Huffington Post writer ~ “Lets ban white men from voting”.

An anti-white male article?

On the Huffington Post?

Wow, who would have ever seen that coming?

From Huffington Post

Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.

How dare these white men vote in favour of their demographic interests? That’s racist and sexist. But if women or racial minorities vote as a bloc for their demographic interests, that’s “progressive”.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world.

Just long enough to make sure the damage is done, and that they’ll be powerless to reverse it by then anyway.

events-haitian-revolution-1791-1804-black-slaves-attack-whites-wood-CP404M.jpg
And then once they’re powerless and disenfranchised, this will start happening… AGAIN.

The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008.

Yeah, “white males” did that.

Jewish-Bankers.jpg

Or how about that non-pictured above “white male”, Richard Fuld, who was the chairman of Lehman Brothers, before it collapsed, and dragged the world down with it.

This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed. 

I think that ship has already sailed…

skirts-rape-march-men.jpg

BILD.JPG

da28cd20fec1e007beafa695f4c12ee6a9fbb9e3760972c93f200322d05dc1b8.jpg

red-high-heels-rose-barracks-vilseck-germany.jpg

post-11155-044029400 1334577519_thumb.jpg

db00db762fe81e89ae43d8aa0331dddc_pajama-boy-memes-memesuper-pyjama-boy-meme_500-375.jpeg

Yeah, not really seeing much “toxic masculinity” from white men these days.

At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism.

Yeah, those “white men” again, are the ones responsible for that.

ClintonDonors90.jpg

billionaires.jpg

rothy.jpg

Untitled-1.png
Source

A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

Yes, because the redistribution of wealth has never led to violence, when it has been tried in the past.

36d6ee74490bf20e9b54b75a372a6908.jpg
The real violence is all that wealth that “white males” own.
 This redistribution of the world’s wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country’s land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume these are mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world.
I’ve dealt with South Africa already.

No need to repeat myself.

Namibia has similar statistics with regard to land distribution and one can assume this holds for other assets too. As Oxfam notes eight men control as much as wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world’s population. In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets

It’s always funny how Jews are “white” when they do something bad, or are disproportionately over-represented in something good, but they quickly revert to their Jewish identity, whenever they want to claim victimhood.  If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect that they were looking to pawn off the blame for their wrongdoings on another group.

– it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world’s assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world’s population.

Might have something to do with the fact that most of the really successful countries in the world, such as those of Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand, were built by white males, and white people are still the majority demographic in these countries. But don’t worry, if Zimbabwe, Haiti, and South Africa are any indication of things to come, these countries won’t be so successful for much longer.

It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them.

The mindset of people like this is astounding. How exactly is this status quo “violent”? Who exactly is experiencing “violence”? This is what they always do. It’s the same tactic utilised by those Antifa scum, whenever they brutally attack people for having political opinions they disagree with. They classify non-violent acts, words, or in this case, situations, as being violent, in order to justify their own acts of actual violence (when they eventually happen), as being “self defence” against the “violence” that they claim they are experiencing from their target. It’s insane, but that’s just how these Communist thugs operate. It’s all about conditioning people over time to perceive things a certain way, by using certain language and repeating it over and over until it sinks in.

montreal4march.jpg
The Antifa guys, kicking the guy on the ground, aren’t the violent ones. They’re just engaging in self defence against the violent political opinions of this man.
South-Africa.jpg
The black South Africans aren’t the violent ones, when they brutally murder white South Africans. They’re just engaging in self defence against the violence of the white South Africans, by having more success than them.
This will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world. Over the past 500 years colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of white men. Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.

Besides the fact that it’s completely unjustifiable to hold people collectively responsible for the sins committed by people in the past (why should I for example, be held responsible for Colonialism, when I wasn’t even born when it happened?), it also ignores the fact that all these sins, colonialism, slavery, aggressive wars, and genocides, have been practiced by all races. In the case of colonialism, to name a few examples, we have the Empire of Japan, the Inca Empire, the Aztec Empire, The Ottoman Empire, and The Mongol Empire (the last two of which even colonised white lands).

64886-004-2353B724
Oh look at that, The Turkish Ottoman Empire colonised white lands in Europe.
Mongol_Empire-largest.png
Same with the Asian Mongol Empire. Where’s my reparations from Turks and Mongolians?

Wars and slavery have been practiced by every culture that has ever existed, but only white people willingly put an end to slavery (even having to use their power in the world to force its abolition on other races that practiced it). In the case of genocides, we have examples such as the Jewish bolshevik led Holodomor (the victims of which, were white), the Turkish led Armenian and Greek Genocides (again the victims being white), and the black led Rwandan Genocide, just to name a few examples. It’s ridiculous to hold all white people collectively responsible for historical crimes committed by other white people, but not holding members of other races to the same standards. But of course, this isn’t about justice. It’s just purely racial hatred towards white people.

It is no surprise that liberalism – and its ideological offshoots of conservatism and libertarianism – are the most popular ideologies among white males. These ideologies with their focus on individuals and individual responsibility, rather than group affiliation, allow white men to ignore the debt that they owe society, and from acknowledging that most of their assets, wealth, and privilege are the result of theft and violence.

Most of our assets and wealth came from theft and violence?

“Citation needed”

Interesting how she complains about white men having political ideologies that focus on individuality, rather than on collectivism. I can guarantee, that if we did develop demographic awareness, and started playing the identity politics game, just like every other racial group does, she’d complain about that as well, for being “racist”. Essentially, we’re damned no matter what we do, because she isn’t a rational person, looking to have a rational discussion, to potentially resolve any perceived injustices (that can even be proven to exist). She’s just a hate filled bitch, who despises everything about us, and nothing less than handing over everything we own to people who aren’t “white males”, and getting down on our knees before them, will ever satisfy her. Even then, it probably still wouldn’t be enough, because we’d still be breathing.

Some may argue that this is unfair. Let’s be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies.

The pain that “white males” inflict on “black, female-identifying bodies”.

tumblr_n2i5w0KYgO1qaeo2oo1_500.png
What about the pain that “black males” inflict on “white, female-identifying bodies”?
In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.

Yeah, sure.

“Temporary measure”

A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.

The more I read on, and see how ridiculous it is, the more I start to think it’s a satirical article, just to annoy people like me. Then again, the Huffington Post really has been terrible in the past, so it probably is real. At the very best, the article might have been submitted by a troll, and isn’t intended seriously, but the Huffington Post still published it, so at the very least, they approve of its message, serious or not.

As we saw after the recent altercation between a white man and Lebohang Mabuya at a Spur restaurant in Johannesburg, white males still believe that they are in control, and people who aren’t white or male (in particularly black female-identifying people) have to bow to their every whim.

Interesting, lets watch the video of that incident.

Notice how at the very start of the video, the man makes a comment about how his child was hit in the head by one of her children? In fact, this article that has eye-witness accounts from before the recording began, backs up this accusation. He wasn’t being aggressive with the woman because he’s a white man, and she’s a black woman. He was being aggressive, because one of her brats hit his daughter, and she wouldn’t discipline the child. What parent wouldn’t be pissed off in a situation like that? According to this Huffington Post writer, he has no right to stand up for his child, just because he’s a white man, dealing with a black woman.

There are numerous other examples of white angry male violence in South Africa and abroad, often against black bodies (Dylann Roof’s terrorist actions in the United States is only one of many examples).

Dylann Roof is a reasonable case to criticise. Going into a church full of black parishioners and gunning them down, just because of their race, is not acceptable. Of course, it’s still a drop in the ocean compared to the black on white violence, that this woman wouldn’t dream of condemning.

crime_statistics_01.jpg

It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males, and the first step will be a temporary restriction of the franchise to them.

Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.

Just repetition of (dumb) points already made earlier in the article. Exactly the kind of writing skill I would expect from a Huffington Post “Journalist”.

LA school to get less funding, for having too many white students.

quote-the-worst-form-of-inequality-is-to-try-to-make-unequal-things-equal-aristotle-6833.jpg

I remember a few months ago, shortly after Trump’s election victory, a girl on my Facebook “Friends” list, posted some pathetic self-flagellating article about white privilege. The gist of the article she posted, was this. The writer (a black woman) was lecturing white liberals who were upset that Trump won, that they had no right to talk about how upset they were, because they all had white privilege, and so only minorities had the right to talk about how upset they felt. My “friend” (a white liberal herself), didn’t dispute this. Instead, she agreed with it and posted it to virtue signal and to pontificate to the rest of us, probably with the expectation of a bunch of comments praising her for being so enlightened, and plenty of “likes”.

Instead of this happening, myself and one other guy questioned why she was posting such a condescending article and asked her why she thought it was alright for this person to generalise and attack people (people who ideologically agree with her no less), on the basis of their skin colour? We also questioned the validity of the existence of white privilege, and asked her to explain how it exists. Rather than respond to our questions in her own words, she just posted some really long articles that talked about white privilege, and tried to let the articles do the talking for her, rather than talking herself, and using the article as a source to confirm her own points. Very quickly, she stopped responding, both to me, and to the other guy who was questioning her. About a week or so later, she quietly unfriended me, possibly because I had offended her by daring to question her. I don’t think I was particularly offensive or aggressive btw. In fact, I can post the whole debate we had, right here, minus the links to the articles she posted (which I never bothered to save).

So here was my first comment:

“But what about the Hispanics, Black people, and members of other minority groups that chose to vote for Trump? How can it be assumed that it was racism that won out, in that regard? If anything, I think it’s attitudes like that of this author that helped cause the Trump victory. Instead of having civil and open dialogues with Trump supporters (of all demographics), trying to understand why they supported him, and listening to their concerns, there’s been nothing but insults, bullying, and shaming tactics against them and all this did was push them further towards him. Even now, instead of looking at the victory and trying to really understand why he won, there is still nothing but insults and tarring every person who voted for him with the same brush. Yes, I’m well aware of the KKK and Neo-Nazi support he received, but acting as if all his support was from people like that, isn’t constructive at all.”

She then replied:

“The value in the article is about evaluating privilege and bringing awareness to systemic racism in America. However you can clearly see in the election statistics that Trump won due to voter turnout in rural counties with overwhelmingly white populations.”

white-privelege.jpg

Along with the above comment, she posted a bunch of links to articles talking about how white privilege is totally a real thing, and not just some racist conspiracy theory designed to demonise white people as a whole.

So I replied:

“Of course, I’m well aware that the majority of Trump’s voters were white, but the point I’m making by bringing up the non-white Trump voters is that they do in fact exist. The media keeps focusing on the “whitelash” as I’ve heard it referred to, while ignoring the minorities who supported him at a roughly similar percentage as they supported Romney in 2012. I think instead of automatically jumping to conclusions about racism, it might make more sense to actually engage with the voters (including these minorities who clearly didn’t have a problem with any of his “racist” remarks) and listen to their reasons for voting for him. For example, beyond the minorities who voted for Trump, many white people who had voted for Obama in previous elections, voted for Trump in this one. While I know that there obviously are many genuine racists who voted for him, it would be unfair to assume that racism was the primary motivator when taking those minorities and former Obama supporters into account.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/trump-won-a-lot-of-white-working-class-obama-voters.html

As for the “privilege” argument, I don’t buy into that stuff for a second. All “privilege” is, is an excuse to disregard the viewpoints and opinions of, and tear down members of certain demographics, just because of the group they were born into. Privilege theory is just a redirection of Marx’s theories from economics (ie, the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’) to identity politics (the oppressed and oppressors), further causing division and resentment between groups. If white people are such a privileged group for example, then why is it that they’re the only group that aren’t allowed to vote as a bloc for their group interests without being considered racist for doing so, when it’s perfectly acceptable for a politician to go after “the black or Hispanic vote”? Why is it that other groups can make insulting, derogatory and sweeping generalisations about white people as a whole (like this author is doing with her white liberal allies), when if a white person did the same thing about any other group, they would be crucified?

And as for “systematic racism”, this is a legit question, because obviously you would have a much better insight into the American situation than I would, but how exactly is there still systematic racism? Where does it come from, and how does it work? I don’t understand how in a country where the majority of white people are terrified of the social stigma of being considered a racist, and where in the past 50 years at least, there has been a lot of time, effort, and money spent on racial integration, affirmative action, “no child left behind” in schools etc, how it exists, who is behind it, and examples of it in action.

I’m not trying to be a smartass or anything as I genuinely am interested in learning things that I may been ignorant of, because I do acknowledge that I’m only a distant observer, and you’re right there living it, but at the same time, I’ve read so many articles from, and seen so many videos on youtube from people who seem more interested in hating, blaming, and shaming white people as a whole, rather than just opposing racism, that I’m always very skeptical when I read articles like this one.”

I don’t think anything I said was particularly unreasonable here. I even acknowledged the fact that she, being an American, would obviously know more about the American situation than I would, and I legitimately asked her for evidence of systematic racism in action in her country.

Her response:

“[Name redacted], I think there is too much for me to cover regarding your post. There are smarter people than me who better articulate why privilege is very real and what is happening in this country right now and the historical context so I will point you to some reading. Posted below.”

And again, she posted a few long winded articles, rather than actually making the arguments in her own words. Just for the record, I have no issue with posting links in a debate, but I think they should be posted as support material for an argument being put forward, not as the argument itself.

I then replied with this:

“I don’t buy into the reality of white privilege for a second [Name redacted]. What they refer to as “privilege” is simply an excuse to attack and belittle white people as a whole simply for being born white in a predominately white country. It would be like saying “Asian privilege” to a Chinese person in China, “Black Privilege” to a black person in Nigeria, Arab privilege to an Arab person in Saudi Arabia etc. It’s just an anti-white slur, based on Frankfurt school theories from the 1960s. Do the white people who are suffering severe racial discrimination in Zimbabwe and South Africa right now also benefit from white privilege?

For that matter, if white privilege and structural racism really does exist in America then why is that it’s Asians and Jews (many of the latter don’t consider themselves white and instead consider Jewishness a racial category) who are the most highly educated and wealthy demographics on average, moreso than white people? In theory, in a white privileged, structural racism based society, wouldn’t those groups be held back as well?

I think the problem is the use of what I’ve heard referred to as the “apex fallacy”. People see that most of the most powerful people in a country are white (which just makes sense based on the fact that most people in general are white in the West so demographics alone would cause this) and therefore assume that all white people have the same benefits as that small group of powerful people. It would be like me citing people like Obama, Loretta Lynch, Jesse Jackson, and various top black figures in entertainment and sport, and claiming that their success was representative of the experience of all black people, something which would obviously be quite rightfully dismissed as inaccurate.

As for the list on white privilege, it’s about as offensive and unfair as this meme.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/74a6c468e85f790f44403d0114f1e629/tumblr_n0hjq6l5Ge1ts7lqzo1_1280.png

I’m just getting tired of the moaning and accusations against white people as a whole, as if we all need to feel bad for being born white in a mostly white country. If there are real problems then by all means, they should be explained so that they can be worked on. But attacking us as a whole solves nothing, and only causes would be allies to lose sympathy after a while.”

WhitePrivilegeMyth_zpst90w2j4i

And she never responded to this, and I heard nothing from her again until the notification a week or so later, telling me that she had unfriended me.

Anyway, I kind of went off on a tangent there. I was just reminded of this little debate we had, when I read this article below. I wonder if my former “friend” would still believe that it’s white people who are the privileged ones in America, after reading this.

From ABC 7

Outrage has grown at Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, as the school faces layoffs and increased class sizes due to a law limiting funds for schools with a higher white student body.

If a school has too many white kids, it gets less funding from the taxpayer (most of whom are white, btw).

The Los Angeles Unified School District provides more funding for schools where the white population is below 30 percent.

But if a school has a very low white population, it gets more funding. Yet, we’re supposed to believe that white people are the privileged ones. In a country that is predominately white, was built by white people, and has mostly white taxpayers, it’s the racial minorities who get more financial support. How does this make sense?

In a letter to parents, the district noted the highly regarded middle school had been above the percentage for the past couple years.

The racial formula was a condition imposed by court decisions dealing with desegregation in the 1970s.

And yet when it suits them, they’ll always claim that race doesn’t matter, and that we’re all exactly the same, apart from the colour of our skin.

Parents, however, remain frustrated with what the cuts might mean for their children.

And really, why shouldn’t they be? Their children’s education will potentially suffer, just because of the colour of their skin. Meanwhile, the taxes they’re paying, will be redistributed to schools with a higher proportion of black and hispanic students instead. This is not fair, plain and simple.

“When your class sizes are getting larger and you’re taking resources away from students, I mean ss parents, you do want your kid to go out to college,” one parent, Rosemary Estrada, said.

In an attempt to lessen the budget cuts, the district changed the school’s spending formula to one based on the number of students.

“Thankfully we’re going to keep our librarian. We’re going to keep our nurse, but we may lose a few teachers, but not as many as we once thought,” said Sheila Edmiston, one student’s parent.

Several jobs will still be lost and class sizes could grow. For many parents, the race-based reason of “too many white students” has made the cuts more difficult to swallow.

Meanwhile, if you want to understand why schools with a higher proportion of black and hispanic students, typically fare much worse than those with a higher proportion of white students, here’s a good possibility as to why.

It has nothing to do with white privilege or systematic racism. It’s entirely because of problems within the minority communities themselves. The reason we aren’t seeing an equal outcome, isn’t because they aren’t being treated equally. It’s because they aren’t behaving equally. I’m not saying every single individual student of a minority background, behaves like those in the videos above, nor am I suggesting that every single white student is a perfect angel, who would never behave like this. However, for the most part, this sort of behaviour seems to occur mainly within the black and hispanic student populations.

When I read this article, it reminded me a lot of the situation that I discussed recently, regarding a literacy test for prospective teachers being scrapped, because too many blacks and hispanics couldn’t pass it. There is this insane obsession with achieving equality. The problem is, as the Aristotle quote at the beginning of this article says, you can’t make unequal things equal, at least not at the higher level. For example, lets say I have four apples, and you have two, and there are no other apples around. We can’t make it so that each of us can have an equal number of apples, and at the same time, allow me to keep my four. All we can do is take an apple from me, and give it to you, and make us equal that way. Therefore, rather than simply raising the person with less up, they drag the person with more down.

When the Soviet Union first came into existence, there had been a lot of poor peasants, and a few rich aristocrats. They couldn’t bring the peasants up to the level of wealth of the aristocrats, so what they did, was take away the wealth of the aristocrats, so everybody was equally poor. It’s the same kind of logic happening in the American education system now. They’ve tried for decades now to achieve equality in racial education standards, and they’ve gotten nowhere. With equal funding, they can’t seem to bring the black and hispanic students, up to the level of the white (and Asian) students, so their plan instead is to cripple the white students’ education, and drag them down to the level of the black and hispanic students. Then, when every racial group is equally uneducated, they’ll finally achieve “equality” and all live happily ever after.

i4gshdQ

Black Pigeon Speaks on the South African situation.

So yeah, a couple of days ago, I wrote a post in response to the current ongoing situation in South Africa. In that post, I made the prediction that if things keep going the way they’re going, that we would see a massive racial conflict there, and that South Africa would inevitably become a second Zimbabwe. Here we are two days later, and Black Pigeon Speaks has done a video on the topic. He goes into more detail than I did, but he ultimately comes to the same conclusions that I did.

Check it out.

I think this is a pretty important topic to pay attention to, because this is a preview of what will inevitably happen in all predominately white countries in the future. Based on what has happened in Haiti, Zimbabwe, and is currently happening in South Africa, here’s what will happen in Europe and North America before long:

  • White people build successful country from nothing.
  • Non-white people move to successful white country from their own unsuccessful country.
  • Non-white people become jealous of success that white people have in country built by their own ancestors.
  • Affirmative action is put in place to help non-white people achieve parity with whites.
  • Taxes are redistributed from tax payers (mainly white people) to do this.
  • White birth rate declines from financial strain, and non-white birth rates increases, along with non-white immigration.
  • Eventually, non-whites outnumber whites in formerly white majority countries.
  • Non-whites take over from the “privileged whites”.
  • Non-whites start persecuting white people (who they’ve been conditioned to think of as racist oppressors).
  • White people have their jobs, land, and wealth stolen from them.
  • Massacres against white people begin.
  • Economy collapses and infrastructure starts to decline due to incompetence.
  • Country becomes an economic shithole.

We’ve seen this happen in Haiti. We’ve seen it happen in Zimbabwe. We’re seeing it unfold in real time in South Africa. And we will see it in Europe and North America eventually, if things don’t change.

South Africa: “Lets confiscate land from white owners”.

Nothing really new here. Just more of your standard anti-white sentiment from South Africa. As usual, the human rights, do-gooder brigade in the West are silent about it.

From The Telegraph

President Jacob Zuma has called on parliament to change South Africa’s constitution to allow the expropriation of white owned land without compensation.

Hmm, I have a feeling that something like this has been tried somewhere else before. Oh right…

Robert-Mugabe.jpg

It sure worked out well when Mugabe did the same thing in Zimbabwe. Well except for the economic collapse, famines, and hyper-inflation that followed of course, in a country that had at one point been known as the breadbasket of Africa. Apart from all that, stealing land from the white people was a fantastic idea.

Mr Zuma, 74, who made the remarks in a speech yesterday/FRI morning, said he wanted to establish a “pre-colonial land audit of land use and occupation patterns” before changing the law.

“We need to accept the reality that those who are in parliament where laws are made, particularly the black parties, should unite because we need a two-thirds majority to effect changes in the constitution,” he said.

So a member of a racial majority in government, is trying to rally members of that racial demographic to come together in order to pass legislation that is discriminatory against members of a racial minority. If this sort of thing was happening in a white majority country, there would be global outrage, but seeing as in this case, the whites are the persecuted minority, nobody is talking about it. I know I keep going on about this point over and over, but I really feel that I need to do so in order to emphasise how serious it is. There is a global war going on against white people, in which it is perfectly acceptable to oppress and discriminate against us, and were other races aren’t being held to the same standards that we are. This sort of thing is normalised in countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa, where white people are the minority, and based on the racial hatred that is already being expressed against us as it is, it will become normalised in Europe and North America eventually, when we become minorities here too. It is inevitable, unless we learn from what’s happening in countries like South Africa, and take steps necessary to prevent the future we’re faced with.

55d4b773e0ef1fad7270d72004879bdda72d533cc9b241d37bb04580ad7bbcdf_1.jpg
Even in countries were white people are still the majority, there’s nothing being done to prevent our victimisation at the hands of other races. If it’s this bad now, can you imagine how bad it will be in a generation or so?

Mr Zuma, who has lurched from one scandal to another since being elected to office in 2009, has adopted a more populist tone since his ruling African National Congress (ANC) party suffered its worst election result last August since the end of apartheid in 1994.

It’s populist to call for discrimination against white people. Just really let that sink in.

The party lost the economic hub of Johannesburg, the capital Pretoria and the coastal city of Port Elizabeth to the moderate Democratic Alliance party, which already held the city of Cape Town.

The ANC is also under pressure from the radical Economic Freedom Fighters, led by Julius Malema.

Mr Malema has been travelling the country urging black South Africans to take back land from white invaders and “Dutch thugs”.

They’re under threat of losing votes against a radical, anti-white, hate preacher, who is gaining popularity because of his anti-white sentiment. The only way to combat the threat, is to beat him at his own game, by being even more anti-white than he is. Again, just let me make the point, could you imagine the reaction if in a European country, political candidates were trying to one-up each other by making anti-black or anti-Arab comments? There would be absolute murder over it.

He told parliament this week that his party wanted to “unite black people in South Africa” to expropriate land without compensation.

“I want to unite the Aryan people of Germany to expropriate Jewish property without compensation.”

“People of South Africa, where you see a beautiful land, take it, it belongs to you,” he said. Although progress has been made in transferring property to black South Africans, land ownership is believed to be skewed in favour of whites more than 20 years after the end of apartheid.

Probably because the whites are descended from the people who actually built the country from the ground up, and have therefore inherited the rewards for their ancestor’s hard work and creativity. The blacks should just count themselves lucky that they get to live in such a country at all, rather than living in every other failed African state. As I’ve said before, I’ll say again. Every single country built by white people, whether it be in Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, Apartheid Era South Africa, or Rhodesia, has enjoyed living standards, far higher than any country built by black people. In fact, as precedent has shown in Zimbabwe, Haiti, modern South Africa, and in many black majority cities in the United States, such as Detroit, Baltimore, East St Louis, etc., not only are they incapable of building a civilisation on par with those built by white people, they are seemingly incapable of even maintaining one that was already pre-built.

The language might be harsh, but can you honestly dispute the point that this video makes?

 The Institute of Race Relations, an independent research body, said that providing a racial breakdown of South Africa’s rural landowners was “almost impossible”.
“In the first place the state owns some 22 per cent of the land in the country, including land in the former homelands, most of which is occupied by black subsistence farmers who have no title and seem unlikely to get it any time soon,” the group said.
“This leaves around 78 per cent of land in private hands, but the race of these private owners is not known.”
But sure, they’ll probably be able to find out who owns what land anyway, just from sending people out to the farms to investigate. All it will take is a bit of time and effort, and once they put it in, it will be inevitable.
Mr Zuma’s comments caused outrage among groups representing Afrikaans speaking farmers on Friday.
The Boer Afrikaner Volksraad, which claims to have 40,000 members, said its members would take land expropriation without compensation as “a declaration of war”.
“We are ready to fight back,” said Andries Breytenbach, the group’s chairman. “We need urgent mediation between us and the government. “If this starts, it will turn into a racial war which we want to prevent.”
A racial war? But I was under the impression that the more racial diversity there is in a society, the more peaceful it is. After all, diversity is supposedly the greatest strength, so the idea of a racial war happening, doesn’t make any sense. The only possible explanation is that those racist white people, who are a minority, and who have no institutional power in South Africa anymore, are benefiting from some form of “white privilege”, and are using this white privilege to oppress the black majority. It’s the only possible explanation, because whites are to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world, and non-whites are always poor, oppressed, victims of white supremacy. Once white people go extinct, there’ll be no more racial conflict, and all other races will hold hands and sing and dance in some happy, white-free Utopia.
9d170f1483bbbf3ff53b723d5f917068.jpg
Take away the evil, racist, white people, and the world can eventually be like this. 
Mr Zuma first mentioned the expropriation of land in his opening of Parliament speech last month, but Friday was the first time he called for a change in the law. In his February speech, he controversially called in the military to maintain “law and order” on the streets of Cape Town ahead of expected protests calling for him to step down.
And the rioting scum in America think Trump is a Fascist. They wouldn’t be able to get away with half the stuff they pull in America, over in South Africa. Although then again, they probably wouldn’t protest in South Africa anyway, because they would more than likely support Zuma’s anti-white policies.
It was the first time in South Africa’s history, including the heavily militarised apartheid era, that the president has ordered the military to provide security at parliament.
Probably because Apartheid Era South Africa was actually a well run country so this wasn’t necessary before. Current South Africa on the other hand is in the early stages of becoming Zimbabwe Part 2.
ebc2fb9f61cb4b0310a2a605ec1a51bc.jpg
12440407_1575131562803334_1337530620998722180_o.jpg
Life_expectancy_in_select_Southern_African_countries_1960-2012.svg.png
And if this plan does go ahead, then Zimbabwe part 2, is exactly what it will become. Much like the former Rhodesia was back in the day, farming is a big part of the South African economy, and just like in Rhodesia, most of the big important farmers are white. If these white farmers are forced off their land, and the land is handed to incompetent blacks (which is exactly what happened when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe), they’ll be incapable of running the farms properly, and will destroy their economy in the process. Yet I wouldn’t be surprised if they do it anyway. Anti-white ideology is so strong, that I can see it winning out against common sense, and even if a lot of people (the majority of whom, you can be sure will be black), have to either starve in man made famines, or suffer economic hardship,they will probably do it anyway, just so they can harm the white people.

Four black thugs kidnap and torture a white guy.

We constantly hear in the media about how there is still a very big problem with racism in America. We hear about how all white people benefit from some vague form of “white privilege” that somehow grants them all these undeserved and unspecified benefits that other races (particularly blacks) don’t also benefit from. Then, we also constantly hear that 150 years post slavery, and 50 years post civil rights movement, that white people are still oppressing black people. No evidence for this accusation is ever needed. It’s just repeated over and over again until stupid white people are guilted into believing it must be true. We must be the racist oppressors that the media keeps saying we are. We must be the ones who as a racial demographic, are committing the most violent crime overall, and the most interracial violence must be white on black. Sure, it looks as if blacks commit more crime, but we can’t believe what we’re seeing, because the media disagrees, and they wouldn’t possibly lie to us so blatantly, right? Well actually… they would.

3qkPR4.jpg

Meanwhile, those of us in the world of reality understand that the exact opposite is true. The reality is that most violent crime in the United States is committed by young black men, and this is even despite the fact that blacks make up about one fifth of the population percentage as whites.

violent-crime-stats.jpg
Shaun King (real first name, “Jeffery”) is a white guy who pretends to be black by the way.  If he can’t even tell the truth about what race he is, why should we trust anything else he says?

This is what has been happening the entire time. The vast majority of interracial crime in the United States for the past few decades has been black on white, but the media has always made a habit of deliberately trying to cover this uncomfortable truth up and minimising any coverage of these crimes, while at the same time, taking the rare stories were the opposite happens (white on black violence) and making them international sensations that get attention for months, even years after happening. For a long time, these lies have worked, and the majority have believed them. However, I really can’t see any way that they can lie about this one. It’s just too blatant that even the the big lie technique can’t cover it up.

Unfortunately, the original video is now gone, due to YouTube’s policy on graphic content, but let me summarise what happened. Four idiotic black thugs, kidnapped a young white man with special needs, tied him up, taped his mouth, and uploaded a livestream to Facebook (like I said, they’re idiots), footage of themselves beating him, cutting him with a knife, and forcing him to drink toilet water, all while yelling “Fuck Donald Trump” and various slurs against white people. In other words, the attack was racially motivated, and therefore fits the definition of a “hate crime” under American laws. Certainly, if the opposite had happened (ie. four white thugs doing the same thing to a black guy), the media would be up in arms about it.

Here are two videos which give some interesting insights into the original video and the hypocrisy of the whole situation.

This is the sort of thing that led to the Trump victory. Make no mistake about it, even though most people are asleep, there are still quite a lot of people who on some level, are worried about the future. They understand that we white people are the most despised race on the planet, and that as our numbers go down, and the numbers of other races goes up in our countries, the more persecution we will face. People can see this and are frightened, because they know that we’re on the way to minority status in our own countries, and that we will be treated far worse as a minority ourselves, than we treat minorities now. We can look at attacks like this one and see a preview of the future facing us. Mark my words, we are being targeted for genocide, and if they can act like this now, when we greatly outnumber them, can you even begin to imagine how bad it will get, when they eventually outnumber us? We only need to look at what happened in Haiti in 1804, Zimbabwe since Mugabe came to power, or South Africa post Apartheid, to see our future.

Revolutia-din-Haiti.jpg

Lena Dunham posts skit about the “extinction of straight white men”.

Screen-Shot-2013-01-18-at-3.55.19-PM1.png
Do I even need to come up with a witty caption?

Lena Dunham, a disgusting rat-like creature who is probably one of the the most worthless forms of life on the planet (on par with the fungus that causes jock itch, the HIV virus, and establishment politicians), posted a 30 second skit on her twitter page, celebrating the idea of the extinction of straight white men. This is hardly anything groundbreaking of course, seeing as we live in a world in which we straight white males are public enemy number one. It’s perfectly acceptable to talk about us in ways that nobody would dare talk about any other demographic. Nevertheless, I figured it couldn’t hurt to share it seeing as it serves as yet another example in the ongoing war being waged against us.

You can watch the skit above.

From Information Liberation

Hillary Clinton surrogate Lena Dunham produced a sickening sketch with her father where the two celebrate the “extinction” of “straight white men.”

If it really was her father, then he is absolutely pathetic. You’d have to be, to take this kind of pleasure in your own demographic annihilation. I’m well aware that Lena Dunham herself is Jewish, so ordinarily, that would explain things seeing as many Jews don’t consider themselves to be white, and therefore wouldn’t be including themselves in the straight white male category, but according to her Wikipedia page, she’s only Jewish on her mother’s side. Her father isn’t a Jew, so that excuse can’t be used here. He’s just a massive cuck.

52d39a48ed7e880a51817dbd6163d187082441ca_1_600x651.jpg
In fairness, he isn’t alone in thinking this way.

The sketch, which she shared November 2nd on Twitter, begins with Lena asking her father, “How are you feeling about the extinction of white men?”

Probably pretty excited? I mean, what exactly have white men contributed to the world, besides inventing most of the useful inventions that we now take for granted, making most of the medical advances so far in the world, landing a man on the moon, creating western civilisation and the superior laws and human rights associated with it, etc. However apart from all that, what have they really contributed to the world? Absolutely nothing, that’s what.

2vmgfg9
At least those horrible white men are gone.

“Well white men are a problem, straight white men are a big problem, that’s for sure,” her father Carroll Dunham says. “But I actually feel pretty good about it.”

“I think, uh, straight white guys have been screwing things up for long enough. High time for straight white males to, uh, step back and let some other people do it,” he says.

Notice how he doesn’t say how exactly straight white guys are screwing things up? It’s just a vague and unspecified generalisation which he won’t actually clarify. He also doesn’t explain how other groups will somehow do things better than us. Probably because he can’t. There are already plenty of countries in the world were straight white guys aren’t running things, and apart from a few exceptions in East Asia such as Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong etc, these people are “screwing things up” in their countries much worse than we ever could. We can even cite examples of countries such as Zimbabwe, Haiti, and South Africa which were run properly by white guys in the past, and have descended into chaos without us. That’s the kind of future this idiot wants in the entire western world. Turning us all into one giant Zimbabwe.

zimbabwe-president-robert-mugabe-attends-independence-rally-harare..jpg
I bet the people of Zimbabwe would rather have the white guys back running things rather than this failure.

“That’s my dad!” Lena responds glowingly.

That is a man who has failed at life.

Lena Dunham was out campaigning for Hillary Clinton last week in North Carolina.

“Trump is responsible for every bad thing his supporters say and do and needs to apologise on their behalf.”

“Hillary can’t be held responsible for anything her supporters say and do and doesn’t have to apologise on their behalf.”

She told an audience while being filmed by ABC News: “White patriarchy is like a beast in a movie that’s been stabbed and is just dying so slow and screaming as it goes down, and I just am afraid of what that’s going to look like.”

What you should be more afraid of is living under whatever would replace the “white patriarchy” that you hate so much. If the Middle East and Africa are anything to go by, you might get a rude awakening to how good you had things before.

Does Hillary Clinton agree with her surrogate that all white men should be killed so other people can take their place?

Probably. With the kind of policies she pursues particularly regarding open borders, I really wouldn’t be surprised at all.

Will Hillary Clinton denounce her surrogate’s genocidal, anti-white propaganda?

No, because only Trump is expected to denounce things.

Thankfully enough, the people are calling her out on how disgraceful this is.

1.png

2.png

3.png
Mark Dice is awesome btw. I’d recommend checking out his youtube channel.
4.png
This is a reference to how she admitted quite casually to molesting her own sister as a child.

5.png

6.png
A Jew who wants white men to go extinct? Damn, who would have ever predicted it?

7.png

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.

white2.jpg

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.

*sigh*

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.

Elliot-Rodger.jpg
“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.

f8078ce470c623df7070dbd1f35e2d4bda2b76ff

CZrWhPwW0AANfhR

3702996-0680796927-tumbl

genocide.png

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?

5340551651_fbf16a2b3c
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.

White Lives Matter has been officially declared a “hate group”.

 

Skeletor-s-Crew-he-man-2185908-1024-768.jpg
The Southern Poverty Law Center’s board of directors, getting ready to go after another hate group.

So I’m sure by now everyone is well aware of the Black Lives Matter movement. The media and the political establishment in America has been promoting it as if it was some kind of new civil rights movement, on par with what Martin Luther King led back in the 1960s. The reality of course is that it’s nothing more than a bunch of thugs and morons, protesting against a non-existent epidemic of white on black murders, all while ignoring the actual reality… that most “black lives” are lost at the hands of other black people, and in terms of interracial violence, whites are more likely to be victims of black criminals, than the other way around.

3qkPR4.jpg

crime_statistics_01.jpg

Tragic-black-crime-statistics.png

Based on the lies that these idiots have been led to believe because of the media’s biased reporting, they have been riled up enough to riot all over the country, and have even murdered cops. Despite all this, the media has continued to lie over and over, both to the black community, by painting them as innocent victims of a white supremacist police force who wants to murder them, simply because they hate the colour of their skin, and to the white community, by portraying them as the real aggressors, and by trying to cover up how bad these BLM protesters really are.

Oh how nice. She was calling for peace. She doesn’t want her fellow black people to riot as evident by her words. I hope they weren’t taken out of context.

Oh wait. She wasn’t actually calling for peace. She was just telling them to go riot in the suburbs, where all the white people live instead. Why would the media cut off this important part of her speech, unless they were trying to push a false narrative on the gullible white community?

So anyway, some white people made up their own answer to BLM, which they call “White Lives Matter”. Unlike the BLM groups, WLM actually have facts and statistics to back up the assertion that it is in fact white people, rather than black people, who are suffering the most in terms of interracial murders. WLM are also a genuinely peaceful group, who don’t riot or murder cops (or anyone for that matter really). Yet despite all this, the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organisation that allegedly exists to combat “hate groups” has declared WLM to be a hate group. Why exactly? Well, lets take a read.

From New York Times

A white nationalist group called White Lives Matter, which calls itself an opponent of the Black Lives Matter movement, has been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that tracks extremist groups in the United States.

“The White Lives Matter website says their movement is dedicated to the preservation of the white race. That tells you all you need to know,” said Heidi Beirich, the director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala. “They’re against integration, immigration. This is standard white supremacist stuff.”

heidi-beirich-splc.jpg
Jabba the Hutt in drag? No, this is Heidi Beirich, who thinks that white people simply wanting to preserve themselves is white supremacy.

How dare these white people think they have a right to preserve their race? Don’t they understand that only blacks, Asians, Arabs, Mestizos, and every other race except for whites, has the right to preserve themselves? Whites have a duty to go extinct in order to make amends for slavery, colonialism, genocide, and other historical crimes that were committed by other white people hundreds of years ago. The fact that every other race has also engaged in these same historical crimes doesn’t matter. Because whites were the most successful at it in the past, they’re the only ones who should get any blame, and their current living descendants must be made to pay for it.

The group, which grew out of a social media meme, argues that white Americans are victims of a genocide caused by factors like the immigration of nonwhite people and marriage between white Christians and nonwhites or Jews, Ms. Beirich said. The law center’s designation is meant to draw attention to and increase scrutiny of the group’s activities.

Under the UN’s own definition of genocide, this assessment is correct.

“Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

While there is no literal state sponsored mass killings of white people, the state has imported hostile and incompatible racial groups in its pursuit of multiculturalism, who are killing us on an individual level. These deaths would not have happened in a monocultural society.

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

Is constantly telling us that we’re evil, or that we have undeserved privilege, just because of the skin colour we were born with, not a form of mental harm? There are college courses teaching students about “the problem of whiteness“. Just a few days ago, a teenage girl in Britain committed suicide a teenage girl in Britain committed suicide, because she was so scared that people might think she was racist. There is even a famous exercise for teaching schoolkids about the harmful effects of racism, which involves humiliating and degrading the students with blue eyes (who are of course all going to be white) and encouraging kids with brown eyes (who are mostly non-white) to take part in humiliating them. If none of this counts as “mental harm”, I don’t know what does.

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

I lump these two together, because I think they can be linked. By encouraging mass immigration from the third world to the first world, it increases competition for employment and living space. This has the effect of driving down wages (as there is less demand for each individuals labour) and driving up the cost of buying or renting a home (as there is increased demand for the small amount of homes available). This means that the native group are less able to afford to start a family, which results in them having less children, or even no children at all, when they would have been more able to get a decent paying job, and to afford a decent sized home, if not for the effects of mass immigration. I only have to look at my own generation, and how few of them have children, compared to what things were like for previous generations when they were my age, to see this in action. There are of course other factors which contribute to the decrease in family sizes, but I think financial reasons, exasperated by the knock on effect of mass immigration is the biggest reason. People didn’t suddenly lose interest in having families. It’s just not financially viable, and immigration policies only make it worse.


(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Not applicable… although Germany is willing to take children away from their parents, if they dare speak out against immigration.

f8078ce470c623df7070dbd1f35e2d4bda2b76ff.png
A slightly different interpretation than my own, but we agree on the core point.

800px-Principles_of_progressive_politicshowtogen (1)

tkennedystats.jpg

3702996-0680796927-tumbl.jpg

But yeah, this is all just crazy white supremacy.

Last week, its members held a protest outside the Houston office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to demand that it denounce Black Lives Matter, according to video posted online by the group. The Houston Chronicle reported that some of the protesters carried assault rifles and Confederate flags.

Researchers with the law center said White Lives Matter had been promoted by the Aryan Renaissance Society, a group in Texas that is a member of the United Aryan Front, a white nationalist coalition.

Ms. Beirich said the center’s designation focused on one chapter of the group based in Nashville that is led by Rebecca Barnette, a leader of the Aryan Strikeforce, a skinhead group, and the National Socialist Movement, America’s largest neo-Nazi group.

Ms. Barnette did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday, but White Lives Matter posted several videos criticizing the Southern Poverty Law Center to its YouTube channel in the past two days. One video described White Lives Matter’s members as “just the guy next door.”

I just watched the video myself. The comments are universally opposed to the narrative that the SPLC is trying to promote. People can see the truth. They are just a bunch of normal, everyday, white people, who simply think they have a right to pursue their own ethnic interests.

Ms. Beirich said the number of white supremacist groups in the United States had grown in the past year and attributed that to the racially charged rhetoric of the presidential campaign. There are 892 active hate groups in the country, the law center said.

“Certainly we’ve got people who are much more energized in a way that didn’t exist before, and that’s all because of the presidential campaign,” Ms. Beirich said before specifying Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee “Trump has given these people hope they didn’t have before that they could influence politics or that they would at least be listened to.”

They just had to get the dig in on Trump. Everything is always his fault, as far as they are concerned.

Donald Trump Holds Campaign Rally In Fort Worth
He’s like Hitler and the KKK all rolled into one.

Ms. Barnette described herself as White Lives Matter’s co-founder in her profile on Vk.com, a Russian social networking site preferred by white nationalists for its lenient approach to posts that contain racist content. She said the group’s name had “been picked up by several other groups who are doing their own things with it.”

I’m sure by “racist content” what they mean is “inconvenient truths that the SPLC doesn’t want the people to be exposed to”.

Mark Pitcavage, a researcher at the Anti-Defamation League, agreed that the phrase had spread beyond the group.

285a58d4.jpg
Mark Pitvacage. This time, Jabba the Hutt took off the dress and wig, and put on a fake beard instead.

“White Lives Matter is a concept around which you can organize an event without necessarily being a formal organization,” he said. “It is essentially the sum of the number of people who have done actions in the name of White Lives Matter.”

“For white supremacists, ‘White Lives Matter’ is an obvious meme, so they will use it,” he said.

If you think white lives matter, you’re a white supremacist.

On Vk.com, Ms. Barnette defended the group, writing that its members were unfairly labeled “domestic terrorists.”

And really, why shouldn’t she feel this is unfair? What acts of domestic terrorism have these people committed exactly? If anything, BLM are the real terrorist organisation, because they literally use violence and intimidation tactics to promote themselves. I’ve not heard of a single example of violence committed by this WLM crowd.

In other posts she argued that white women represent “the elite of the human species.” She also shared Nazi memes and frequently used racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic slurs.

“We do not live by the code of the nonwhites,” she wrote in one post calling for her followers to take action against the federal government, Jews and African-Americans. “Our forefathers built the nation that is being allowed to be destroyed.” Later she added, “I wish Hitler were here alive and well today.”

Fair enough, you might not agree with any of these parts, but it doesn’t take away from any other point that has been made. What exactly is wrong with white people wanting to preserve themselves? And why is the SPLC and Anti-Defamation League so opposed to them?

Well the answer is obvious. Lets just take a look at who runs the SPLC.

Of the twenty-two(22) Southern Poverty Law Center senior program staff members, fifteen(15) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 68%. Of the thirteen(13) Southern Poverty Law Center directors, eight(8) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 62%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the Southern Poverty Law Center senior program staff members by a factor of 34 times(3,400 percent), and over-represented on the Southern Poverty Law Center board of directors by a factor of 31 times(3,100 percent).

And the Anti-Defamation League is literally a Jewish organisation. This is not a coincidence of course. It’s pretty standard affair for Jews to play up racial tension against white people, under the guise of being white themselves because of how they look, but at the same time, shielding themselves behind their Jewishness, so they themselves can claim minority status, and avoid the consequences of any backlash against white people, that happens because of their race-baiting lies. They are the ultimate hypocrites.

23b32411069ad9c9f985a1fea91a1c76cf0490e0.png
Multiculturalism is only for the goyim.
13432433_958937980870348_1568368368989515181_n.jpg
But encouraging white people to breed themselves out of existence is perfectly fine.
Ckb5m5GWEAA4v13.jpg
“I’m white when I want to lecture white people. Otherwise, I’m Jewish”.
cohendoublethink.jpg
Cohen is a Jewish name btw. According to him, when a white guy kills blacks, his racist motive is the issue. When a Muslim kills infidels (mostly white of course) his motive doesn’t matter.
156550_361501597245822_995154228_n
Jews can live in a Jewish only country. White people can’t do the same.
original.jpg
Why would anyone who considers themselves white say that about their own race? Answer, she doesn’t consider herself one of us.
jewish-echo-comic.png
They do it so often, that there are literally cartoons made to mock it.

I could go into depth as to why exactly they do this, but experience tells me that people are better off figuring why out for themselves from their own research and conclusions. Unlike the Muslim immigration problem (which plenty of people are quite comfortable to hear about), most people feel a natural discomfort hearing criticism of Jews and their behaviour. This obviously goes back to WW2 and the images it conjures up in people’s minds. Most people will automatically associate pointing out awkward and uncomfortable truths about the Jews with Nazism, which we’ve been programmed to think of as the ultimate example of pure evil. Even now, I must admit that I find it uncomfortable talking about it, because I too have been a victim of this same programming. At the same time, I have a commitment to try and tell the truth exactly as I see it, so that’s what I’m doing. By providing videos and screenshots of things that Jews themselves have said, I can’t exactly be accused of making anything up. All I did was collect existing evidence and piece it together in order to show a pattern that exists. I won’t go into detail as to why they do what they do. I just wanted to show that they do it. The rest, you can figure out from your own research.

“All whites are racist”

In the soon to be Zimbabwe part 2 (or South Africa as it’s currently known) a massive bitch by the name of Gillian Schutte has decided to virtue signal about how all white people are racist apparently, and that the only way to do away with racism entirely is to “do away with whiteness”. The fact that she’s white herself never seems to cross her mind or impact on her logic in anyway.

gillian-schutte.jpg
Just look at those dead eyes. This woman has issues.

From The Citizen

Social activist Gillian Schutte took to her Facebook page to express her view on the burning issue of race in the country.

The burning racial issue in South Africa from what I can see is the current ongoing genocide against white people by the black majority. This isn’t what she’s going to address though.

“I agree with the position of the radical Black youth of today’s struggle against whiteness. Why should they point out the ‘good whites’ or even be cognizant of the possibility that ‘not all whites are racist’,” Schutte said.

“I agree with the position of the radical white youth of today’s struggle against blackness. Why should they point out the ‘good blacks’ or even be cognizant of the possibility that ‘not all blacks are racist’,” Schutte said.

“I agree with the position of the radical secular youth of today’s struggle against Muslims. Why should they point out the ‘good Muslims’ or even be cognizant of the possibility that ‘not all Muslims are terrorists’,” Schutte said.

“I agree with the position of the radical Christian youth of today’s struggle against homosexuality. Why should they point out the ‘good gays’ or even be cognizant of the possibility that ‘not all gays are sexual deviants’,” Schutte said.

^See how bad this really sounds?

Schutte says “all whites are racist by virtue of their birth into a system of privilege based on a false construct of race, thus I say all whites are racist until whiteness is defunct”.

“Race is a false construct”

“All white people are racist”

How can all white people be racist when there is no such thing as a white race?

what-liberals-actually-believe
This kind of doublethink all over again.

The activist said the only “race struggle” white people should be engaging in was the obliteration of the whiteness they were supposedly born into.

Yes white people, you don’t deserve to take any pride in your own racial heritage. It’s perfectly ok for blacks, Asians, Hispanics etc, to have racial solidarity and pride, but you don’t deserve that because your  race (which doesn’t exist) is genetically evil.

“The only race struggle whites should engage in is to obliterate the whiteness they are born into … with no expectation of ‘exceptionalism’ or accolades for being a good white. As Noel Ignatiev has written – the point is not to interpret whiteness but to abolish it. Why should the neurosis of whiteness become a black person’s problem?”

Noel Ignatiev, just to remind you, was this guy here.

Meanwhile, while the Jew professor is talking about abolishing “whiteness” to prevent racism, his own ethnic kin in Israel are using DNA tests to decide who is Jewish (which is strange, because they’re only supposed to be a religion, not a race) and are sterilising black people, so they can’t reproduce and change the ethnic makeup of the country. I wonder why such a proud advocate for racial equality isn’t speaking out against the behaviour of his fellow Jews in Israel?  If I didn’t know better, I would say that there is a double standard that exists for racism with white people getting picked on unfairly.

She claimed racism was found in what people did not do, thus, “the blank spaces of inaction [allegedly by “good whites”] is where the truth is found”.

It’s not enough to simply not act in a racist manner towards black people. We have to go out of our way to do more and more for them, or else we’re still racist. Instead of just getting on with our own lives in peace, and allowing them to do the same, we have to fight their battles for them, because they are helpless children who can’t do anything for themselves. We live to serve their interests and needs first and foremost.

Oh but they’re also completely equal to us in every way despite needing us to do everything for them.

“What use are good whites anyway, when 22 years later nothing much has changed for the majority of black people in SA?

Might want to blame the incompetent black morons who took control of the country the past 22 years then. They’re the majority group, and they’re the ones in power, yet they’re trying to blame white people for how things haven’t improved for black people in the country. How can it be the fault of white people, when they’re not the ones in power anymore? Why not just accept responsibility for the fact that your own people are at fault. It’s no coincidence that every single black run country (including ones that were once successful under white leadership, such as Haiti and Zimbabwe), are all failed third world hellholes. South Africa  is already heading down the same path. They can’t even maintain their powergrid, that’s how incompetent they are. But instead of accepting responsibility for their own failures, they have to try and blame it on white people.

What did the good white syndrome do to change the systemic nature of racism?

No information about this “systemic nature of racism” such as examples, or how it works. It’s just a baseless accusation.

Good whites will even learn the words to struggle songs and toyi toyi next to the oppressed – but will they give up their positions for the sake of transformation?”

What positions? Do you mean their jobs? Their homes? What exactly are you referring to? And why should they have to give anything up just to prove they aren’t racist to people who will just hate them no matter what? If they worked hard or made sacrifices to get somewhere, or even if they inherited a position of advantage from parents who did the same, why should they have to give anything up? People shouldn’t have to feel guilty about their successes.

As usual, she received a serious tongue lashing from some of her Facebook followers.

At least there’s some hope. I think we hit peak white guilt a while ago. At this point, white people are getting sick of being blamed for everyone else’s problems and failures, and every single wrong in the world. They whined too much and in doing so, have exhausted any good will and sympathy they might have once generated.

Azaad Hayat argued: “So, in the same vein of your broadening the parameters of the definition of being racist, all Jews in Israel are Zionists by virtue of their benefiting from the status quo.

HAHAHAHAHA YES!!!!

I always love when the hypocrisy of the self proclaimed “chosen ones” is pointed out.

All the silent non-Nazi Germans were, similarly, Nazis during that horrendous reign…….and on and on we can go generalising and placing people into large, little categories. You are very adept at promoting racism.”

She is indeed, though she probably doesn’t see it that way, because I’m guessing she’s one of those people who believe:

“racism requires power plus prejudice. A black person can have prejudice towards white people, but they don’t have the institutional power to be racist.”

Despite the fact that in South Africa, black people do hold all the power. Plus, even if you do buy into that nonsense about racism requiring power, otherwise it’s just simply prejudice, it doesn’t explain why prejudice is not a big deal. It’s still bad.

Schutte responded: “Yes absolutely … no self-respecting Jew should have anything to do with Israel. Americans should be much more defiant against the use of drones and heinous US foreign policy too.”

Well that’s refreshing. Something I can agree with. Though it probably wasn’t the smartest thing to say. unless she’s secretly an ethnic Jew herself, I don’t think they’ll take too kindly to her saying such things.

download.jpg
The reaction she should expect.

Schutte made international headlines after exposing Judge Mabel Jansen’s views on black people being rapists last month. Jansen came under fire for saying rape was part of “black men’s culture”. She made the comments in a private conversation with Schutte‚ who is a liberal journalist and filmmaker.

Wow how could this judge make such horrible comments?

RapeBlackOnWhiteMeme1.jpg

blackrape

black-on-white-rape-figures.png

blackonwhiterape

tumblr_n2i5w0KYgO1qaeo2oo1_500.png

sBcC8ov.jpg

Oh right…

Now of course, those statistics are from America, but I can’ help but wonder if there are similar problems in South Africa, and that is where the judge’s comments are coming from. Plus I would assume that being a judge, she has probably dealt with many different criminal cases, and she might have noticed a pattern emerging regarding certain types of crimes and the demographics which commit them. Of course, observable reality doesn’t matter to people like Gillian Schutte. All that matters is the narrative, and the narrative this woman wants to push is one of white racism against black people in South Africa. People like her are sick as far as I’m concerned.

Britain’s problem demographic? Why the English of course.

This is an old article, but it seems like a good one to share.

From The Globe and Mail

Let’s face it: Britain has an ethnic problem. Its patchwork of peoples, once the envy of the world, has become frayed, its harmony devolving into anger and xenophobia. And, we should be honest, the problem is rooted in one ethnic group – one large but troubled people who are failing to integrate into modern postindustrial society.

Hmm, I wonder which group could be failing to integrate.

sharia-uksharia-law-muslims-UKmaxresdefaultblack_burqa6a427299acaea7859a8e3acc28059ec78627757e

oxford-child-rapists

While some of its more ambitious members have found success in politics and business, this community is falling behind educationally and economically as a whole, self-segregating into ethnic enclaves, becoming increasingly prone to violence, rioting and substance abuse. More troubling, in recent years they have begun to vote for ethnic extremist parties that threaten to undermine basic British values.

Sounds like the above group alright.

Who are these people? The English. Once a tolerant, welcoming people who thrived in scholarship and commerce, they have become a drag on British society.

tovlvhmnr8zzga7xflrg.jpg

Wow so according to this guy, the English people are somehow wrong for pursuing their own ethnic interests in the land that they and their ancestors built, and which they are indigenous to. What kind of fucked up logic is that?

2008-3-21-tibet_hilll7.jpg
Sorry Mr. Tibetan man, but you can’t pursue your own ethnic interests in Tibet. That’s racist.
1000509261001_2033463483001_Mahatma-Gandhi-A-Legacy-of-Peace.jpg
Sorry Gandhi, but you can’t pursue Indian ethnic interests in India. That’s racist.

They have become Britain’s problem group. Government figures show that “white English” students are now outperformed in school results by British children of Bangladeshi, Ghanaian, Indian, Sierra Leonean, Chinese, Sri Lankan, Vietnamese and Nigerian ancestry.

The link above just goes to an old Guardian article which states that these Ethnic groups are apparently outperforming British kids in school. The actual report isn’t shown, so I can neither confirm or deny how accurate this is.

This was not always the case: A decade ago, it seemed as if Britons with darker skin colours were trapped behind the English in education and income. But it’s all changed: In 2009, Bangladeshi-British kids soared ahead of the English; black African kids caught up with them in 2010 and Pakistani kids are on course to pass them this year.

Well extra help from private tutors definitely pays dividends.

Unlike the island’s other ethnic groups, low-income members of the English community seem determined to stay poor and uneducated. Britain’s Department of Education has published figures listing how many low-income children achieved passing grades in secondary school in 2012. Sixty per cent of black African and Bangladeshi students did, about half of Pakistanis and black Caribbean kids did, 40 per cent of Indians did – and only three in 10 “white British” (mainly English) kids did, putting them at the bottom of the list.

Again, he doesn’t actually link to the report itself, so we can’t confirm if those figures are accurate or not. Although I would like to point out that it’s interesting how he’s only comparing the poorest members of each ethnic group to each other. I wonder why he doesn’t compare each ethnic group as a whole to each other, to find out the percentages that pass then. It’s very misleading to write an article complaining about all English people, when he only talks about an alleged issue with the poorest of them.

On top of this – or perhaps because of it – the English are now self-segregating into isolated, and sometimes impoverished, uni-ethnic enclaves. Some 600,000 white English people moved out of the mixed-ethnicity districts of London between 2001 and 2011 for less integrated areas, while other ethnic groups moved into areas of higher diversity.

“HOW DARE THESE ENGLISH PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE WITH OTHER PEOPLE JUST LIKE THEMSELVES!!!”

If so many people are desperately fleeing diversity, then is that not a sign that it isn’t a good thing? You can be sure that this prick probably doesn’t live in a very diverse neighbourhood himself, all while he lectures others for trying to do the same.

muslim ghetto
Dear Doug… how about moving in to this neighbourhood, to be around the “diversity” you value so much.

The English are more prone than other groups to drop out of school early, to live on welfare benefits, to become unhealthy and to engage in crime. In measures of alcohol abuse, “trouble with police while drinking” and lawbreaking, they outrank any other ethnic group in Britain (except the Irish). Riots led by ethnic English youths tore the cities of England apart in the summer of 2011, while ethnic Turks, Bangladeshis and Africans guarded shops and became heroes for rescuing people from the riots. There is a constant sense that the poor English are about to break out in violence.

It might have something to do with sheer numbers. There are more people of English and Irish descent in Britain, than there are of Africans, Turks, Asians etc (at least for now) so it stands to reason that in “real numbers” they may very well riot more. However, if you were to compare on a “per capita” basis, I would bet that other groups commit far more trouble in proportion to their population sizes, especially when you bring in other serious crimes such as rapes, child molestation, and terrorism as well.

This was one thing when it was all kept inside the English community, but it is now beginning to affect Britain’s future. Growing numbers of the ethnic English are casting votes for the extremist UK Independence Party, which seeks to end immigration and pull Britain out of Europe. The party seems poised to capture a third of Britain’s seats in next year’s European Parliament elections.

UKIP are extremists now apparently -_-

Nigel_Farage_of_UKIP.jpg
Nigel Farage (AKA, Adolf Heinrich Goebbels) getting a boner “this big” at the thought of gassing trillions of poor innocent immigrants.

They are unlikely to win seats in national elections – they tend to spoil the Tory vote – but their threat has caused the English community’s traditional party, the Conservatives, to become less moderate. Prime Minister David Cameron has recently taken a weird turn into anti-immigrant nastiness, denying benefits to newcomers (even though immigrants rarely claim unemployment benefits) and buying into an implausible media theory about Romanians and Bulgarians flooding the country, all to appease the ethnic English.

Why should newcomers be entitled to benefits, when they haven’t contributed anything to the pot? And if they really do so rarely claim benefits anyway, then why does it matter if they’re denied them? If they aren’t going to claim anyway, then they aren’t going to be affected by this decision. If they work for a while and then become unemployed later, they should be as entitled as anyone else to claim benefits, because they would have paid taxes through working at that point. Otherwise, fuck them. They don’t deserve anything just for showing up inside Britain’s borders.

These xenophobic attitudes are harming Britain’s economy. As the Economist recently wrote, the Prime Minister’s pledge to drive immigration below 100,000 a year has done serious damage – steep visa fees, quotas and restrictions have driven away foreign students, educated elites and investors, while many British companies are moving their operations overseas, where it’s easier to hire the best workers. And it is causing a fiscal crisis – according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, immigration rates will need to double if national debt is to be lowered to half its level (and UKIP’s immigration freeze would double public debt).

Britain needs more of these super geniuses in order to maintain their position in the world. Sure, the countries they come from are often miserable hellholes which they are seemingly unable to improve but somehow, they’re needed to make Britain great.

81798458.jpg
Britain needs infinity more workers like “Oban” here, in order for their economy to reach the same heights as Nigeria’s.

Don’t get me wrong about the English. I know quite a few English people who are rather decent (including my dear old Mum and Gran), and their culture is not without its charm. But they need help. Ethnic English numbers are growing, and if they’re allowed to gain any more influence in British society, they could be trouble.

And this is where it ends. It’s essentially satirising what people say about non-indigenous groups increasing in number and gaining influence, except it completely misses the point entirely as to why this is an issue. There is nothing wrong with Ethnic English growing in numbers in England, because England is their homeland, and they should be the ones to decide its path. England’s culture and values should be a representation of the Ethnic English people. If other, non-indigenous groups don’t like that, then they always have their own homelands, which they can return to quite freely if they choose. There is always a land where their cultures and values can be practiced and this isn’t under threat by the English people living in England. On the other hand, if Ethnic English people are surpassed in England by another ethnic group, who wish to impose their culture and values on England, then they have nowhere escape to. They have to submit to the will of the other group.

The difference really is quite obvious.