NATO troops moving to Russian border.

It’s really starting to heat up now. I’m actually going to come right out and say it. If Hillary Clinton wins the election in two weeks, then straight after I am going to go stock up on as much tinned food and other useful items as I can. Though then again, I might not get a chance to make use of them, seeing as we might all be vapourised anyway. :/


From Reuters

Britain said on Wednesday it will send fighter jets to Romania next year and the United States promised troops, tanks and artillery to Poland in NATO’s biggest military build-up on Russia’s borders since the Cold War.

Germany, Canada and other NATO allies also pledged forces at a defense ministers meeting in Brussels on the same day two Russian warships armed with cruise missiles entered the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Denmark, underscoring East-West tensions.

I can’t believe it has actually gotten to this point. Well that’s a lie, nothing our global elites do really surprises me anymore. I guess I just can’t believe how little anyone is even talking about this situation,or trying to take the time to figure out how it got to the point that we’re at. I’m not even saying that my own analysis of what is going on is 100% correct, but at least I can say that I’m genuinely trying to understand.

In Madrid, the foreign ministry said Russia had withdrawn a request to refuel three warships in Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta after NATO allies said they could be used to target civilians in Syria.

Yes those damn Russians are going to Syria because they want to kill Syrian civilians for some reason. I’m not sure what that reason could be. They’re probably just sadistic monsters, who enjoy killing innocent civilians for no reason, all while pretending to be going after the terrorists that the West and their allies are backing.

The typical Russian

The ships were part of an eight-ship carrier battle group – including Russia’s sole aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov – that is expected to join around 10 other Russian vessels already off the Syrian coast, diplomats said.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the troop contributions to a new 4,000-strong force in the Baltics and eastern Europe were a measured response to what the alliance believes are some 330,000 Russian troops stationed on Russia’s westernflank near Moscow.


Russia has military forces… WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS!!!

That perfectly justifies sending troops half way across the planet and stationing them in an aggressive manner in neighbouring countries in response.

“This month alone, Russia has deployed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad and suspended a weapons-grade plutonium agreement with the United States,” Stoltenberg said, also accusing Russia of continued support for rebels in Ukraine.

But sure the West are angels, right?

Those damn Russians, supporting rebel groups. We’d never do that.

Those ballistic missiles can hit targets across Poland and the Baltics, although NATO officials declined to say if Russia had moved nuclear warheads to Kaliningrad.

Is there any evidence that Russia has any interest in nuking Poland? Look by all means, NATO are well within their right to defend their fellow members, but every story I’ve seen so far, suggests that NATO are the aggressors in this conflict, not Russia. If they would just provide some evidence to suggest that it was Russia who started all this, and that they’re just retaliating, then I might trust them a bit more. As it stands, I don’t trust them at all.

NATO’s aim is to make good on a July promise by NATO leaders to deter Russia in Europe’s ex-Soviet states, after Moscow orchestrated the annexation of the Crimea peninsula in 2014.

That was after the democratically elected pro-Russian government was toppled by George Soros financed “Neo Nazis”, and replaced by an unelected, pro-EU one. I mentioned that situation very briefly in this post. Then Crimea which was historically a part of Russia and had a population which was mainly ethnic Russians had a referendum on their status, and decided to secede from Ukraine because they considered new government illegitimate. Admittedly, I don’t know if I would necessarily say that this referendum was fully transparent and legitimate, but I hardly think the West can get on their high horse in light of their own actions in Ukraine.

NATO’s plan is to set up four battle groups with a total of some 4,000 troops from early next year, backed by a 40,000-strong rapid-reaction force, and if need be, follow-on forces.

As part of that, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced a “battle-ready battalion task force” of about 900 soldiers would be sent to eastern Poland, as well as another, separate force equipped with tanks and other heavy equipment to move across eastern Europe.

“It’s a major sign of the U.S. commitment to strengthening deterrence here,” Carter said.


Yeah, I call bullshit on that. It’s just provocation. I really haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that there is anything to deter on Russia’s part.

Britain’s Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said Britain would send an 800-strong battalion to Estonia, supported by French and Danish troops, starting from May. The United States wants its troops in position by June.

London is also sending Typhoon fighter aircraft to Romania to patrol around the Black Sea, partly in support of Turkey.

“Although we are leaving the European Union, we will be doing more to help secure the eastern and southern flanks of NATO,” Fallon said.


Others NATO allies joined the four battle groups led by the United States, Germany, Britain and Canada to go to Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. Canada said it was sending 450 troops to Latvia, joined by 140 military personnel from Italy.

Germany said it was sending between 400 and 600 troops to Lithuania, with additional forces from the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Croatia and Luxembourg.

See what I mean when I say it will be a “World war”? It’s not just going to be between Russia and America. From the looks of it, most of Europe will get dragged in too. Then of course, the Middle East will get dragged in because of the Syrian situation. Then with the problems between China and America over the South China Sea (likely to get even worse because of the actions of Duterte in the Philippines), I could easily see China getting involved. Then if China gets involved, that would probably drag in Japan and South Korea, which would then drag in North Korea. Fucking hell, it really blows my mind to think just how serious this whole situation might get.

Stoltenberg said allies’ commitments would be “a clear demonstration of our transatlantic bond.” Diplomats said it would also send a message to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has complained that European allies do not pay their way in the alliance.

They always have to drag Trump into everything. Yes I get it, you all despise Trump, but can’t you at least keep it for stories about him? He’s hardly the relevant issue in this situation.

For the Kremlin, the U.S.-led alliance’s plans are already too much given Russia’s grievances at NATO’s expansion eastwards, although Stoltenberg denied going too far.

I covered Russia’s grievances regarding NATO expansion briefly in this post.

But NATO’s troop announcements in the Baltic states and Poland were partly overshadowed by the dispute about whether Spain should refuel the Russian warships, which was later resolved by Moscow’s decision to withdraw its request.

NATO’s tensions with Russia have been building since Crimea and the West’s decision to impose retaliatory sanctions.

Yep. So just to reiterate again, they’ve been building ever since George Soros paid a bunch of “Neo-Nazi” thugs to topple the democratically elected, pro-Russian government and replace it with an unelected government that favours the EU, thus isolating and threatening Russia’s security further than it already had been by the expansion of NATO.

And then of course, we have the Syrian situation were America and its allies financed, armed, and trained a bunch of terrorists to try and topple the legal Syrian government (an ally of Russia), and was operating in Syria’s borders, in violation of international law. Russia was then invited by the legal Syrian government to come help them stop these terrorists, made great progress doing so, at which point American animosity towards Russia increased.

But Russia are the aggressors apparently.

But the breakdown of a U.S-Russia brokered ceasefire in Syria on Oct. 3, followed by U.S. accusations that Russia has used cyber attacks to disrupt the presidential election, have signaled a worsening of ties.

And again, they haven’t presented any evidence that Russia really has been taking part in cyber attacks against. I don’t even dispute the possibility that they very well could be, but without any evidence to support it, I’m not going to take them at their word, when their word means nothing.

Even before the break down of the Syrian ceasefire, Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended a treaty with Washington on cleaning up weapons-grade plutonium, signaling he was willing to use nuclear disarmament as a new bargaining chip in disputes with the United States over Ukraine and Syria.

And there we have it. The tensions are getting worse and worse. It doesn’t seem like simple saber-rattling anymore. It really feels like we’re heading towards something big. I want to make it clear that I’m by no means a Russia supporter, nor do I think they’re necessarily “good guys” themselves. I just think that the West are the ones who are primarily to blame for what is happening, and that if we do end up going to war with Russia soon, it won’t be one that was justified by any behaviour on Russia’s part.

I’d prefer to just play the game myself.

“We can’t prove that the child said ‘no’.”

No, this isn’t a story from Sweden… though it sure sounds like it should be.  There was a story back in June, about an Iraqi migrant brutally raping a 10 year old boy at a swimming pool in Austria, because he hadn’t had sex in a few months and it was a “sexual emergency”. The migrant was given a typically lenient sentence, and I assumed that would be the last I would hear about it. After all, there are plenty of other migrant rape cases going on, that there is no point dwelling on one from the past. So it came as a big surprise to see this story come up again, many months later. What isn’t surprising however, is that the story has managed to make me lose even more faith in humanity than I already had.

From Metro (UK)

An Iraqi migrant who raped a schoolboy in a swimming pool has had his sentence overturned – because the court didn’t prove if he knew that the child said no.

Oh boy…


This won’t end well at all.

The attacker, who has been identified as 20-year-old Amir A, was visiting Theresienbad pool in Vienna in December as part of an integration process.

“Amir A”

They won’t even reveal this animal’s full name. He’ll not only escape consequences for what he already did, but he’ll be anonymous and free to prey upon… um sorry, I mean, find more “consenting” 10 year old boys to brutally sodomise against their will.

However, he violently sexually assaulted a 10-year-old boy in the changing room, claiming it was a ‘sexual emergency’ because he had not had sex for a while.

Instead of masturbating, or finding a prostitute, his solution to his “sexual emergency” was to grab a 10 year old child and brutally rape him.

You can understand why the court is going easy on him, right?


On Friday, an appeal court accepted the defence lawyer’s claim that the lower court had not done enough to ascertain whether or not the rapist had registered that the boy said no.

He must not have been able to hear the child’s screams, or see all the blood coming from his anus. Also apparently, 10 year old children are old enough to consent to sex in Austria, and it isn’t considered statutory rape. I never knew that.

We now know a place where Gary Glitter can go to spend his last few years if he lives long enough to finish his current sentence.

The child, who is still being treated for a post-traumatic stress disorder, suffered severe anal injuries and required urgent treatment at a local children’s hospital.

If you still support this current ongoing invasion of Europe after reading this and believe that you have the moral high ground, then there is something very wrong with you. This insanity needs to end. We need to keep these monsters out.

The victim, Goran, was an immigrant from the Balkans who grew up in Austria with his Serbian mother.

Following the incident, Amir A, who had worked in Iraq as a taxi driver, went back into the pool and was using the diving board when police turned up.

He didn’t even try to flee the scene of the crime. I can’t tell if that’s a testament to his stupidity, or the idea that he genuinely didn’t think he’d done anything wrong. Either way, this animal is not compatible with the civilised world.

He confessed to the rape stating that he knew it was wrong but did it anyway because he had not had sex for four months.

Oh never mind, he did understand that what he did was wrong. He just didn’t care.

He was found guilty of serious sexual assault and rape of a minor and was sentenced to six years in jail.

Just six years for brutally assaulting and undoubtedly, mentally scarring for life, a 10 year old child. Even if the sentence had stuck, it would be disgracefully inadequate.

However, the Supreme Court has now lifted the verdict and ordered a re-execution of the proceedings.

According to The Local, Supreme Court President Thomas Philipp said that although the verdict was ‘watertight’ with regard to the serious sexual abuse of a juvenile, the written verdict on the second indictment, rape, cannot be sufficiently proved.

First of all, you would think it would be pretty easily proven, just from looking at the boy’s injuries. Do you really think anybody would consent to endure that? Second of all, even if the boy was “up for it”, he’s still only 10 years old. At the very least, it’s statutory rape.

According to the court, the initial trial should have ascertained whether the offender had thought that the victim agreed with the sexual act and whether he had the intention to act against the will of the boy.


He obviously knew.

In the second legal process, which is expected to take place in 2017, a new sentence must be imposed.

The 20-year-old will remain in custody until then.

At which point, he’ll probably be acquitted and compensated for “having his human rights breached” by being kept in custody for so long, or something.

Goodbye Austria.

Big site update.

I would like to announce that after several hours of painstakingly creating new “categories” for posts, and going back through every single post one by one, that I’ve ever made on the site (nearly 300 in total), and assigning each of them to the appropriate category or categories, that it is now possible to see posts that follow a specific theme grouped together, rather than just in the order that they were all originally posted to the site.

I hope all 3 or 4 of my regular readers appreciate the work that I’ve gone to. I did this for you.




OK just kidding, I did it for myself. I think it’s pretty handy to be able to go back through the archives and follow how a specific topic has developed over the years. Nevertheless, I hope the readers enjoy it too.

Journalist lectures the Irish on their “white privilege”.

Well it was inevitable. This cancer has gradually creeped into other white countries as they have become more racially diverse. It was inevitable that it would happen here as we became more racially diverse too. You see, it doesn’t matter that we were victims, rather than perpetrators of colonialism. It doesn’t matter that our people were discriminated against for hundreds of years. It doesn’t matter that our ancestors experienced borderline genocides at various points throughout history (the famine, Cromwell, the Plantations, etc). It doesn’t matter that our country has allowed people of other races to live among us (without giving us the option to vote on whether we wanted to or not).

We still have privilege apparently, and need to feel ashamed of ourselves because of it.


From Irish Times

The expression “white privilege” has been around for years but “white skin privilege” has recently been repopularised in the US, where numerous African-American deaths at the hands of police have ignited the Black Lives Matter movement.


I’m not going to go through this yet again. I’ll just leave this here instead because it already has the appropriate response.

Broadly speaking, it means the interlocking societal benefits that Caucasians in the West enjoy – benefits that non-white people in the same social, political, or economic circumstances can only look at from the outside, like kids pressed up against a sweet shop window.

Yes who would have thought that members of the dominant population demographic of a country would be the ones to feel most comfortable in a society that was built by people of that very same demographic? I guess we should stop creating a society which suits the needs of the majority, and instead create one that suits minorities. If we don’t, they’ll call us mean names like “racist” or “white supremacist”, or try to shame us for our “white privilege”.

In Ireland – a country where up until very recently anyone not 100 per cent white and Christian was seen as something different – white privilege is rooted in the blissful unawareness of the obstacles people of colour experience. The failure to see the destructive attitudes that exist in our communities; our collective neglect in making this land inhospitable for racist ideas and actions.

If Ireland, much like every other white majority country is such a horrible, racist place, in which non-white people are treated like shit, then why is it that so many of them want to live in the same countries as us so badly? Surely, they would be much happier living in countries in which they don’t have to deal with us horrible white people, but for some reason, they never seem to consider that option. Instead, they just moan constantly about how terrible we all are, and try to shame us into changing our ways somehow. At the same time, they never seem to state any specific demands on how exactly they think we should change, so we never seem to progress beyond the moaning stage, followed by a load of self-hating white people beating themselves up over some perceived injustice they feel guilty about by virtue of being white. Personally, I’m sick of it. As a white guy myself, I have absolutely no desire to oppress any “people of colour”. I just want to get on with my life and not listen to your constant whining about how terrible my race is.

This is yet more proof that despite the constant lies that we’re told to the contrary, in actuality, diversity is not a strength.

The best example I have is my own life. I’m half-Asian, but with plenty of white people here to blend in with, I pretty much pass for white on the street. It would be hard for me to deny that it’s made my life easier. Nobody has ever told me to go back to my own country or denied my right to identify as an Irish person. No stranger has ever targeted me with a racial slur.

So he hasen’t actually experienced racial abuse then in Ireland? So what exactly is the problem here? Is he actually just some closet white supremacist who wishes he was fully white, and regards his Asian half as being inferior somehow? Because that sounds horribly familiar.

“He wrote in “My Twisted World” that being of mixed race made him “different from the normal fully white kids”. ~ Taken from his Wikipedia article.

Jokes aside, I don’t think this guy has anything in common with Elliot Roger, other than the fact that they are (were in Roger’s case), half white, half Asian. But seriously, this is absolutely ridiculous. The guy hasn’t experienced racial abuse, yet he has come to the conclusion that it’s only because he “passes for white”. Did it ever occur to him that maybe, just maybe, people can tell that he’s half-Asian, but they don’t racially abuse him, because they simply do not care?

I inadvertently benefit from white privilege; except, of course, online when my foreign-sounding surname means it’s open season.

Without examples, we only have his word for this.

Boilerplate racism

White privilege is different to overt prejudice and the majority of Irish people deplore naked, boilerplate racism, of course. But one of its defining traits is that those who benefit may be unaware that they do so.

Oh yes, the whole “you can’t see your privileges” argument. Of course, if we were to point out the privileges that non-white racial minorities have such as, for example, the privilege to make sweeping judgements about all white people, without being shamed as a racist for doing so, they wouldn’t see them either. How about the privilege of knowing that other races have the right to a homeland of their own, in which their race can guarantee it’s survival and continuation as a distinct demographic, whereas all white people, have to live in multicultural societies, in which it will be impossible to do the same thing. Inevitably, if things continue the way they’re going, we will become minorities in our own countries and be overrun by other races. Those other races meanwhile will always have countries, in which their own race will remain the majority.





There are plenty of Irish people who will look away when a person of colour – born here or not – points to race-based prejudice.

Because it gets thrown around so much that it begins to lose all meaning. In all honesty, everyone holds some level of racial prejudice. In fact, even infants with no concept of race, show preference for their own. In other words, it seems to be a hardwired, biological instinct, rather than a learned behaviour.

dollys-for-internet_thumb (1)
It’s only evil when white babies do it.

This doesn’t mean that treating members of another race like shit because of their race is justified in any way. It simply means that people of all races, have a natural, in built preference to be around other people of their own. Kin selection, but on a larger scale essentially. So why is it that only white people are shamed for exhibiting this natural, biological, instinctive behaviour, when every other races feels it too? This is basically getting into the area of thought crime, were white people are automatically just as evil and monstrous as the Nazis, just because they feel more comfortable around other white people. That is wrong.

They’ve created their own bubble, unaffected by the same discrimination, that denies its existence. They will contort themselves into pretzels to stop it from being burst.

Or maybe we’re just too busy dealing with our own personal problems and struggles to deal with his issues. Again, what exactly does he want us to do? He and other like him keep moaning about the alleged discrimination they face, but they never seem to suggest anything that we can do to perhaps solve it.

Take the case of Samia Jalal, who applied for the same job at a Dublin radio station under two different names: her own and the more traditionally Melanin-deprived name of Neville. One was accepted for an interview and the other received a rejection notice. The excuse from the company that this was nothing more sinister than an “administrative error” seems beyond the realms of believability. Jalal hit social media with facts and evidence, but her claims were met with derision.

Finally, a specific case, rather than just vague and unspecified moaning. Assuming this story is completely above board and not a hoax, then I fully agree that this was wrong on the part of the employer. However, this is not evidence of a systematic problem.

And then there is the popular @Ireland Twitter account – which sees a different person curate it each week in an attempt to paint a broad picture of contemporary Irish society. It suffered numerous racist attacks when Michelle Marie, a black woman, took the wheel.

This might have something to do with the fact that the indigenous ethnic Irish population are racially white. By having a black woman in control of the @Ireland twitter account, it symbolically (whether intentional or not) is a reminder of the fact that we are being gradually ethnically replaced in our own ancestral homeland, and this bothers us on an instinctive level. I don’t agree with the racial abuse directed towards the woman, but I will say that it does offend me that she was the face chosen to control our country’s twitter account, because it almost seems as if it was done to mock us about being displaced in our own country. Could you imagine the outrage if a white person was given control of the twitter account of some random African country for example? People would be outraged, saying it was yet another example of “white privilege” or “neo-colonialism” or something along those lines. So why is it that we can’t be offended when the same thing happens to us?

Captain Sweden, played by a black actor. Read the comments to see how this went down.

White panel

The Last Word on Today FM had a segment on the back of this that discussed racism in Ireland. It featured an all-white panel. *

You should be grateful for the fact that they even took the time to have such a panel at all. As I’ve said before, only white people are indigenous to Ireland. All non-white people are here because we were generous enough to allow them in, and they then came here, either by their own choice, or that of their parents. If the country is so racist, then why did they choose to not only come here, but to stay?

This situation yet again

Perhaps that’s why the Irish slave myth has surfaced. The indentured servitude experienced by Irish immigrants in America is being compared to the horrors of perpetual chattel slavery as a way of delegitimising black suffering. It’s horribly inaccurate.

Ok, a few facts about the slave trade.

  1.  The Arab slave trade went on for far longer than the Atlantic slave trade and was far more brutal in its treatment of slaves (the West didn’t castrate their slaves for example). Arabs also enslaved black people, just like white Western countries, but nobody tries to shame Arabs for what their ancestors did.
  2. While the United States may have generated the most wealth from slave labour (I’m not certain, I’d need to do further research), it was actually Brazil , not America which had the highest number of African slaves out of any country in the Americas.
  3. Those African slaves were originally enslaved by other Africans, and then sold to Europeans afterwards at slave markets. This doesn’t mean that the white Europeans are blameless of course. It just means that they weren’t the only guilty party, and shouldn’t take all the blame.
  4. All races have practiced slavery at some point in history, and all races have been victims of it. It wasn’t just white people who enslaved other races, and white people themselves have been enslaved too throughout history.
  5. There were free black people in America who themselves owned slaves. One of the the largest slave owners in America was a black man by the name of William Ellison. There was also Anthony Johnson, and Antoine Dubuclet.
  6. In fact, it was because of the actions of the black man, Anthony Johnson that chattel slavery even began in America. Before then, indentured servitude existed, and slaves would eventually be freed after a few years of service, but he wanted to keep his slave, John Casor permanently, took his case to court, and was awarded ownership of him for life. That set the precedent which followed for all slaves in America.
  7. Most of the major slave ships in the Atlantic slave trade were run by Dutch Jews, rather than white Christians, but this is never brought up because doing so would be “anti-semitic”. Yet it’s perfectly OK to lay such blame on “white people” in general.
  8. Western civilisations (led by Britain) were the first civilisations to willingly choose to abolish slavery. Every other culture in the world had to have abolition forced upon them by the West. Most would have kept practicing it if not for Western efforts to make it illegal on a global scale. Parts of Africa and the Middle East still practice it today even though it’s illegal globally.
  9. America fought a bloody civil war to end slavery because those who fought to end it knew it was wrong. Yet their white descendants are still made to feel guilty for slavery anyway.
  10. Only a small percentage of white Americans actually owned slaves. Some estimates say as little as 1%, some as high as 5%. Yet all white people are made to feel shame for this in America today even though they weren’t alive for it, and chances are, their ancestors weren’t involved either.

Just to be clear, I’m not justifying slavery in any way because it was wrong, no matter where it was practiced. However, I do take offence to this idea of only ever talking about the experiences of black slaves at the hands of white people in white majority countries, as if those are the only slaves whose experiences matter. I guess it’s another example of our white privilege. We have the privilege of having our entire race share the guilt for what other white people did hundreds of years ago, and the privilege of having the suffering of members of our own race at the hands of other races ignored as if it doesn’t matter.

In 2016, people of colour’s modern-day torments are still being marginalised. Prejudice isn’t being called out.

If anything, it’s being called out too much, even in situations were it isn’t even true. But by all means, keep living in your fantasy land, were white people aren’t living in constant terror that someone might think they’re a racist, and that any accusation of such, doesn’t potentially destroy their reputations.

Victims of racism are being met with suspicion.

Probably because the race card is pulled so often, that people are naturally suspicious that it’s yet another false or exaggerated claim. Don’t blame us for being suspicious. Blame those who have overused the term “racist”, to the point were it has lost all meaning.

When it comes to race relations, there’s plenty of distance left to run.

Again, with the vague and unspecified statements. If there is a specific race problem, then say what it is, and then we can have a conversation and try to resolve it. These vague comments just come off as moaning, and aren’t constructive in the slightest.

White privilege is real and it’s in Ireland.

Needless to say, I disagree.

ISIS terrorists to be given “free everything” in Sweden.

With the looming possibility of a potential third world war occurring, I’ve had a difficult time paying attention to much else that’s been going on in the world. There simply hasn’t been much else happening lately that seems significant enough in comparison to that topic worth discussing instead. Today however I found a rather interesting story from the old reliable Sweden, that I just couldn’t pass up.

From Fria Tider (Translated by Google)

The Muslims who returned to Sweden after returning to the terrorist organization Islamic state, ice, in the Middle East can be offered tax benefits which drivers education, free housing and even debt restructuring.

Free housing.

Free driving lessons.

Special tax benefits.

All to be given to returning ISIS terrorists.

“Hello Swedish infidels. We’re here for our free money and houses. Allahu Akbar.”

This must be the epitome of a nation going out of its way to destroy itself for absolutely no reason. There is literally no conceivable way that you can justify something like this and say that it’s somehow beneficial to Sweden. Seriously, is there any single benefit that people can name, that come from having ISIS fighters in your country? Especially benefits which justify handing over all these free things to them? Because I sure can’t think of any.

Swedish Radio has talked with Christoffer Carlsson, author of the report at the national coordinator against violent extremism, which lines up examples of how the terrorists to be “reintegrated” into Swedish society with the help of state funds.

Why would you want to “reintegrate” them at all? In fact, why were they even allowed into Sweden in the first place? Why did Sweden need these people? What benefit was it to Sweden and the Swedish people, to do this?  What was the fucking point in filling a once great country like Sweden with people from a hostile and incompatible cultural background? The country worked just fine the way it was, and arguably had the highest living standards of any country on the planet. There never was a good reason for going down this path.

This was Sweden before “diversity”.
This is Sweden after.

– It’s a straight through social, economic and material terms. You need to be able to reintegrate into the job market, you may need to have a driving license, debt settlement and shelter. When people leave, they want to leave for something else, they have not the resources to it so it is difficult to realize it, says Christoffer Carlsson.

Brilliant logic there Christoffer. The returning ISIS fighters must have just come back to Sweden to get jobs. They must have gotten bored with capturing sex slaves and beheading all the “non-believers” in Syria. They certainly couldn’t possibly be planning to engage in similar activities on Swedish soil. Instead, they probably decided they wanted to come back to Sweden to drive IKEA delivery trucks. If only they knew how to drive. Seeing as these terrorists provide such vast (but never specified or explained) benefits to Sweden, then the only solution is to give them housing and opportunities ahead of your own indigenous citizens, who’ve never beheaded anyone. It makes perfect sense.

Without that kind of sour cream on the Swedish taxpayers’ expense, there is a risk that terrorists “do not pass” to leave the Muslim extremist environment, stresses Carlsson.

If only there was another solution to this problem such as, ooh… I dunno… NOT LETTING THESE MONSTERS INTO YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY TO BEGIN WITH!!!!

“But how would Sweden survive without its ISIS terrorists?”

In SR’s reports also participates Anna Sjöstrand, municipal coordinator against violent extremism in Lund. She points out that one can not deny the terrorists the tax benefits just because they made a “wrong choice”.

Becoming a terrorist was just a “wrong choice”. Just like when you write the number 5 instead of 4 to the question “What is 2 plus 2?”. Not a big deal, everybody makes mistakes once in a while. Why should those poor innocent terrorists be punished just because they made a silly mistake that involved joining an organistation that is actively raping, murdering, and enslaving untold numbers of people? Sure, they’re not indigenous Swedish people. Sure, they’ve probably never paid a penny in tax in Sweden. Sure, they have attitudes and beliefs which are completely incompatible with Sweden’s liberal values. None of this matters. They should be allowed to benefit from Sweden’s tax payer funded resources anyway, for reasons which will never actually be explained.

– We can not say that because you made a wrong choice, you have no right to come back and live in our society, says Anna Sjöstrand to SR.

Yes you can. You have every right to tell these scum that they have no right to live in your society. They aren’t Swedish. You have no obligation to them. You just won’t do that, because you Swedes are a bunch of virtue signalling cowards, who are more afraid of being thought of as “intolerant” or “bigoted” by an enemy that wants you dead and laughs at your stupidity anyway, than the idea of your once great country being destroyed. I really think you’re all beyond saving at this point. The sooner the collapse happens so you can serve as an example to the rest of us, the better.

Soon… though I doubt there’ll be many rainbows seen at that point.

Jewish ADL accuses Trump of anti-Semitism, for speech he made.

So Donald Trump made a big speech recently, in which he pointed out the completely obvious reality that there are powerful forces in the world who use their control of various important institutions in our societies, to try and influence political decisions in ways that favour them. Even for someone who isn’t a big follower of current affairs, this statement should just simply be common sense, just from looking at the way the world works. Whether it’s starting wars, allowing mass immigration from incompatible cultures, bank bailouts, the implementation of unfair taxes and laws etc., we constantly see establishment politicians making decisions which are the exact opposite of what the majority of their voters want from them. It would make absolutely no sense to make such universally unpopular decisions, unless there were powerful people in control of these politicians, who somehow benefited from these decisions. We’ve heard many terms used to describe these figures: Globalists, Illuminati, the One Percent, etc., but there’s one specific group of people, who were greatly offended by Trump’s speech.

God’s chosen people.
“Oy vey Goyim. That’s just an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, with no basis in reality.”

So let’s read what they said.

From Mediaite

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt warned on Twitter Thursday that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump‘s rhetoric was bordering on tropes historically used to ferment hatred of Jews.

In a Thursday speech, Trump argued that Hillary Clinton “meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty,” in order to enrich “global international powers,” an apparent reference to her paid Wall Street speeches. He added that “media enablers [wield] control over this nation through means that are very well known.”

Greenblatt argued in a tweet that the notion that “international bankers” and the media were secretly planning the destruction of America is dangerously close to common anti-Semitic claims.

The speech itself.

Strange really isn’t it. I haven’t watched the full speech myself yet, because of how long it is, but from everything I’ve read up on it, apparently Trump never actually mentioned the word “Jew” at all. He just made vague references to a powerful group of elites who control international finance, establishment politics, and the media, and that they use their power and influence to push forward with agendas which benefit themselves and their inner circles, at the expense of the general population. Agendas such as mass third world immigration to the first world, globalisation, pointless wars, and relentless propaganda campaigns against anything which could be a threat to their goals (such as Brexit and the possibility of a Trump presidency). Yet even though he never once mentioned Jews apparently, the Jewish run ADL is accusing him of anti-Semitism, simply for pointing out the very obvious reality, that there are powerful people conspiring to push unpopular and destructive agendas which benefit themselves only.

If that’s the case, then by saying that these comments about a group of unnamed powerful people is “anti-Semitic” is that not essentially an admission on their part, that these unnamed powerful people are in fact Jews?









I’ll let you ponder that one for a while.

We might not need to wait for Hillary, to get WW3

So the war might happen before the election at this rate. If that was the case, Obama would probably call a state of emergency, “postpone” the election, and stay in power for the duration of the war. At least it would stop that horrible hate filled racist/sexist, who says mean words from coming to power.

From RT

US President Barack Obama is set to discuss further US action in Syria with his senior foreign policy advisers at the National Security Council (NSC) on Friday. US officials say military options are to be mulled over, among other possibilities.

One scenario to be discussed involves direct US military action in Syria, including airstrikes on Syrian military, radar and anti-aircraft bases, as well as arms depots, Reuters  citing high-ranking US officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

This is just absolute insanity. The Syrian civil war is being fought between two major forces: The Assad government and Russia, versus various terrorist groups (of which ISIS is the most notable). The US claim that in addition to the terrorists, there are “moderate opposition forces” as well, which are fighting against both ISIS and Assad, but if that was the case, then why would these “moderates” be living and fighting alongside actual terrorist groups?

They literally told Russia to stop bombing a terrorist stronghold, because moderate opposition forces were there too. Why would moderates be there, if they’re supposedly enemies off the terrorists?

It’s a complete bullshit narrative. These so called “moderates”, may not be ISIS by name, but they are in fact aligned with them. I think most people would also agree, that ISIS are by far the greater threat to the world right now than the Assad government, yet the US is actually choosing to attack the Assad government forces instead. This is actually beyond the realm of comprehension because of how insane it sounds. I guarantee if you were to ask any random person what’s going on in Syria, they would naturally assume that the US is fighting against ISIS, seeing as that would be the course of action that would make sense. Not only that, but because the reality of what is actually going on is so nonsensical, they would not be able to process it at all.

A normie trying to process the truth.

Another scenario to be considered is allowing coalition forces to provide the US-backed ‘moderate Syrian opposition’ with advanced ammunition and weaponry.


I’m actually responding to this article as I go through it (as in, I haven’t actually read through in its entirety yet, and am just breaking it up as I go along). Actually seeing the term “moderate Syrian opposition” now, after having used the similar “moderate opposition forces” term myself earlier, just shows how predictable they are with their overused lies.



This would not include shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, as Washington fears they could be used against Western airliners.

Nonsense, nothing could possibly go wrong, allowing a bunch of primitive barbarians to get their hands on advanced weaponry. Nothing at…


The officials, however, stated it was unlikely that Obama would actually give the green light to US airstrikes on Syrian government targets, or that he would make any specific decisions at the upcoming meeting.

Why is he even considering it then? This is not a game. If he attacks the Syrian forces, that puts him directly at odds with Russia. Why, why would you even consider such stupidity?

One official noted that, as Russian and Syrian troops cooperate extensively, striking Syrian government forces could result in a direct confrontation between the US and Russia – something Obama has been trying to avoid.

Trying to avoid… yet he keeps provoking them anyway. This is absolutely ridiculous. The only possible explanation I can think of, is that he isn’t really trying to avoid it at all, but he doesn’t want America to make the first strike. Instead, he’s hoping to provoke Russia into attacking first, thus making them look like the aggressors in any conflict that results. Purely a public relations thing, because he knows damn well that the American people (and indeed, the world at large),  won’t support a war of aggression against Russia, but retaliation against a Russian attack would be a different story.

The White House declined to comment on the speculation surrounding any possible decisions, but confirmed the NSC meeting will take place on Friday, Reuters reported.

US authorities have already raised the bombing of Syrian government forces as an option, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest telling reporters last week that although such action is unlikely to reduce violence, nothing can be taken off the table under the circumstances.

Might I suggest ‘Recognising the legitimacy of the Assad government, pulling your forces out of Syria, and cutting off all support to the terrorists’ as an alternative solution instead?

According to a recent report in the Washington Post, several top US officials have been considering striking positions of the Syrian military covertly and without a UN Security Council resolution.

Illegal under international law. Not that they haven’t been acting illegally already, but this is bad even for them.

The NSC meeting comes just ahead of the ministerial talks on Syria in Lausanne, Switzerland. On Wednesday, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that Russia, the US and a number of regional powers will have a meeting “in a narrow format” on October 15 to discuss possible steps for a Syrian settlement.

Commenting on the upcoming Lausanne talks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed hope that they “will launch a serious dialogue on the basis of the principles contained in the Russian-American deal, which was broadly welcomed but which unfortunately was not launched.”

Again, Russia is trying to be reasonable here, just like when they agreed to that stupid US orchestrated ceasefire, that the terrorists broke about 24 hours later. They really are trying their best to avoid this war. I can guarantee that if it does break out anyway, that there will be a lot of anti-Russian propaganda in our media, holding them responsible for causing it. That’s why I think it’s important to get the facts straight now, before it happens, so we can see through the lies when we hear them.

“Breaking news. Russia started this war because Putin is the new Hitler, and he hates our western freedoms. Bla bla bla bla bla.”

The US State Department noted that Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry are likely to focus their discussion on the situation in the Syrian city of Aleppo and “getting cessation of hostility in place,”which could enable conditions for political talks to resume.

Last week, Washington officially suspended bilateral cooperation with Moscow, ending a brief period of close cooperation aimed at sustaining the ceasefire in Syria, which had been agreed by the sides on September 9 after months of negotiations. The move followed mutual accusations of failing to fulfill the obligations agreed upon. The US claimed Russia didn’t deliver on a promise to ensure Damascus suspended its military campaign and provide humanitarian access to besieged areas of Syria, while Russia accused the US of failing to separate the moderate opposition under its control from the jihadists, particularly from Al-Nusra Front (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), as was agreed, and organize the withdrawal of militants from Castello Road to allow humanitarian aid supply to Aleppo.

In his interview to Russia’s Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper earlier this week, Syrian President Bashar Assad said there are no “moderates” fighting in Aleppo, as all armed groups there “work with Al-Nusra in the area that’s controlled by Al-Nusra.”

This should be obvious just from using common sense. If there really were moderate forces who are opposed to both Assad and the extremist groups, in the extremist controlled regions, then wouldn’t the extremists have killed them already? It wouldn’t make sense to keep any other armed forces around in areas under your control, unless those other armed forces were actually your allies.


Assad denied criticism that Russian and Syrian air forces are bombing the positions of moderate rebels, stressing that anyone who holds a weapon is a terrorist. Concerning the United States and its actions in Syria, the leader said Washington is using the battle against terrorists as an excuse to achieve its own objectives in the wider Middle East as well as those of its allies, while trying to keep the “hegemony of the Americans around the world.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. You would think it would be obvious by now.We saw the same tricks in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya already. Are people really going to fall for it again, and believe that America has good intentions in Syria?