes that they knowingly put themselves and their children in harm’s way, when we see the lifeless body of a drowned child, we Jews are reminded of another era in Europe.
Why then is Europe so unprepared for this challenge?
It is precisely because the European Union (EU) has failed to evolve into a true “union.”
It has failed to articulate what 21st-century European social values are.
It never has addressed the failure to integrate the millions of Muslims already living in Europe.
Its foreign policy has failed to stem the killings and dislocation of Bashar Assad’s Syria. It has failed to stop ISIS.
It attempted to stop Libyans from leaving their country by removing Muammar Gadhafi. The results? The disintegration of a country and even more boat people perishing in the Mediterranean.
But are Europeans exclusively to blame for all of this? What about the United States? Tragically, the policies of “leading from behind” and “no boots on the ground” may mean fewer Americans in harm’s way in the Middle East, but the leadership vacuum has left millions of innocent people to fend for themselves with corrupt and dangerous governments who can’t even pick up the garbage.
There is one other gaping hole in the leadership of the EU: 70 years after the Shoah, rabid anti-Semitism and hate for the Jewish state infect an estimated 150 million Europeans. Seven decades after the defeat of Nazism, European governments and nongovernmental organizations have been silent over the ethnic cleansing, murder and serial rape of tens of thousands of Christians and other minorities across the Middle East.
It seems that Europe’s elite may have learned to mark their calendar to remember dead Jews one day a year, but too many have failed to internalize or apply any lessons from the Nazi era as to how to treat living Jews and other minorities.
There are no easy solutions to this crisis, but as Jews who come to pray for the wellbeing and safety of the entire world on Rosh Hashanah, we must find ways to do our share to help all legitimate refugees, be they Christian, Muslims or Yazidis.

Let me begin with the headline: “Why Europe is so woefully unprepared for the new refugee crisis”

Has any continent or country been better prepared to deal with a refugee crisis of this magnitude? No. But context does not matter to Rabbi Abraham Cooper. He’s just looking for any excuse to batter the goyim.

What was Israel’s response to the refugee crisis? Rabbi Abraham Cooper does not mention that Israel does not want to admit any of these Islamic refugees and instead, Israel is devoting its resources to building more fences against the outside world. In other words, Israel is acting sanely, in its self-interest, in much the same way Hungary has.

When Jews pursue their group interest (in not admitting Muslims who hate them), that is not worth remarking upon by Rabbi Cooper, but when goyim pursue the identical strategy, then it is time to bring out the big rhetorical guns, and you know a Holocaust analogy — completely unjustified — is about to drop on us.

Here is the crux of the rabbi’s essay:

Why then is Europe so unprepared for this challenge?
It is precisely because the European Union (EU) has failed to evolve into a true “union.”

Jews love Jewish nationalism. They take it for granted that Jews should look out first for their own people. On the other hand, Jews fear Gentile nationalisms because by definition, Gentile nationalisms excludes Jews. This is why so many Jews love the United Nations and the European Union and the idea of one world government and the like, so that the people in power can protect Jews from popular resentment. Throughout history, Jews have looked repeatedly to the people in power to protect them from the rage of the common folk. Jews often feel safer with big government. That’s a major reason so many Jews supported communism.

It has failed to articulate what 21st-century European social values are.

Values are not what hold a people together nearly as much as genetic ties. I can prove it to you. Swedes, wherever they live in the world, tend to have life results similar to Swedes who live in Sweden. Adopted children tend to have life results that mirror those of their genetic parents, not their adopting parents. Japanese, wherever they live in the world, tend to have life results that mirror those of the Japanese in Japan.

Racial diversity destroys social capital. The more diverse Europe becomes, the more frayed it will be.

As Jason Richwine wrote in 2009:

[Robert] Putnam began by telling us about one result he encountered that was thoroughly upsetting to him—the more ethnically diverse a community is, the less social capital it possesses. When a person lives in a diverse community, he trusts everyone less, including those of his own ethnic group.
So how did Putnam come to conclude that ethnic diversity is so problematic? The answer begins with the notion of “social capital,” which Putnam defines in simple terms—“social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness.” Social capital turns out to be an exceptionally valuable commodity. Building complex networks of friends and associates, trusting others to keep their word, and maintaining social norms and expectations all grease the wheels of business by enabling cooperation.
But the value of social capital goes well beyond economics. Many of the activities from which people draw the most deep and lasting satisfactions are stronger and more prevalent in areas with high social capital. People living in these places tend to have more friends, care more about their community, and participate more in civic causes. Where social capital is greater, Putnam says, “children grow up healthier, safer, and better educated; people live longer, happier lives; and democracy and the economy work better.”

Rabbi Cooper continues: “It never has addressed the failure to integrate the millions of Muslims already living in Europe.”

Gypsies have lived in Europe for hundreds of years and they still have not assimilated. Is that Europe’s fault? Gypsies, like Muslims, have low IQs and are not assimilable.

Jews have assimilated to Europe in superficial ways, but as long as a Jew identifies as a Jew, his primary identity, in all likelihood, will be as a Jew, as a nation within nation if he lives in the diaspora.

Jews see themselves as a people apart. As long as they maintain their identity, they will only assimilate in superficial ways.

All peoples assimilate in only the most superficial ways. In the end, they tend to act like their genetics. Blacks act black, the Japanese act Japanese, and Jews act Jewish, wherever they live.

Christians have been struggling with Jews and Muslims for over a millennia because these individual groups have different interests that repeatedly clash with each other. You can argue about whether or not Jews are conducive to a Christian country, but there can be no argument that Muslims are a bad fit.

Rabbi Cooper writes:

There is one other gaping hole in the leadership of the EU: 70 years after the Shoah, rabid anti-Semitism and hate for the Jewish state infect an estimated 150 million Europeans. Seven decades after the defeat of Nazism, European governments and nongovernmental organizations have been silent over the ethnic cleansing, murder and serial rape of tens of thousands of Christians and other minorities across the Middle East.

No group likes to comes to terms with its distasteful past. I don’t recall much of an effort in Jewish life to come to terms with the millions of Jews who supported communism. Jews played a big role in carrying out Stalin’s genocides. All of the Americans who illegally passed nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union to build their first bomb were Jews.

I’m not listing this off to say that Jews are rotten. Jews, like all peoples, have good and bad in their history. I just don’t understand how this rabbi gets away with bashing the goyim for acting as Israel does with unwanted refugees. Rabbi Cooper rips Europe for not coming to terms with the Holocaust but he never says a peep about Jews not coming to terms with the genocides they helped carry out for Joseph Stalin.

Aiming for Clarity writes:

Let’s take a sort-of metrics-based analysis. I worry that the author of this thesis – Dr. Peter Hammond, who wrote “Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat”- may be/ is a biggot. But it’s hard to argue with these numbers:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and ***ya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

Posted in Christianity, Diversity, Immigration, Islam, Israel, R. Abraham Cooper, Race | Comments Off

Oil and the Business of Terror

Posted on September 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

A friend has published a new book and he tells me: I would like to invite you to read my new paper that tries to answer a question that has bothered me since September 11th, 2001. The question is “why?” Why did we respond to that attack with a war that was unnecessary and disastrously executed? Why are we on the verge of going back to war in that region? No explanation I have read makes any sense.
In my analysis, the war and its aftermath were driven by forces intent on manipulating the price of crude oil, the world’s most lucrative commodity. This is not a new idea, but I believe I have connected a few more dots than others.
Though the story is complicated, my paper is based on four simple, but seldom discussed facts:
• Oil is a commodity whose price goes up when there is a shortage or fear of a future shortage.
• Terror violence and instability in oil producing countries tends to raise the price of crude oil by taking oil production offline or creating fear that supplies will be disrupted in the future.
• The higher the price of crude oil, the more money the Saudi Royal Family, the Emir of Qatar and others earn from oil production.
• Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, which benefit from terror-related oil price increases are the same entities who fund the terror groups that are sowing the shortage-causing mayhem.
Terrorism is part of the oil industry business model. Oil companies and Wall Street firms profit passively, but I suspect knowingly, from carnage that creates artificial oil shortages. The Bush and Obama White Houses seem to have played the role of enabler, helping their biggest donors earn huge profits regardless of the cost in American lives.

Posted in Terror | Comments Off

William F. Buckley’s Quest For Respectability

Posted on September 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Paul Gottfried writes: In a commentary, “Golden Days,” commemorating the 50th anniversary of National Review, Jonah Goldberg describes how his magazine’s founder dealt with ideological dissent:

“Buckley employed intellectual ruthlessness and relentless personal charm to keep that which is good about libertarianism, what we have come to call “social conservatism,” and what was necessary about anti-Communism in the movement. This meant throwing friends and allies off the bus from time to time. The Randians, the Rothbardian anarchists and isolationists, the Birchers, the anti-Semites, the me-too Republicans: all of these groups in various combinations were purged from the movement and masthead, sometimes painfully, sometimes easily, but always with the ideal of keeping the cause honest and pointed north to the ideal in his compass.[1]”

A few lines later, we learn the ideal that William F. Buckley assigned to his movement existed “only on paper,” that “conservative dogma remains unsettled, and that conservatism remains cleaved ideologically.” Nonetheless, the movement Buckley built was for Goldberg a breathtaking success—and had been achieved with minimal commotion.

E.J. Dionne, in a similar tribute in the Washington Post, NR’s putative adversary, proclaims that Buckley was not only a man of splendid parts but also one who had “determined to rid the right of the wing nuts. He was, to his everlasting credit, the scourge of anti-Semitism that had once infested significant parts of the right.”[2] Dionne blasted the strange conspiracy theories of the John Birch Society, which he applauds Buckley for unmasking. Unfortunately, little truth can be found in most of his remarks and no more than a sliver in Goldberg’s.

The NR staff devoted a special feature on October 19, 1965, to denouncing the Birch Society, but not for being anti-Semitic (of which there was scant evidence). The complaint was the Birchers did not support the war in Vietnam and had given up the struggle against Communism.[3] It’s worth noting that the best man at Buckley’s wedding, Revilo Oliver, was an outspoken anti-Semite, as well as a formidable classicist and Sanskrit scholar.[4] Oliver continued to write for Buckley’s publication well into the 1960s. Most of those expelled from his magazine and from Buckley’s movement were Jewish libertarians, like Ayn Rand, Frank Chodorov, Murray Rothbard and Ron Hamowy.[5] If the movement before Buckley’s interventions had been dominated by “anti-Semites,” his excommunications hardly amounted to a crusade against them. Goldberg’s mentor was especially hard on Jews who opposed his call for an accelerated struggle to overthrow the Soviet Empire. In Rand’s case, he turned against someone who was stridently atheistic.

Even more astonishing, although not likely to be challenged by the liberal-neoconservative media, is Goldberg’s suggestion that purges occurred in the conservative movement only quite rarely. To the contrary, they were frequent; one could say that they shaped the conservative movement.

English historian A.J.P. Taylor once observed, with regard to the Habsburgs, that “countries were episodes in the history of a dynasty.” In a like way, purges were episodes in the journalistic careers of those who led the conservative movement. And these expulsions took place so frequently that it may be helpful to divide them into different periods in accordance with the changing interests of movement elites. The purges did not all take place for the same reason, and identifying this complicated process with “fighting the scourge of anti-Semitism” is to indulge in fantasy.

“Being thrown off the bus” had implications beyond being kept from writing essays for National Review. As the conservative media empire took form, thanks largely to steady infusions of money each year from Australian benefactor Rupert Murdoch, being banned by one of its organs brought huge consequences. Someone banned from Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, or National Review, for example, would not likely be welcome in an affiliated movement publication or be put on FOX News, which enjoys the same sponsorship and represents the same ideology.

There are exceptions to this rule, as seen by the occasional appearance on FOX of Pat Buchanan, someone who is clearly offensive to NR and The Weekly Standard. But this exception may have been allowed because Buchanan is a widely read journalist. His occasional appearance on FOX may also be conditional on his not stirring the pot unduly on a channel run by neoconservatives and the Republican establishment. During his recent TV appearances, Pat (to my knowledge) has never contradicted his host, which may be why he is allowed to maintain his exceptional status.

There may be another reason for this status, namely that Buchanan had been removed from a Democratic rival channel, MSNBC. For years the directors of this channel had provided a berth for a figure of the Old Right; and it featured him on a regular basis, unlike FOX, which only permits Buchanan to participate in its discussions every now and then. Like other members of the Old Right, Buchanan was sent into limbo in the early 1990s for having ticked off Buckley’s esteemed New York friends.[6] A bad enough sin under the old order, this faux pas has proved even costlier under Buckley’s successors. His epigones may be driven even more than their master by desire for acceptance from mainstream journalists. The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, and other movement fixtures have had nothing to do with Buchanan for decades. They have carefully maintained their distance, although Buchanan’s books on politics and international relations have soared on the New York Times bestseller list.

For the less successful and less fortunate, however, being kicked off the bus has usually brought catastrophic results. The campaign of vilification that has accompanied marginalization has usually left its object socially and professionally ruined. Typical targets of this process were the Southern conservative M.E. Bradford and the populist journalist and critic of managerial democracy Samuel T. Francis. The elimination of Bradford as frontrunner for the National Endowment for the Humanities Directorship in 1981 and, 10 years later, the removal of Samuel Francis as the star columnist by the already neoconservative-controlled Washington Times followed a now-familiar course. Those condemned as outcasts by movement leaders suffered repeated journalistic attacks and were accused of being bigots rather than “conservatives.” Liberal journalists joined these campaigns and often seemed to be working in tandem with their neoconservative acquaintances, in order to drive “wing nuts” out of respectable conservatism. Printed assaults against the designated extremists were so devastating that their victims never regained standing as respectable writers.

Speaking as a minor target of such attacks, which operated in my case mostly surreptitiously, I noticed that my adversaries were working doggedly to isolate me. Mine, of course, was not a typical purge. Unlike others who were purged more dramatically, I never left a paper trail on such abrasive issues as Jews in the media. The recent decision of Intercollegiate Studies Institute to sever any connection with me as a writer did not arise because I was thought to be a “racist.” This action was taken because, through my leadership of the HL Mencken Club, I have associated myself with people who stress hereditary cognitive differences.[7] But in the 1980s, I fell out of favor for less ridiculous reasons. I was marginalized merely because I insisted too loudly that generic leftists had been permitted to take over the Right.

I had no illusion when neoconservatives slandered me to the administration at Catholic University of America, which resulted in my being denied a graduate professorship that was about to be offered to me, that the attacks would thereafter stop. After this incident, I was never again allowed to write for “movement conservative” publications. The editors of these, also not incidentally, refuse to review my books; and my name has scarcely appeared in a movement magazine after my rejection at CUA. One of the rare times it has was in David Frum’s wholesale denunciation of the non-aligned Right, “Unpatriotic Conservatives.” Here, he claimed that his friends had done nothing to harm me professionally, let alone to occasion my outbursts; indeed I had fabricated my narrative because I was a troubled person.[8]

My case was exceptional because aside from suggestions that I had taken leave of my senses, there was no campaign waged against me as an “anti-Semite” or “racist.” I held on to an academic post until I retired in 2011, although I might have obtained higher professional prizes, if neoconservatives had not weighed in against me, as I subsequently learned, at other institutions beside CUA. But I cannot claim that I was as badly battered as other exiles.

The more abused victims died within a relatively short time of their humiliation, emotionally as well as professionally crushed. Goldberg’s comment about people in his movement being pushed off the bus only from time to time borders on the puerile. the American Communist Party looked like a band of cloistered monks in comparison to the cannibalistic movement that Buckley founded, and which Goldberg continues to slobber over.

Posted in Conservatives | Comments Off

Germany Doesn’t Want Gypsies

Posted on September 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Germany has been very stingy about granting residency to Balkans refugees, while being generous to Syrians. Why? Because a large number of these Balkans refugees are gypsies, who nobody wants.

* This is a source of constant amazement to me. Europeans are schizophrenic in continuing to bring in the third world masses while absolutely rejecting the Gypsies. It’s like cognitive dissonance, because the Gypsies are poster children for non-assimilation. More than 30 generations in Europe and a lot of them still look the way they did in the homelands. Perfect examples of endogamy and in-group morality. Maybe it’s because they’re from European countries (or EU countries) and so, in the PC hierarchy, they are an ok target for cathartic and public revilement. The government can safely deport a band of swarthy troublemakers for the eyes of the public, while letting in 5 times more under immigration and refugee rules. In truth, Roma immigration from my part of the EU should have been a vaccine which would let Western European countries do a little soul searching about the kind of people they want to let in their countries where the effort at blocking them would be trivial (the third world). It didn’t happen like that and now pent-up frustration with these unopposable policies needs to find other outlets, like the rapidly diminishing White and Eastern European EU migrants (meaning their populations).

* It’s always amusing how the Gypsies never come up when the West waxes poetically about assimilation & multiculturalism.

One of its oldest minorities groups still no better assimilated then in the days of Martin Luther but we’re told this time it’ll be different.

* I can’t really think of anything more terrifying than the concept of an Islamic Germany. This was of course Hitler’s ultimate wet-dream. And no, I’m not talking about a bottom up takeover. What better way for cynical German elites to show how “multicultural” they are than to submit to Islam. What they gain is a total escape from Holocaust / White Guilt. The German spirit is much more in tune with Islam than it is with Christianity.

What a lethal combination the expansionist and martial ideology of Islamic Jihad is when combined with the tenacity, technical prowess, and tactical brilliance of Germans.

If it comes from above, it could happen quite quickly. There is no turning off this spigot of refugees. Already girls are getting raped and being warned to not wear shorts. Soon modest dress will be mandatory but will this really stop the rapes? This crisis will only get worse and under the cover of tolerance and multiculturalism, elites could fundamentally transform Germany into an Islamic state.

Paradoxically, the biggest cheerleaders of multiculturalism, Feminists, Gays, Leftists, and some elements of the Jewish Community, are going to be the first victims of their success in forcing the Islamification of Germany. I wonder just when they will get that first terrible twitch in their stomachs when they realize exactly what they have wrought?

What is about to happen is that everyday Europeans are going to increasingly feel the Islamic heat, fear their daughters being raped, and start fleeing to the United States. But would, for example, a President Trump open the door to these European refugees fleeing Islam? The US may be about to receive more and more multicultural-hating Europeans who want to live free of Islamic domination. And if they come in large enough numbers it could change US demographics!

And so the debate on refugees may very quickly flip as Leftists howl in horror at the sudden whitening of America due to these potential indigenous stock refugees from Europe.

Posted in Germany, Gypsies | Comments Off

Questions about the Hegira to Germany

Posted on September 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

By Steve Sailer

The German chancellor is being celebrated for finally redeeming her subjects’ innate Nazi bloodguilt by inviting into the European Union huge columns of helpless Syrian refugees.

Or at least that’s what you are supposed to think, just as you were supposed to assume the innocence of Michael Brown and the guilt of Haven Monahan.

On the other hand, you may have some questions. Such as, if these are civilian war refugees, where are all the women, children, and elderly? Why are the incoming masses instead so heavily made up of young louts with smartphones? One of my readers, Lot, looked at a half-dozen photographs of the new arrivals and estimated, “Overall, these migrants are more male than the United States Army.”

Posted in Europe, Germany | Comments Off

ROK: Only White Countries Are Expected To Let In Hordes Of Illegal Migrants

Posted on September 9, 2015 by Luke Ford

Chaim Amalek: “30+ years of mindless obedience to cuckservative economic principles (free trade, Reaganomics, etc.) has left us without leaders or a political organization to defend our interests.”

From ROK: The European illegal migrant crisis has “evolved” from epidemic proportions to plain farcical and surreal ones. With the Germans and Austrians opening their front doors to whomever wishes to come and the Prime Minister of Finland now offering his home for so-called refugee settlement in a calculated electoral stunt, Europe’s elites are continuing a very sad tradition of Europe (and, by extension, majority-European America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) being forced to show a tolerance (and overt indulgence) that is never expected anywhere else in the world.

White-majority countries must accommodate millions of foreigners, whether as immigrants, illegal immigrants or genuine refugees, as other non-white countries can pursue objectively and highly ethnocentric immigration policies with absolute impunity. Keen to secure a future voting base that will strangle their conservative or traditionalist enemies and eliminate indigenous European cultures, socialists, other leftists, and SJWs see national or supranational borders such as those of the EU as bigoted and oppressive demarcations, instead of sensible boundaries that make able government and local prosperity (plus intra-European cultural diversity) possible.

Any problem found outside Europe is paradoxically perceived as both Europe’s problem and Europe’s responsibility to fix.

Posted in Europe, Whites | Comments Off

Understanding Women

Posted on September 8, 2015 by Luke Ford

Highlights from Chateau Heartiste:

* “Women basically want a monopoly on judgement. She can judge reject men as she chooses, but men are not free to reject/judge her or her choices, ever.”

* “If you are the average man — average height, employed, no major physical or emotional deformities, able to hold a conversation without shitting your pants, don’t know what LARP means, can refrain from obsessively counting toothpicks that fall on the floor — then you won’t need game, or very much game as the term is commonly understood, to fall ass-backwards into long term relationships with plain janes, facial mediocrities, or chubsters (who, note, constitute the majority of American womanhood, and thus fall right in the middle of the fat (heh) part of the bell curve).”

* “The rationalization hamster is an analogy for the thought processes used by women to turn bad behavior and bad decisions into acceptable ones to herself and her friends. When a woman makes a bad decision, the hamster spins in its wheel (the woman’s thinking) and creates some type of acceptable reasons for that bad decision. The crazier the decision, the faster the hamster must spin in order to successfully rationalize away the insanity”

* “The Hamster is basically a condescending term applied by PUAs to women- it essentially means false rationalization. The hamster runs on its wheel to churn up excuses and allows its owner to side-step responsibility.”

* “Feminists, and women more generally, hate the idea of judgment and of consequences for their actions. They want to slut it up, take it slow, hook up, hang out, drag it out, do the woo, and try a bunch of different stuff without the judgment of men or other women cramping their uteri, and without worrying about the consequences which might ensue as a result of their panoply of choices. This is what is known in the literature as a fantasyland: a wonderful place in the puffy white clouds where human nature doesn’t exist and actions don’t cause reactions, except those reactions that the feminist dearly desires, which desire is subject to change at any given moment depending on the feminist’s whim.”

* “I have never met a slut who didn’t have those creepy, dead, black orbs for eyes. The voice, too, gives it away. Sluts tend to speak with the monotonic cadence of men, growly and inappropriately assertive, like someone who has long nursed a chip on the shoulder.”

* How many penises does she have to straddle to get to know herself? Does the penis imbue some sort of special “consciousness raising” enlightenment once it has parted the labia? Should high school guidance counselors tell graduating girls to hop on a cock for career advice? I bet Clark has no trouble, being a member in good standing of the feminist cooperative, explaining to her acolytes that women require penetration by erect penises to discover the strong goddess inside them.

Now, personally, I think that a good rogering does help clear a woman’s head, but I’m not sure feminists would be happy to hear that from me…

Feminists, and women more generally, hate the idea of judgment and of consequences for their actions. They want to slut it up, take it slow, hook up, hang out, drag it out, do the woo, and try a bunch of different stuff without the judgment of men or other women cramping their uteri, and without worrying about the consequences which might ensue as a result of their panoply of choices. This is what is known in the literature as a fantasyland: a wonderful place in the puffy white clouds where human nature doesn’t exist and actions don’t cause reactions, except those reactions that the feminist dearly desires, which desire is subject to change at any given moment depending on the feminist’s whim.

But reality, so ugly in its clunking machinery, has a different plan for such utopian fruitcakes. Women *will* gossip unfavorably about sluts because those sluts represent a mating threat to their interests. Men *will* push for sex faster, and avoid commitment more studiously, with women they perceive as slutty. Sluts really *do* have tells that experienced men can clue in on. Cockteasers really *do* risk losing alpha males if they drag out the waiting period for sex too long. Aging, unfeminine spinsters with hairy chins and cheese grater attitudes really *will* have to settle for less desirable men than they could have gotten when they were younger, better looking and more docile. And hamsters really *will* spin their wheels more feverishly the higher the pile of delusional self-medicating lies grows.

Why do feminists assert nonsense that intimacy is terrifying to men? Answer: it’s a female-friendly response that explains in elaborate mental calligraphy why they can’t keep a man around for more than a few ruttings, conveniently sidestepping the role that their physical unattractiveness might play.

Men are terrified of large, charging predators, like bears or lions or drunk fat chicks. They are not terrified of showering your overworked vagina with their warm seed. Get some perspective, will ya?

Allow me to cut a serrated swath through this post-gender, social constructivist swamp muck. Amanjaw Marcuntte and her ilk absolutely hate men in the abstract and loathe unrestricted male desire. They work tirelessly for a world, however ultimately fruitless the endeavor, where female sexuality is free to roam wild and unjudgeable and male sexuality is straitjacketed, regulated, restricted, demonized, ridiculed and made obedient through law or eunuch alliance to female, particularly feminist, caprice. This is modern, critical theory feminism in a desiccated ovum. It’s a farce, but the bigger joke is that media organs happily provide advocates of this farce a forum to dazzle their awomen choruses.

Her’s a little slice of truth… just a little mind you, enough to qualify as hope and change but not so much to entice pointing and sputtering… for the Slate and Salon crowds and the Clark-Flory-Hamster-Hi-I’m-A-Useless-Self-Gratifying-Hyphen contingent:

There is no difference between hookup men and “for-real” men. The men you skanky, aging broads want “for real” are the hookup men who weren’t interested in the same thing you wanted back when you had more to offer. So you dropped your standards and unilaterally declared the more pliable men willing to play by your newly-discovered “traditional cougar courtship” rules the “for-real” men you claim you always desired.

That hatetalk is drawn from real world observation. Mine, and the collected wisdom of millions of men like me. Now, if you don’t like common sense derived from real world observation, then you can always turn to science, which has a funny habit of frequently confirming what we can all see with our lying eyes, and of debunking cherished feminist narratives.

“Under the hormonal influence of ovulation, women delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” Durante said. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.” […]

“When asked about what kind of father the sexy bad boy would make if he were to have children with another woman, women were quick to point out the bad boy’s shortcomings,” said Durante. “But when it came to their own child, ovulating women believed that the charismatic and adventurous cad would be a great father to their kids.”

“While this psychological distortion could be setting some women up to choose partners who are better suited to be short-term mates, missing a mating opportunity with a sexy cad might be too costly for some women to pass up,” said Durante. “After all, you never know if he could be the ‘one.’”

If you didn’t get that, what it means is that women want their alpha hookups to turn into “for-real” men, but, unlike Clark’s assertion that she’s the one making the choice in which men she considers “for-real” dates, it’s actually the men (coupled with her desperation fueled by her rapidly closing attractiveness window) who are indirectly deciding for her which of them she’ll have to settle with in happily “for-realness” after.

Yes, the hookup jerks chicks love are also the jerks chicks wish would stop dicking around and CHOO CHOO CHOOSE them.

* The flood of Western women into the workforce has had, and will continue to have, massive, heretofore unexamined in an honest way, unintended downstream and upstream effects on social and sexual organization. It was practically preordained. When you fuck with the god of biomechanics, expect uncontrollable consequences to belch forth from the depths and rake at your legs dragging you into its disorienting hellhouse. This was never going to be a simple matter of giving upper class, bored housewives something to do. Female economic self-sufficiency rivals the Pill, abortion, easy divorce and alternative male sexual outlets for the acid bath demolecularization potential each has on the standard model of growth industry civilization.

If the result of feminism, equalism (aka anti-white male “progressivism”) and all these other little earthquakes rattling the very foundation of the Western sexual market is to make various sectors of the economy more risk averse and more status whoring, and thus more pleasing to women’s innate preference for a hidebound, exclusive aristocracy and genteel “makework” in service to the lords, and less friendly to the openness, candor, effrontery, class shuffling and innovation that is the preference of men seeking to make a mark in the world, then we really have to ask ourselves what the end game will look like. Because, right now, the accumulating signs do not point to a happy future.

Executive summary:

Credentialism stifles innovation and risk-taking, and solidifies a de facto corporate, academia and government aristocracy preferred by women. Credentialism is a natural outgrowth of feminism and equalism, which themselves are natural outgrowths of the feminine sensibility. The root of these twin evil ideologies must be destroyed and the ground upon which they grow salted before the West can begin an era of renewal that returns it to the eternal principles enshrined by the gods of the copybook headings.

* Most girls avoid inciting confrontation. But some girls are constitutionally nasty. All girls can occasionally be nasty if they are pushed hard enough (or PMSing hard enough). American girls are getting manlier and, hence, nastier, so the occasions you will encounter nastiness from a girl in America and her Western satellites are likely increasing in frequency.

Some things a nasty bitch will utter are so grating you feel impelled to haul back and send her to the moon. “Get lost” is one of those things. Of course, you don’t want to do this. Not only will it result in a white knight brigade gang-tackling you in hopes of receiving a pat on the back from some fat hog in flip-flops, it will kill your pickup momentum.

The best answer to female nastiness is calm. As long as your demeanor is calm and you look unflustered, you will knock a nasty cunt off her game plan. She’s expecting one reaction; you’re giving her another.

Calmness is essentially non-reactiveness. When you react, you accede, implicitly or explicitly, to your antagonist’s frame. When you react, you confess defensive insecurity, even if objectively you are not, because perception is all that matters in seduction. Defensiveness is the biggest game-killer, outside of supplication. If you ever observe naturals or experienced players hitting on women, one thing you’ll notice they all have in common is a complete and total lack of defensiveness or supplication. The non-neediness and self-certainty of the inveterate player are so ingrained that he couldn’t be otherwise if he tried.

So, to sum up, when you encounter shocking nastiness from a girl:

1. Stay calm
2. Don’t react
3. Announce your preferred intention

Number 1 is very hard to do if you are a young man full of impulsivity and heavy balls. But it comes with practice. Hot emotions can be corralled and channeled, just like yogis can train themselves to focus inwardly and feel less pain.

Number 2 can be mastered simply by willing yourself to pause for a second or two in mental silence before responding to a girl who has attempted to get under your skin. The pause of alphaness is a powerful technique, and will help you gather your thoughts and keep a poker face. It is also very unsettling to your opponent.

Number 3 is reframing. This is where you apply the proper tension with the words you choose to relay to her. A substitution of her tacit demands with your alternative preference implies your indifference and perhaps mild annoyance. You are not angry or spiteful. You are condescending.

* Contrary to the delusional claims of feminists and their fellow travelers in the degenerate freak mafia, there has never been a time in history when women weren’t physically objectified, by either women themselves or by men. Objectification of the female form is the manifest nature of sexual selection. Shaking a fist at it and whining for it to change on feminist blogs is akin to forming an advocacy group for the reversal of the earth’s orbit. Except for some minor fluctuations at the margins, these timeless truths of human sexual preference are unchanging. Wailing for the ghost of Rubens won’t spare the resentful, rump-faced rejects from the unalterable truth that a fatopia, or a lawyercunttopia, or a manjawtopia, or a bigfatbeardedfeministtopia has never existed in modern human history, and likely hasn’t long before that. Fat, ugly, unfeminine, and/or older women were never in demand and never considered desirable by men or women with skin in the game…

Beauty is objective. Beauty is measurable. Beauty abides universal standards. Beauty is an ironclad cosmic law that can’t be wished into irrelevance. Beauty is the golden ratio that holds illimitable dominion over all.

* Female messiness — of her bedroom, her bathroom, her car, her finances, her thoughts — is a leading indicator of sexual looseness. Beam with expectant joy and grab your tumescent pride when you step into a girl’s roomful of clutter, because you, my friend, are about to rocket down orgasmic highways of limitless pleasure.

…And messy girls are high cheating risks. If she can’t be bothered to care about her living space, she won’t be bothered to care about pleasing you. She will be as sexually impulsive as she is spatially impulsive. A scatterbrained woman has a scatterbrained vagina.

* Men of all stations in life have to deal with sexual rejection more often than do women, and as such they develop a strong shell that protects their egos and allows them to hunt another day, instead of curling into the fetal position and waiting for death, or the next episode of “The New Normal”. Women have never developed this purposeful shell, this strength of self-possession, and their inability to handle unambiguous rejection with dignity testifies to their underlying emotional and ego weakness. Men who get nervous at the thought of approaching women would do well to keep this in mind: you are far better equipped than your prey to surmount a temporary setback. Your masculine detachment is a gift. Take pride in it. The qualities that every societal siren blares that you should be ashamed of are those very qualities that will serve you so well.

* There’s a reason many societies attempt to limit the exposure of wives to too many single men. Women’s hypergamy and sexuality don’t just turn off the moment a marital contract is signed, or a meaningful eye-gaze discussing dating exclusivity is shared. If your male friends are very alpha, very charming, and/or very flirtatious, especially relative to your own talents, then you are staring into the maw of an excited vagina aroused by the scent of cock in the water.

Alpha male friends (AMF) can be more fearsome sexual market competitors than alpha male strangers (AMOG). The comfort of acquaintance pacifies the female urge to caution, and an alpha male friend whose bond of loyalty is weak will pose a bigger threat than some random guy hitting on your girlfriend. A simulacrum of familiarity coupled with a constant state of self-enforced denial is rocket fuel for female fantasy.

Plus, think back to the ancestral environment, and realize that the norm for much of human history has been small tribes interacting only occasionally with outside tribes. In this environment, the men that women would most likely cheat with would know on some personal level the male partners of such women…

Sadly, female hypergamy can only be chained so long as it doesn’t grow too strong in the presence of a much higher value male. Your beloved will jump the bones of a Hollywood celebrity if given a real chance for it, no matter how much she sincerely loves you. And I suspect a lot of you tradcon loyal hubbies with visions of beatific virtue dancing in your heads would jam the hammer in Emma Stone’s toolbox if she backed up into you…

Posted in Adultery, Dating, Feminism, Marriage, Sex | Comments Off

The Deep State

Posted on September 8, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* There’s probably some behind-the-scenes propaganda campaign at work here. The media, politicians, oligarchs, and Deep Staters work very closely together to mount sustained propaganda campaigns.

I remember back when the Serbians were supposedly ethnically cleansing the Kosovars in 1999, the television channels and papers kept showing up the same image of a refugee woman over and over again. It was bizarre how often she kept appearing. So much so that someone mentioned it on one of the major cable networks.

If anyone questions whether propaganda campaigns ever occur, I’d point at the Iraq War debate. Not only did the media not challenge even the most blatant lies told by the govt (Saddam did 9/11), but some media outlets (New York Times, Fox News) even created their own unique propaganda.

* Germany looks at this as a “reverse Holocaust”. They can finally remove the indelible stain by greeting the trainloads of miserable masses with teddy bears instead of barbed wire. Sending large sums of money to Greeks via electronic transfer just doesn’t offer the same opportunity for moral preening. Plus Greeks are Christians and members of the EU, so their victim status is highly suspect.

* The connection of the migrant flood with holocaust imagery seems to be very popular with American commentators. So to expunge their “indelible” genetic guilt (how would that even be possible if it’s “indelible”?), it is the consensus that Germans have to embrace their own demise with enthusiasm.

* There is a obvious media campaign for the refugees bu you want to know the real reason behind it?

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was the father of the European Union and he wrote this book in the 1920s:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nikolaus_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

“In his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), he 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.”

“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.”

* That reminds me that Arabs generally have a positive image of Germany, not least because of the way the Germans rid their country of Jews (though they generally don’t believe in the Holocaust.)

There’s more to it than than that though: Germany was for centuries a weak and divided nation, frequently invaded, occupied and humiliated by outsiders, which though its own efforts drove out foreigners, achieved national unity and became a great power. The Arabs identify with this and see it as an example to emulate.

* This whole refugee circus is a stunning slap in the face to actual European youth who are unemployed. As the economic powerhouse, Germany could do something about youth unemployment rates above 50% in Spain and Greece, and above 20% in many European countries, including Sweden. This episode really does close the door (if it wasn’t already) on any pan-European solidarity. The dream is over, Europeans need to admit this and support the nationalist parties who have been proven right again and again.

* I am completely stunned to witness the level of suicidal inanity on display in Europe. Germans rushing out with gifts to welcome the invaders who will murder, plunder, and rape them for their own amusement? I always knew that this, in essence, was buried in all the sentimental tripe of multiculturalism, but I was still unprepared to see it manifest in such melodramatic extremes.

The Germans are making a huge mistake. I have experience with these people; I’ve worked around denizens of the Middle East and Africa before, and I can tell you that a more unscrupulous horde of petty cutthroats has never existed. They would be no match at all for an aroused Western force, but a repressed and romantic retinue of German idealists will experience a living hell at their hands. What would it take to get it through Germany’s collective head that these “refugees” will never respect or understand those occidental niceties with which they are welcomed? That they are incapable of appreciating the self-deference and self-command that allows a Westerner to ironically and even gleefully give place to another’s culture, and that they will never return the gesture in kind?

I can only hope that Germany reverts to its historic norm and, after succumbing to abject humiliation, suddenly defends itself with great fury.

* Arabs are just heavily into machismo.
Your typical Lebanese is example enough of that.

What on earth is more macho than the Wehrmacht, the Nuremberg rallies, the uniforms, the parades, the military hardware, and taking on the entire world?

* This is the problem with expecting people to feel too much remorse for their history. I once felt that the Japanese were assholes for not owning up to their actions during World War II. Now I get it. Their ancestors did bad things. So what? We all have ancestors who did bad things.

You can learn too much from history. Guilt is being used as a political weapon, and it is often being used by people with far greater atrocities in their past than those made to feel guilty. The past (and present, and future) of Africa and of Islamic countries is one long story of oppression and bloodshed. What the hell does Germany have to do with it? Nothing.

* I hope Germany enjoys its decision to replace their historic high-achieving minority population with their dysfunctional hillbilly cousins. The former was native to the land for over a millennium and responsible for some of the nation’s greatest recent achievements — the latter are still boinking goats.

* But they were able to take on the entire world because of the opposite of machismo- they could rely on each other. In the psychology experiment called the dictator game, German children gave away half their money . The Germans will not break ranks, that is why after D day the Allies found they could not break through as expected, and Germans had to be blasted out of their positions by heavy artillery. Yes in WW that cohesion meant they were successfully aggressive , but their humanitarianism is also cohesive. Germany is the most formidable country in the world, and they are smashing stomping and destroying the immigration policies of the whole of Europe . Hungary and Romania are being told they do not have the right to disagree with humanitarian policies being led by German decisions, and must obey without argument or comment.

* Deutsche Welle reported that the German government was insisting that all the other European countries share the burden and take in large numbers of these Middle Easterners even against their will. The German government has helped create this crisis by holding out incentives to the migrants that if they complete the obstacle course of passing through other countries they’ll be rewarded. They are trashing the rest of Europe. They destroyed much of Europe before and now they’re doing it again today by other means. The recent depictions of Merkel with a Hitler mustache are not so far off the mark after all. That government needs to go.

* I was going to raise the issue of the Turks admitted to work in Germany back in the 60′s and 70′s. I assume they have all been assimilated. (Where is that sarcasm punctuation mark when I need it?) I seem to recall one of the former German Prime Ministers admitting, after he left office of course, that it was a big mistake to admit Turks to solve the labor shortage back then, but I can’t find those remarks. Does that ring a bell with anyone?

* When will the financial markets reflect the effects of immigration on the value of European companies?

Consider this scenario:

1. Millions of immigrants a year pour into Europe, especially Germany, from third-world countries, and there is no end in sight. Indeed, the flow increases as the immigration routes become well-established. (Regular bus, rail, and sea service.)

2. Large slums become established in major European cities. Riots become routine. Angry leaders emerge in the immigrant community decrying mistreatment. Claims that the immigrants have a historic right to be in Europe and to govern themselves become widespread. Religious violence increases as fiery Islamic militants bring the fight to European soil big time.

3. Financial analysts quietly begin to incorporate immigration factors into their projections, such as (a) lower immigrant skill levels, (b) the drag on the economy from increased social spending, and most importantly, (c) the possibility that Europe’s historically productive institutions and culture will devolve into less productive third-world institutions and cultures.

Financial analysts could easily start applying discounts of 10% to 50% on European companies to reflect the possibility that Europe will become Brazil or Syria in the not-too-distant future. Financial analysts will be the first to unsentimentally evaluate the effects of immigration. Imagine the effect on the markets of an oil refinery being blown up by the newcomers.

Maybe if the stock market craters, Merkel and other European leaders will begin to care. Politicians are extremely sensitive to stock market jitters, and they care very much about what worries investors.

Since financial markets are forward-looking, maybe this will happen soon. (If we are lucky.)

This may already be happening. Perhaps some of the recent drop in European stock prices was due to immigration concerns.

Posted in Germany, Immigration | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: Obama Administration Penalizes Nebraska Slaughterhouse for Trying to Avoid Hiring Illegal Aliens

Posted on September 8, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* So, just to recap:

1) It’s a crime to hire an illegal alien.
2) It’s also a crime to verify that a potential hire is not an illegal alien.

I tip my hat to whoever thought this one up.

* Obama is not on the side of America. A job opening at Nebraska Beef will be known in Tegucigalpa before it is known in South Sioux City which is why almost all the job ‘creation’ Obama brags about have gone to immigrants and not American citizens since he took office. Companies no longer have to advertise for open positions as they are filled as they become available through immigrant employee word of mouth networks. This type of discrimination is the REAL problem not the faux discrimination the Administration looks to prevent. An unemployed 2o something black American has no chance of applying for a job if he never learns that their is a job available to apply for.

Then there is the H-1b visa scandal. Microsoft or IBM can announce on Monday they will be letting five or ten thousand employees go and on Tuesday say they can’t find anyone in the US with the skills they need to fill positions at their company yet the ‘right person’ somehow exists in Mumbai even though that person has zero work experience.

* Checked out the demographics of Sioux City high schools (best way to see into the future). All but one is around 50% white and ~30-45% Hispanic. Knowing the area somewhat long ago, I would imagine that back in the 80s, those numbers were closer to ~80% white (maybe higher in many of the schools) and less than 10% Hispanic.

Diversity comes to the Heartland.

I’m sure that the whites (and blacks) of the area couldn’t be more thrilled. I for one welcome our new Hispanic overlords.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. There’s something seriously f@#$*d-up with whites. A large chunk of our people welcome this (witness the Germans handing out donuts and coffee at German train stations to their replacements) while the slight majority of whites grumble quietly and vote for a party that does absolutely nothing to stem the tide – indeed, promotes it.

As an HBDer, I just have to assume that we were breed for an environment that no longer exists and that we’re on our way out genetically. As a father with daughters, I’m not exactly pleased. The best that I can do is put some pride for their people in their hearts, but I’m fighting our entire society so I’m a bit outgunned.

* Hiring illegal aliens and voter fraud / voting rights, the two of the raison d’etre for motivating black and Hispanic voters, both revolve around the inability to accurately identify someone’s identity. As a technical problem this is very easy to fix by mandating our government only using and issuing tamper proof, machine readable, bio-metric ID. The technology keeps getting better and better but we are still having this silly argument with the same people who keep dragging their feet.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

How China Could Take Over Australia

Posted on September 7, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I’ve argued in the past that if I were running China’s foreign and military policy I’d load up several old cargo tankers with assorted Chinese, wait for a Labor/Greens government in Oz, and send them all here. All without official approval of course.

Have a media campaign with much hand wringing about not knowing where the tankers are departing from nor who is controlling it, saying the situation is out of control and you’re at a loss to stop it.

Have a few refugee lawyers in Oz on the payroll, probably not even necessary to do that, they do it pro bono as the Oz state federal govt pays them anyway, and assist them with media handouts to declare how evil China is and the hellhole these poor refugees are escaping.

It’d be just like the first fleets to Oz, except all from China.

It would not take long till Oz was overcome with Chinese and those stupid Defence White Papers we keep putting out wouldn’t be worth a tinker’s cuss. Furthermore, our entire media would praise this massive tide of Chinese refugees, Murdoch saying what a boon it is for our trade relations, Labor locking in their vote, and the Liberals cock a hoop about the rise in demand for property development.

I reckon Russia should do the same. Send them in from Chechnya and all their trouble spots. It’s a win-win for China and Russia. No need for war when they can simply invade us peacefully, furthermore, China at least gets to solve its overpopulation problem, and get the farming land and minerals it needs gratis.

* You are labouring under the false assumption that the left is motivated out of a misdirected sympathy whereas all evidence demonstrates that they are motivated out of a spite towards White Australia and an overwhelming hatred such that they want to see us overwhelmed.

Were they motivated out of sympathy then Sarah Hanson-Young would not have dismissed all the drownings under Labor as “Tragedies happen, accidents happen.” Contrast that attitude with her party now demanding we take 20,000 refugees from Syria over and above the annual refugee intake and hand over $150 million to be directed to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Were they motivated out of sympathy they would be banging the drum loudly about Irian Jaya and demanding an intervention on their behalf against Indonesia. Were they motivated out of sympathy they would demand that Christians be the target for refugee intake as it is the Christians who are being slaughtered by ISIS, but, they didn’t, they aren’t, and they won’t, because the point of the exercise is to spite us and overwhelm us with whatever it is we dislike.

Where was Bill Shorten’s compassion before that photo of the drowned Muslim boy whose father took him from safety in Turkey to Europe all for the cause of his own dentistry? Now he demands we take 10,000 refugees over and above the already outrageously high intake and that we lay out $100 million for no apparent reason. Why 10,000? Why $100 million? Because it’s a round figure. Because it’s symbolic. It looks huge, it is huge, it wedges the Liberals. And that’s what counts.

Were I running the Chinese cargo carrier fleet invasions I’d load up a few boats with Tibetans and Uighurs and deliberately hole them just outside Christmas Island so as to create a massive death toll and opportunity for the Labor/Greens to get on their soapbox denouncing us as racists and declaring the waves of boats an emergency where all rational thought must be thrown out the window and the tide of boats be taken in uncritically. Again, a two for the price of one solution. China gets to kill off its unwanted and use them as battering ram for invasion.

And don’t be confused that the Liberals wouldn’t be just as bad. The sainted neocon Howard increased our immigration take to record levels under his watch, a level which continues to this day. Howard’s electorate of Bennelong has one of the highest populations of ethnic Chinese in Australia. Abbott himself, the staunch “shit happens”, so called alpha, has made speech after speech declaring that immigrants make the best Australians. Liberal members of parliament have their own electorates to service and ensure block votes, just as the likes of Laundy have their electorates to stuff full with Muslims.

Only a crank would think that anything our politicians and media promote is driven from a genuine heart chock-full with sympathy and compassion; those concepts are cynical representations of themselves deliberately manipulated to make us feel ashamed, them righteous, and to drive a stake through the homogeneity of the nation.

A mass Chinese exodus would be a godsend for them all.

* Unless a people have an EXPLICIT consciousness about racial, national, historical, and cultural identity/heritage, they will fall under the sway of whatever happens to be fashionable and/or ‘correct’.

Europeans ARE European but dissuaded from having a proud European identity.

So, their main mindset is about being ‘anti-racist’, homo-worshiping, Holocaust-commemorating, feminist, globalist, etc. or whatever is taught in schools and disseminated by media.

That is not enough to preserve and sustain a people.

It is not enough to be European. One must think and feel European.

Likewise, it isn’t enough to be a wolf. One must feel wolfish to fight off the enemy.

A wolf that doesn’t feel wolfish has no reason to fight for its wolfishness.

* The Europeans, especially the Brits, have well-trained forces. I’d venture to say the British Army man for man is better trained than the US Army. If they wanted to repel the immivasion, it would be defeated instantly. But no one is coming to Europe with guns, jet fighters or tanks. The trouble is that modern, civilized Europeans, and Americans for that matter, cannot deal with someone who invades without weapons. If the Arabs were storming into Europe with AKMs, the Euros would have an easier time because there would be no moral dilemma.

If the Europeans had been spending 5% of GDP on their military forces for decades, they’d still have the same problem they do today. If they are not going to pull the trigger with the high-tech equipment they already have, they wouldn’t do it if they had a force the size of the US DoD. And even Uncle Sam, with his giant DoD, is unable to bring himself to use that force along our Southern Border.

It is not the size or lack of size of the US or NATO forces that is the problem. It is the will to use them. I think the people of Europe and the US should be asking what Madeleine Albright asked 16 plus years ago, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

* The EU is being organised as one country, which if you can get inside you can go where you like, hence is the problem. The countries of the EU that are the landfall countries can pass the buck by letting the migrants pass through. If for instance Italy could not get rid of these migrants because of the common European lack of border checks Italy would simply have dealt with the problem by rejecting their claim for asylum. Same day service.

Read Mearsheimer, Nato is for the purpose of controlling European nationalism. In the name of Western cilvilisation and values, the national defence forces will be called in to bomb any of their own people trying to organise militarily against the immigrant occupation. Raspail may be proved prescient about this too in due course. You can bet the German army would be happy to deal with any European aborigines who try to fight off the invasion.

Posted in Australia, China | Comments Off