.

.
Library of Professor Richard A. Macksey in Baltimore

POSTS BY SUBJECT

Labels

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

The Irish Savant : 'Multicultural society' is an oxymoron



'Multicultural society' is an oxymoron

The term 'multicultural society' is an oxymoron for the simple reason that being multicultural prevents its being a society as commonly understood. Instead what you get is a range of 'cultures' incompatible with one another to a greater or lesser degree. The resultant societal pathologies, which should have been apparent to anyone with a functioning brain cell, have been identified in a number of research studies like this one.

One of the basic requirement of any functioning society, and one crippled by multiculturalism, is the impartial administration of justice under a system of laws. This system inevitably degenerates into an ethnic and/or religious zero sum game geared towards ensuring that 'our guy' gets, not justice, but the benefit of any verdicts. Things got so bad in the USA that the Supreme Court felt compelled to create special rules for jury selection (the Batson Challenge). This in turn was driven by the repeated failures of blacks to convict a brudda even when the prosecution's evidence was overwhelming. Think O.J. Simpson and Curtis Vance.

In Wales we had the extraordinary case in which two footballers had sex with an inebriated waitress. They said it was consensual, she said it was not. Whatever. The extraordinary thing was that both admitted doing exactly the same thing to/with the girl yet the White guy was convicted (got five years jail) and the black one acquitted.  You see all it takes is a couple of jurors to vote against conviction for the defendant to go free.

And it's going to get worse in Britain as the pathology extends from juries to the Crown Prosecution Service itself which is getting taken over by immigrants from Third World cultures.......where Traditional Justice rules. For example in Pakistan, where many top CPS executives originated, a religious or tribal leader can, completely on his own initiative, order a woman to be punished by means of gang rape or have a Christian killed for 'insulting the Prophet'.  And now this guy's sons and cousins have taken over huge swathes of Britain's justice system.

Yes, The Long March Through The Institutions is proceeding at a brisk pace.
 

The Irish Savant : I solve a mystery for Fred Reed



I solve a mystery for Fred Reed

I'm sure that many of you read Fred Reed. Understandably, as Fred is a fine writer, experienced and highly intelligent. Having spent many years as a police reporter his take on the black undertow is searing and unsparing. Which explains why in this article he despairs at the degree of power wielded by such an undeserving and small minority.


"It is curious that blacks, the least educated thirteen percent of the population, the least productive, most criminal, and most dependent on governmental charity, should dominate national politics. Yet they do. Virtually everything revolves around what blacks want, demand, do, or can’t do.  Blacks control what you can say to your own children in your own home."

"Courses of instruction in the schools, academic rigor, codes of dress, rules regarding unceasing obscenity, all must be set to suit them, as must be examinations for promotion in fire departments, the military, and police forces. Blacks must be admitted to universities for which they are not remotely qualified, where departments of Black Studies must be established to please them. Corporate work forces, federal departments, and elite high-schools must be judged not on whether they perform their functions but on whether they have the right number of blacks. Obama was elected because he was black: an equally unqualified and negligible white pol would have had no chance. He is now fiercely pushing the most profound transformation of America ever attempted, by opening the floodgates to immigration from the south."


Isn't that powerful stuff?

He ends despairingly with "things that ought to be unbelievable, and once were, have become routine."

And my God, that is the truth.

But the article, excellent though it is, suffers from an extraordinary omission. You see Fred metaphorically throws his hands in the air in complete bafflement at the fundamental question of how 'the unbelievable has become routine'. In fact the explanation is there as plain as a pikestaff .......for anyone who wants to see it.   You see Fred, all of this unbelievable stuff becoming routine didn't just happen, or happen overnight. The situation that had prevailed in the former Confederacy States (and in reality most of the others as well) until about the middle of the last century was the natural order whereby a low intelligence, violent and largely indolent racial minority were kept at arms length from Whites, miscegenation carried punitive social repercussions and indulgence of their lawless and violent nature guaranteed swift and severe retribution.

Similar dispensations have applied throughout the world since the dawn of man, simply reflecting the natural order. And you defy the natural order at your peril..... as most White Americans of the time understood at the deepest visceral level.  So how then did blacks come to rule over us and the unbelievable become routine? It was one hell of a project and arguably one that had never been successfully undertaken before. It was multi-faceted and required a carefully co-ordinated set of self-reinforcing measures developed by a specialised Project Team

First item on the plan was 'Civil Rights' for blacks which set out with a number of seemingly reasonable proposals (who could object to nice Mrs. Parks moving up the bus?) but had as its ultimate objective the rendering of blacks impervious to criticism and judged on different criteria. Towards this end the Project Team set up a number of key implementation bodies such as the NAACP and ACLU, fronted by a few token blacks for the optics. So now blacks could go anywhere and any time.  Problem was of course that the closer blacks got to Whites the less Whites came to like them.  Which then gave rise to the most audacious element of all: The creation, a la Orwell, of a parallel universe, one where fact was fiction, war was peace. And black was white.

Thus academia developed bogus 'equality' theories of race, gender and culture, rewrote history to downplay the civilisational role of Whites and to overplay their alleged genocide and exploitation of the noble savages. Full spectrum media output reinforced these theories.  Thus blacks had to be presented as intelligent, kind, honest....and horribly done down by Evil Whitey.  The ultimate target was the White Male, the embodiment of The Enemy. He had to be traduced, belittled, discriminated against through Affirmative Action, impoverished in marriage, emasculated by feminism, ultimately reduced to a hollowed-out husk ashamed of what he was and what his ancestors had been. But that still wasn't enough. The screaming cognitive dissonance needed legislative enforcement to repel reality.  Hence the introduction of a battery of 'hate' and 'anti-discrimination' laws aimed exclusively at Whites and enforced by politicised activist Federal judges.

So Fred, that's really how the blacks came to power. The achievement of inducing the greatest civilisation the world has seen to destroy itself may appear magical (just like this guy).  But when the Project Team control the media, 'entertainment' industry, finance and academia and have had centuries, nay milennia, to hone their repertoire of destruction maybe it's not so amazing.  Anyway Fred, that's the mystery solved for you. But it wasn't really a mystery, was it?  I mean, you're really smart, well read and have vast on-the-ground experience, and yet you avoid identifying The Project and the tribe who ran it. Which kind of defeats the whole purpose of your article, doesn't it?  A bit like describing the voyage of the Titanic without mentioning the incident with the iceberg. 

No Fred, the shades, leather jackets, cigars and constant reminders of your 'fearless' and 'scurrilous' writings don't cut it as long as you step away from the Third Rail. 

The Irish Savant : Nuremberg




Nuremberg

Today Ireland goes to the polls in a General Election. As can be imagined, every possible topic was exhaustively debated during the campaign. Except for one, the most important one. To wit, the mudslide Immivasion  of Europe. Woe betide the candidate who raises such an indelicate subject. Should - let our minds run riot for a moment here - a candidate suggest a race-based system of citizenship the ensuing explosion of outrage would be cosmic. As would the offender's punishment.

"What he suggests directly replicates the notorious Nuremberg Laws of the Nazis, laws used to render Germany's Jews non-citizens and virtually non-humans'.  
Drag in  a Holocau$t™ survivor from central casting for added effect and the offender will be lead to his fate: permanent obscurity at best, jail time at worst. And I must concede the validity of the charge because those infamous Nuremberg Laws clearly state that  
"only those of our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman."  The Laws also prohibited German Jews from marrying or having sexual relations with 'persons of German or related blood'.

These laws were inspired to a considerable degree by the writings of Julius Streicher, an old comrade of Hitler and publisher of Der Sturmer magazine. Even from an early age Streicher had an uncanny insight into the destructive Jewish 'state-within-a-state' machinations that took me a lifetime to stumble on. And he didn't hold back, producing a stream of vitriolic and inflammatory comment month after month. Despite the immense popularity of Der Sturmer (it had offices in many other European countries) he never served in the German Government and in fact for much of the war was under house arrest arising from internal political differences

Despite this he was convicted at the post-war Nuremberg kangaroo courts trials. Given that he had had no official power, nor had ever engaged in any personal violence against Jews, what could they nail him for? Well, Julius was condemned by his own words. 'My goal was not to harm Jews but to enlighten Gentiles - to put them on guard.'  (Could be the banner for this blog!). And given that he'd done such an effective job he was hanged - or more correctly strangled with a short rope - shortly after the Show Trials had ended. As you can imagine Jews played a central role in the whole charade - as they had previously done in the Soviet Union.  Their roles included that of Chief Prosecutor, judges, the director of the execution process and the hangman himself. The latter devising a gruesome variation whereby the condemned men were slowly strangled rather than being instantly killed.

I digressed a bit here because there's a really interesting sting in the tail regarding the Nazi Nuremberg Hate Laws. (oy vey, the sufferink!!). Here's Julius addressing the Kangaroo Court at his trial. 
 
 "I  have written that any further mixture of German blood with Jewish blood  must be avoided. I have written such articles again and again; and in my  articles I have repeatedly emphasised the fact that the Jews should  serve as an example to every race, for they created a racial law for  themselves "the law of Moses, which says, 'If you come into a foreign  land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.' And that,  Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws.  These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When, after  centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra discovered that notwithstanding many  Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That  was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial  laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and  civilisations have perished." 

And there's living proof of that today in Israel. "The Prime Minister's Office confirmed that many Jews from the [USSR]....can be required to bring DNA confirmation of Jewish heritage in order to be allowed immigrate as a Jew." The Telegraph tells us that 'because they [the would-be immigrants] had only a Jewish father or married into the faith almost 350,000 of them are not recognised as Jewish in their adopted homeland."

No surprise that chutzpah is a Jewish word.
 

The Irish Savant : Feminism fails. And it's men's fault




Feminism fails. And it's men's fault

A new study by Yale University has discovered that a "dearth of marriagable men has left an oversupply of 'amazing, attractive intelligent women' taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility. The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands. "Terrifying” (sic) demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries."

And as ever, men are to blame. Apparently we men 'feel threatened by their success and so are unwilling to commit to starting a family together'.

Errr.....no. It's more that men are not attracted to 'successful' women in their late thirties, preferring a girl who will put his family ahead of her career, someone young, good-looking and loyal. No man, not even a a house-broken mangina, wants to come home to some ball-breaking work-focused jargon-spouting feminist. He doesn't want to compete with his wife. Especially a wife who's spent the best part of twenty years riding the cock carousel and whose 'success' is based on her 'Masters' in Gender Studies and a six-figure government 
Diversity Manager job.


But I can understand the dilemma of the exemplar in the Yale survey. Having focused on career at the expense of settling down she's now horrified at the speed with which her child-bearing years are disappearing, while all those disposable 'good men' whom she confidently put to one side at an earlier time are no longer available. They're married and/or interested only in girls a lot younger than she. The liberated kind of girl who dispenses sexual favours with reckless abandon....like she herself once did. And that career isn't all glamour. Today record numbers of women live alone, childless, on psychiatric medication, facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And now as her eggs atrophy the terrible realisation dawns that she's in a kind of Darwinian cul-de-sac with her cats as a surrogate family.

It's tempting to feel a small tinge of schadenfreude at the fate of such women. But they're also victims. Victims of feminism, the single most evil and destructive movement ever to beset the White race. It utterly corrupts girls, turning them from fresh-faced feminine young women into masculinised harpies. It subverts every value and tradition underpinning the greatest civilisation the world has ever seen. It neither kills outright nor inflicts apparent physical harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record. Its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of civilised society is beyond calculation.

But it's hard to awaken women (generally weak-minded conformists) to this reality given the full spectrum control wielded by the (((nation wreckers))) and their goy quislings. They've drunk so deeply of the feminist Kool-Aid that any change in their diet would probably kill them. But changing men's attitudes just might force that awakening. Because increasingly men are disengaging from formal commitment. Men Go Their Own Way (MGTOW). Why get married and risk impoverishment through divorce rape? Why have children when in the event of a break-up they'll be taken from you while you get stuck with the bill for their upkeep? Certainly not for non-committal sex which, ironically thanks to feminism and the societal rot it engendered, is freely available to any man looking for it. 

What we see here is the bitter harvest of feminism. And for women the fruits will be bitterest of all. Yet if you distill that survey and the related MSM analysis it emerges that the solution is actually more feminism. Well if that's what you feel then go for it ladies. You're culling our race of its decadent stock and as such, and this will really horrify you, you're doing the Lord's work.

http://irishsavant.blogspot.gr/2017/07/feminism-fail-and-its-mens-fault.html

Monday, July 31, 2017

The Irish Savant : What's the deal with Jews and gun control?




What's the deal with Jews and gun control?

The American obsession with owning guns has always been a source of amazement to me. Why would any civilian want to be armed like a commando or have a house resembling Woolwich Arsenal? And if hunting - i.e. killing animals for pleasure - is your thing then why not take a job in an abattoir? 
Having said that the gun control movement there makes no sense in that probably 95% of murders are committed, not by ordinary citizens, rather by criminals who will not be even remotely deterred by more restrictive legislation. So why the raft of legislation and supporting propaganda over the last twenty years or so?

And boy, what a tsunami it's been. Doing some research on the subject I was overwhelmed, staggered, by the sheer number and scope of the laws introduced over that time frame. 
Looking more closely I was also struck by the overwhelming Jewish role in the whole control movement. 
The big breakthrough came with the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was introduced by Emanuel Celler (who also did sterling work in opening America to the Third World tidal wave) while later on Senators Howard Metzenbaum, Herbert Kohl, Diane Feinstein, Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer and Frank Lautenberg continued the good work. Same thing happened in the House. And of course where would we be without good old Chucky Schumer and Mike Bloomberg, who never ever give the subject a rest?

And it's not just politicians. As far as I can see all of the major gun control lobby groups have major Jewish representation and financing, with the corollary that almost all major Jewish organisations support the restriction project.  This from the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility which represents a virtual who's who of leading "American" Jewish organisations including: "The Anti-Defamation League, Bet Alef, Congregation Beth Shalom, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Family Service, Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, Kavana Cooperative, Kol HaNeshamah, National Council of Jewish Women, Stroum Jewish Community Center, Temple Beth Am, Temple Beth Hatfiloh, Temple Beth Or, Temple B’Nai Torah, Temple De Hirsch Sinai, Tikvah Chadashah, Herzl Ner Tamid, Temple Beth El and the Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center."

Why would Jews be so hostile to private gun ownership? 
After all, they portray themselves  - ad nauseam - as hapless hard-working victims of state-sponsored pogroms throughout history. But like so much of the Approved Version of History this trope doesn't stand up. In actual fact Jews have always managed to inveigle themselves into the role of eminence grise, at the side of or behind the actual rulers, as 'advisors', enablers, financiers etc. This role, so obvious in every Western country today, seems to have applied for centuries, even in Muslim regions. My own research into pogroms suggests that for the most part - there most certainly have been exceptions - but for the most part they've been spontaneous outbursts by the hoi polloi.

As an explanation for this apparent paradox I offer the experience of colonialism. Understand that every colonial power assigned top priority to disarming the colonised population. 
Check out this site to get an idea of the blood, treasure and variety of tactics (carrots, sticks, deception) deployed by the British Empire in separating the natives from their arms. Am I uncharitable in suggesting that Jews regard America as colonised territory, a territory in which their position relative to the general population is analogous to  that of - for example - Whites in Kenya under colonialism? The nightmare scenario for the settler there was the prospect of being surrounded by well-armed Kikuyu or Matabele tribesmen. 
Which explains why West Bank settlers are armed to the teeth day and night. (A practice with which Feinstein et al seem, strangely, to have no difficulty.) 
So maybe in the fevered imagination of Jewish gun control advocates White Christians represent the natives outside the compound poised to slit their throats at the first opportunity.

In that case if you are the Government  doesn't it make sense for guns to be controlled by the Government?
 

The Irish Savant : The Tyranny of White Guilt




The Tyranny of White Guilt

I've just finished reading The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism, by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner in which he claims that  
"all of modern thought can be reduced to mechanical denunciations of the West, emphasizing the latter's hypocrisy, violence, and abomination." 
He shows how Europeans see themselves as "the sick man of the planet" whose pestilence causes every problem in the non-Western world. When the white man set foot in Asia, Africa, or America, death, chaos, and destruction followed. 
Europeans feel themselves born with stigmata: "the white man has sown grief and ruin wherever he has gone."

Well, maybe he’s over-stating his case. But there’s no doubt that one of the staples of our delusional post-colonial romantic self-flagellation is the myth of the Noble Savage. 
Coined originally I think by Rousseau in the eighteenth century, it’s characterised by misty-eyed fantasies about early men and women, living in Bambi-like harmony with nature while selflessly looking out for each other. But then the (white) colonialists came along to spoil everything, with their pesky hospitals, colleges, literature and so on.

Of all the delusions supporting the anti-white agenda, this is surely the most egregious. So hopefully I won't bore you by taking a look at the reality of some of those idealised lives.

The American Indians.


We have had it drilled into us now for more than forty years. I remember as a small boy when the Indians in movies were depicted as cruel, whooping, primitive savages, while the heroic cowboys or cavalry (calvary!) always kept one bullet – for themselves – in case of capture. You know, these savages would torture him horribly before his ritual slaughter.

We can look back now at this simplistic, ‘offensive’, ignorant and narrow-minded characterisation. We know this from an endless series of moves, and from the full range of ‘White Studies’ (ugh!) programmes, which show the Indian as being brave, peace-loving and chivalrous.
.
In fact, our unsophisticated 1960s view was far more accurate than that portrayed in Soldier Blue, Dances With Wolves or any of the other myriads of panegyrics to the poor Indian. For the Indian was indeed violent, cruel, savage, merciless and at constant war with his own kind, ever before the white man came to spoil everything.

Warfare was ubiquitous; every major culture area of native North America has produced archaeological, ethnohistorical, osteological, or ethnographic evidence of endless armed conflict and ritual violence.

A few examples:
In the Eastern Woodland cultures, warfare often served as a means of coping with grief and depopulation – itself driven by interminable warfare. Such conflict, commonly known as a “mourning war,” usually began at the behest of women who had lost a son or husband and desired the group's male warriors to capture individuals from other groups who could replace those they had lost.

The captive could be lucky. He could be spared and become the mourner’s new husband.

Or he could be unlucky.

“If the women of the tribe so demanded, captives would be ritually tortured, sometimes to death if the captive was deemed unfit for adoption into the tribe.”

Thomas E. Emerson’s study of Mississippian warfare for the period AD 900--1400 concerns the archaeological recovery of disturbing evidence from mass interments of war captives and/or sacrificial victims. According to the author, recent findings reveal that precontact-era hostilities resulted in the massacre and mutilation of hundreds of men, women, and children. He refers to “intensive and bellicose patterns of internecine warfare involving massive casualties.”
The Indians also demonstrated considerable vision and improvisation in developing methods of torture. Apart from the normal slow death by turning on the spit, specialities included smearing the victim with honey and then tying him (or her) to an ant’s nest. The agonising death throes could last for days before the partially eaten victim expired.

Various studies suggest that such practices were also widespread all over pre-Columbine America, including the Caribbean. Here the Carib Indians exterminated – and consumed – their Arawak enemies, before in turn succumbing to white man’s diseases, the poor dears.

New research coming to light (published in Discovery, September 20, 2010) shows that much of the violence was genocidal. “The entire assemblage comprises 14,882 human skeletal fragments, as well as the mutilated remains of dogs and other animals killed at the massacre site—Sacred Ridge, southwest of Durango, Colo. The unearthed bones and artefacts indicate that when the violence took place, men, women and children were tortured, disembowelled, killed and often hacked to bits. In some cases, heads, hands and feet appear to have been removed as trophies for the killers. The attackers then removed belongings out of the structures and set the roofs on fire.”
Must have been whites who did this, surely? Er, no. This took place about 800 AD.


Native New Zealanders


“There is not a bay, not a cove, in New Zealand which has not witnessed horrible dramas, and woe to the white man who falls into the New Zealanders' hands.”
.

When Felix Maynard and Alexandre Dumas wrote this (in The Whalers) they didn’t have the All Blacks Rugby team in mind. Although the similarities are striking, this, being written about 200 years ago, was referring to the native New Zealanders, the Maoris. And he was right to be apprehensive. Here’s a sample of what he could have expected:
.
“In the meantime, a fellow that had proved a traitor wished to come and see his wife and children. They seized him and served him in like manner. Oh, what a scene for a man of Christian feeling, to behold dead bodies strewed about the settlement in every direction, and hung up at every native's door, their entrails taken out and thrown aside and the women preparing ovens to cook them!”

“On our side, there were eight men killed, three children, and two women, during the siege. They got sixteen bodies, besides a great number that were half roasted, and dug several up out of the graves, half decayed, which they also ate. Another instance of their depravity was to make a musket ramrod red hot, enter it in the lower part of the victim's belly and let it run upwards, and then make a slight incision in a vein to let his blood run gradually, for them to drink.”

“I must here conclude, being very scanty of paper; for which reason, columns of the disgraceful conduct of these cannibals remain unpenned.”

Another Sheriden, Daniel Henry this time, wrote “Calm light airs from the north all day on the 23rd November hindered us from putting out to sea as intended. In the afternoon, some of the officers went on shore to amuse themselves among the natives, where they saw the head and bowels of a youth, who had been lately killed, lying on the beach, and the heart stuck on a forked stick which was fixed on the head of one of the largest canoes. One of the gentlemen bought the head and brought it on board, where a piece of the flesh was broiled and eaten by one of the natives, before all the officers and most of the men.”
.
“One of the cannibals thereupon bit and gnawed the human arm which Banks had picked up, drawing it through his mouth and showing by signs that the flesh to him was a dainty bit. Tupia carried on the conversation: ‘Where are the heads?’ he asked. ‘Do you eat them too?’ ‘Of the heads,’ answered an old man, ‘we eat only the brains.’ Later he brought on board Endeavour four of the heads of the seven victims."
.
Edward Tregear, in The Maori Race (1904) tells us “an English missionary has reported that Pomare, a chief of the Bay of Islands, ate six entire heads. Chiefs' heads are usually dried and perfectly preserved by an ingenious process. Before the feast of victory, each warrior drinks the blood of the enemy he has killed with his own hand. After battle comes the terrible and revolting episode of the cannibal feast. Prisoners taken in the fight were slain in cold blood, except those reserved for slavery – a mark of still greater contempt than being killed for food. Sometimes after the battle a few of the defeated were thrust alive into large food-baskets and thus degraded for ever. As a general rule, however, they were slain for the oven. ”
.

Damn white man – coming and ruining this delightful culinary experience and shoving his so-called civilization down their throats (if you’ll pardon that particular analogy).

And a final delight from Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, pp. 197-199

“The warriors, entirely naked, their long black hair, although matted with human gore, yet flowing partially in the wind; in the left hand a human head and in the right hand a bayoneted musket held by the middle of the barrel. Thus, with a song, the terrible expression of which can only be imagined by being heard, did they dance round their wretched victims, every now and then approaching them with gestures, threatening death under its most horrible forms of lingering torture.
.
The captives, with the exception of one old man and a boy who were sentenced to death, were apportioned amongst the conquering warriors as slaves. The tables were laid. About a hundred baskets of potatoes, a large supply of green vegetables, and equal quantities of whale-blubber and human flesh, constituted the awful menu. The old man, from whose neck suspended the head of his son, while the body formed part of the cannibal feast, was brought forth and subjected to torture from the women before the last scene of all.”


In short, the native New Zealanders (and Pacific Islanders generally) were violent bloodthirsty cannibals. Interaction between tribes almost invariably resulted in internecine warfare leading to death on the battlefield, or, if it was your unlucky day, captivity. In the latter case your destiny was to be on the lunch menu for the following day, having first been subjected to the most appalling torture. Another characteristic of these people was the extent to which women and children partook of the torture and general prisoner abuse. This of course was also characteristic of their fellow noble savages on the American continent.

Australia.


In a nutshell, the pre-European Australian aborigines made their contemporary natives in America and New Zealand look like Swedish Social Democrats. I've posted here about what Kevin Rudd called their ‘ancient and proud culture’. Ah yes. If you have the, ahem, stomach, read it. I truly believe that these people were (are?) not fully human.

Africa:


Where to begin, where to end? Does anybody seriously believe in African ‘civilisation’? Well, the answer to that of course is, yes they do. None more so than guilt-crippled white masochists. To them I dedicate the following tiny snippets.
.
In west African there were slave wars, where the coastal African tribes were armed and encouraged to raid in­land and bring their captives to trading ports for sale and shipment. These cannot I suppose, if one is being pedantic, be strictly representative of er, ‘African civilisation’, being as they were, instigated by the white man. But the natives didn’t need much encouragement.
.
The result was a never-ending series of tribal wars and the devastation of immense areas. While some 8,000,000 Africans were sold into the Americas (only about 400,000 into what's now the USA) during the period of slave trade, it has been estimated that at least 40,000,000 more were killed in the wars and raids or died on the voyage. No mercy was shown in any of these encounters, and even the hardened white slavers were shaken by the brutality and savagery displayed by the Africans against one another. (Nothing’s changed in the meantime, then!).
..
Most of African history of course is unknown, as their ‘civilisation’ never got around to inventing reading or writing. Until of course whitey came with his evil ways. We can though get a good sense of the southern and eastern parts of the continent. Due mainly, of course, to the early arrival of whites to this part of the Dark Continent.
.
What they saw did not bring Switzerland to mind.
.
Now, are all you liberals and race-traitors in the back paying attention?

Let’s go!

As every schoolboy knows, Shaka Zulu created a highly centralized, well organized nation-state, with a large and powerful standing army. Then he did what we thought only the evil whites did. He used this army to expand his control! Can you imagine a noble savage doing such a thing?

And he didn’t mess about, creating a waterfall effect of violent tribal displacement and extermination. Refugee groups escaping Chaka invaded the lands of present-day Botswana creating chaos as they tramped westward. The Basotho were pushed into the mountains where they were harassed by cannibals. Setting villages on fire, the Ndebele swept ahead of the Zulu Impi to settle in present day Zimbabwe. Along the way they encountered King Thulare's Pedi empire, which was destroyed and its people wiped out. They then attacked the Mokololo to the northwest. Meanwhile the Xhosa expanded into Khoi-khoi lands, forcing many into the arid Kalahari Desert. The Tlokoa marched from Natal leaving a path of destruction all the way to Botswana. They attacked the Fokeng forcing them west. The Fokeng in turn marched north to the Zambezi River and beyond, where they raided destitute refugees.
.
Fokeng confusing, isn’t it?

All of this was in fact part of a broader series of ghastly massacres in which powerful armies annihilated their weaker neighbours, confiscated their possessions and moved on, knowing full well that if they loitered they too would be attacked by wave upon wave of people advancing from the east. The whole sub-continent was hurled into a maelstrom of destruction, until eventually an estimated twenty-eight distinct clans disappeared, leaving not a trace of their former existence.
.
Oh dear! Who could have imagined?

Anyway, this invariable lead to food supply problems which the victors solved by the simple expedient of consuming their captives. When they ran out of captives to kill and eat, the bodies of the already dead were disinterred and began to appear on the menu. But there are only so many bodies you can dig up, and it wasn’t long before starvation drove them to devouring their wives and children. Having once acquired the taste for human flesh, the cannibals formed themselves into hunting bands and set out daily to replenish their menus.
.
But the end was nigh, as the voertrekkers were heading their way, all set to spoil this pastoral idyll. They have a lot to answer for, them boers.

Conclusions?


Ok, all of this is innocent fun, but there’s a serious side too, one that brings us back to The Tyranny Of Guilt. You might justifiable conclude from what I've written that the noble savages were in fact for the most part grunting dehumanised beasts. Their societies were not comprised of happy hippies harvesting free-range animals who dropped dead naturally, and encounters between tribes were not pipe-smoking love-ins. They killed as many animals as they could, and they killed (and usually ate) as many enemies as they could. Unfortunately —for them— whitey had superior firepower. That’s all.
.
Can you have any doubt, based on what you’ve just read, as to what any of those native leaders would have done, had they only had the white man’s power? As General Phil Sheridan (from Cavan, of all places) said to Red Cloud: “If you had our power and we yours, you’d slaughter every one of us, to the last man, woman and child”.

Hobbes in Leviathan, held that the natural state of mankind is a "war of all against all" in which men's lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Well, that certainly sums up the Noble Savages we discussed. But what about whitey? Is he alone immune to these natural impulses? Surely not. But what whitey has done is to create and develop, over many centuries, an uncanny assemblage of science, philosophy and ethics, supported by complex legislation and an array of supporting governance institutions. These have not been perfect of course, but they have dramatically mitigated the risk of "war of all against all." In whitey’s world, peoples’ lives are assuredly not poor, nasty, brutish, or short. Some non-Western countries are of course successful, and more will be. But they'll make it by adopting Western inventions, medicine, industry, agriculture, communications.

.They understand this perfectly, unlike our lofty academic assholes, lauding the illiteracy and misery of others as they savour their latest Reisling. These academics will tell you that third-worlders want to come here because the capitalist system has corrupted them, and eroded their "Authenticity". Yeah, right. See, if only we had left them in their pure state, they would revel in hookworm and illiteracy.

Gimme a break. For three centuries just about everything that makes life tolerable has come from the West. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. And so do the academic assholes. They just don't like it.

We have everything to be proud of - our race indeed represents the March Of  The Titans. Don’t let them take that from us.

The Irish Savant : Elites rise up against the people



Elites rise up against the people

Gene Kerrigan is a leading Irish journalist working for the Sunday Independent. Gene has carved out a lucrative career defending the Little Man against the Elites. He rails against the contempt held by the latter for the former, their arrogant dismissal of their real fears and interests. For Gene the Little Man is a hero, a decent law-abiding provider for his family. The backbone of the country. As indeed he is.

You can imagine my surprise therefore when I read the following in his most recent column. Referring to Brexit he tells us that 'the demographics of the vote tell their story.  The old, those least likely to have a passport, to know anything about anywhere beyond their own narrow borders, wanting their country back'.


By jingo, the most arrogant elitist plutocrat would be hard put to better that. Incidentally did you notice how 'wanting their country back' has now become a Bad Thing. Warming to his subject he continues: 'But the country many of them wanted back was the mythical [my emphasis] England of their youth, a town in Midsomer county where Princess Diana still lives and the marriage to Charles worked out, where Miss Marples investigates cutesy murders, Mrs. Dale still writes her diary, and there's no "political correctness"  to dissuade them from calling Idris Elba dirty names'.


Well Gene, apart Miss Marples that particular country was not mythical. It was real. And it was pleasant, orderly, quiet, wealthy and law-abiding. It was a land wherein a person saying rude things to Idris Elba would not lose his job, still less suffer incarceration. But then it was Aberfaned, engulfed in a toxic black/brown sludge which destroyed everything in its way. And its people did not give it away, it was taken from them by traitors purporting to represent their interests. As I wrote quite some time ago. 
 
'that once green and pleasant land has now been deemed the worst place in the developed world for a child to grow up. Towns all over the country that were a joy to visit 30 years ago are now crime-ridden, racially segmented dumps. England has become a multicultural society, though it’s fair to say that few English people ever wanted it to be.' 

And yes, Gene, they want it back. May Providence grant them success, and your own personal Aberfan in that leafy suburb of yours.