Translate

Sunday, 15 January 2017

#Denialmovie

























Poppy Mania Day prevents any rational and impartial analysis of the insanity of UK foreign policy for the past 100 years



David Irving in 2000 with his matinee idol looks at 62 still largely intact.

But look who they got to play him. 



In case I am accused of anti-Semitism because I dare to declare David Irving handsome, let me say Bryan Appleyard agrees with me too at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spielberg-would-have-cut-me-up-with-style-0lm0dt3pt?shareToken=6f75f637aaf6b6947775a1b1e76879b8 



Why does it have to be 6 million? 
Because it says so in the Kabbalah, and was therefore fore-ordained.
It is like a magic number.
This is the most cogent and easily understandable explanation of the Holocaust Denial industry.

Saturday, 14 January 2017

Some questions on insanity

Are women more likely to suffer from insanity than men? If so, what is the reason? Because women tend to be more subjective and tend to regard truth and logic as an obstacle to their wishes rather than as a tool for solving problems?

Subjectivity/Femininity/Insanity v Objectivity/Masculinity/Sanity

Who should win?

Who would God want to win if He exists?

Even if God does not in fact exist, He must be male, because it must have been a man who conceived of Him and then wielded God as an instrument of government.

It is impossible to imagine a woman as being the first person in the world to have thought up such an entity.

Sane people form theories based on their observations of the world around them while the insane, stubborn, stupid and arrogant fit the world into their theories, however ill-fitting, and never learn from their mistakes because they are too proud to admit having made them.

Is there a difference between being wrong and being mad? The consequences however are the same: disaster.

Insanity: being persistently, immovably and fundamentally in error about some important fact.

Is it possible that the entire West is mad?

Which is more frightening: to be insane or to discover that everyone around you is in fact insane?



What sort of person isn't grateful for the existence of RT?


1.  A person who doesn't like acknowledging the possibility that he, his government and its leaders have been wrong for a very very long time.

2.  A person who finds the challenge of understanding Western foreign policy too difficult, time-consuming, boring and overwhelming.

3.  A person who prefers to hang on to his views whatever the facts, logic and morality of the situation.

4.  A person who enjoys the idea that white people can just bomb the shit out of any country they like without suffering any consequences and that bombing the shit out of brown people is part of their white racial identity of which they are very very proud.

5.  A person who doesn't want to admit that he has been duped by mainstream media for a very very long time.

6.  A person who prefers mainstream media because it is all so predictable and familiar.

7.  A person who does not like admitting mistakes out of pride, stubbornness and chauvinism.
That would be most people.

Most people do not care to be guided by the truth, logic or morality and believe that their confused thoughts and inconsistent positions are better than anyone else's logic and truth just because their confused thoughts and inconsistent positions are theirs.

Do such people - who only care about the price of beer and cigarettes, more or less - even deserve the vote?

What is the very best thing about RT? For me it is Peter Lavelle's Crosstalk.

And probably the best documentaries I have come across.

RT should be make T-shirts, hoodies and badges for us to wear.

Even if I don't get a job from RT this year, this post will still be staying up.  

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Feminism and Western Foreign Policy pointedly *not* discussed at the Progress meeting on countering Muslim terrorism




















































































































































































































































White middle class feminazis in the media who control spineless unprincipled men don't care about the morality of Western foreign policy or social policy. Those who control our media are mostly feminists, gays, atheists and the opposite of people who support marriage and family values.

Having destroyed the masculinity of men of their own race, they now wish to invite men of other races to enter their country in order to destroy their masculinity too.

Under cover of terrorism legislation, the government can easily now censor the free exchange of ideas to demonise anyone who points out an obvious truth or uses logical arguments to press his case.

When people like Anjem Choudary easily win the argument, the government simply ceases to engage with them at all and then incarcerates them.

It is not just Muslim radicals who suffer this treatment, is it? Even now as you read this, plans are afoot to impeach Donald Trump, before he has even been inaugurated.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/12/donald-trump-may-get-impeached-within-a-year-if-you-believe-the-betting-odds-6377488/

Corporate media still has a purpose even if the rest of us already know they are the biggest manufacturers of fake news.

This is how it works: the media spin a narrative - any narrative at all, no matter how illogical, transparently false and immoral. Our politicians pretend to believe it and vote for it. 

Monday, 9 January 2017

Patriarchy good, matriarchy bad. K-selection good, R-selection bad.

K-selection breeds children to compete in a world of limited resources through a two-parent upbringing, defined by high sexual dimorphism, monogamy, late sexual maturation, and loyalty to the in-group (i.e. wolves). R-selection breeds children for a world of abundant resources through a single-mother upbringing, defined by low sexual dimorphism, promiscuity, early sexual maturation, and disloyalty to the tribe (i.e. rabbits).

The conflict between leftism (of which feminism is a subset) and conservatism is the conflict between r and K. K-selected individuals want a world that encourages competition and meritocracy, while r-selected individuals want a world of free resources: free food, free money, free shelter and free sex. In a K-selected world, men and girls have to compete to earn the right to mate with one another; in an r-selected world, men and girls have sex with no thought as to the consequences.

What does this have to do with feminism and rape? Simple: rape is the ultimate r-selected sexual strategy.

By its very definition, rape is an act of entitlement: forcing yourself on someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you, whom you haven’t earned the right to sleep with. Much in the same way leftists feel entitled to take other peoples’ money away through taxation and welfare, rapists feel entitled to stick their penises in girls’ vaginas. In fact, you could say that rape is an inherently leftist form of sex, which would explain why so many male feminists, such as Jian Ghomeshi and Hugo Schwyzer, enjoy assaulting and abusing girls.

Sexual assault is sexual socialism: redistributing nookie to the least privileged in society.

Feminists, being leftists, are r-strategists themselves. The purpose of feminism is to eliminate restrictions on female sexuality: allow girls to sleep around without getting pregnant, let them legally kill their unborn babies when they do get knocked up, and have it all funded by the taxpayer. From an r-strategist’s perspective, rape is a good thing, because it allows a female to have children without having to do anything, aside from breathe.

A few things to bear in mind about race

1. Racial differences are in fact cultural.

2. Cultural similarities can be attributed to geography, religion and government.

3. Birds of a feather flock together.

4. While a person's race can be a predictor of behaviour, it is not sufficient to simply rely on that if you are looking for a spouse or an employee.

5. Those of the same race can be very unpleasant to each other.

6. White people can be horrid to each other.

7. White Christian people have been infamously horrid to each other eg burning each other at the stake over the beliefs they held over their common religion of Christianity.

8. While that is so, you cannot say no good came of it for white people, because it was religiously persecuted white people who founded America and America is now top dog nation of the world and the source of Western hegemony after Europe destroyed itself in two World Wars over Belgium and Poland respectively.

9. For some reason nobody minds if people of the same race are horrid to each other and just shrug their shoulders at atrocities committed by members of the same race eg burning each other at the stake over their personal beliefs about the nature of the Trinity or whether their monarch should obey the Pope, but get on their high horse if one race commits atrocities on another.

10. I am not that bothered about racism living in the West as a non-white person because I know mono-racial societies can have revolutions during which everyone is busily being horrid to each other and you may find yourself persecuted by people of the same party and church or even your own family and former friends. It has been said that the people most likely to murder you in peacetime are your parents, children or your spouse who have something to gain from your death, especially if they are beneficiaries of your will ie people of your own race.

11. Racism is therefore lazy thinking and the wish to rely on lazy theories that make you think you can tell if someone is going to be nice or nasty to you but which will prove to be disastrously inaccurate. My contact with racists has revealed that they are just people who wish to hang on their lazy theories of the eternal racial superiority of white people and the eternal racial inferiority of other races, as well as the eternal racial superiority of Jewish people whom they hate and fear for being racially superior to them because of their religion.

Sunday, 8 January 2017

Tweeter threatens to bully, intidimate and victimise Claire Khaw on Facebook