Monday, 20 August 2018


Guy Gibson's dog tries to work out
how to a black power salute

I imagine everyone reading this is aware of the controversy concerning the 1955 film The Dam Busters. The military action is not the issue. The problem is the fact that character Guy Gibson’s dog is called, and referred to as, ‘Nigger’. Now, there has been much talk of taking the name and reference out of the film.
This is an interesting tale from a gentleman on Facebook;

'We went to watch the 4K restored version at the cinema on the 75th anniversary of the raid. There was live broadcast from the Albert Hall presented by Dan Snow and various other talking heads. He went to great lengths to say that in this day, the use of such names was unacceptable but for the sake of historical accuracy the name was not to be changed. There was a loud roar of approval and subsequent applause from the Albert Hall and in the packed cinema we attended. Now the left would say that proves that we’re all vile racists but I am sure that the audience most likely were not. They’re just sick of being told what to say and to think by the left. I expect that there is more pushback to come against the whole PC culture.'

A curious scene. I have written some possibly ill-judged words about blacks and black culture in the past, but every day is a schoolday and we learn, or we ought to learn. Now, I can see that what has become known as the ‘N-word’ is problematic. The history of slavery is exaggerated and warped, but there is no doubt that the US Democratic party had slaves and there was objectionable behaviour. If the word is a throwback to that, I accept that it may be unacceptable, although contemporary ‘people of colour’ make far too much of it, often to excuse their actions. Candace Owens is particularly vocal on this, asking why blacks want to be oppressed, why they seem to need to victims. The answer is simple. There is money in it. She, of course, as an educated black woman, has been crucified by black culture for daring to point out the glaringly obvious.
But to return to The Dam Busters, and my Facebook friend’s experience at the Albert Hall.
The ‘loud roar of approval and subsequent applause’ is significant. It indicates that people, real people, not the political, media, academic and SJW class, are beginning to throw off their own shackles of oppression that were forged over two decades ago. I will never forget drinking in a south London pub 15 or so years ago. Myself and my friends were brooding on the increasing influence of Islam on Britain, and particularly London. A guy on the next table was watching us from the corner of his eye. I thought he might be going to start something, as he looked tough enough, so when he came over our table I kept a weather eye on him. He leaned over conspiratorially and said,
I think you lot are right. I didn’t know you could say that stuff now’.
Fast forward 15 years to now. You can’t say that stuff. It would lose you your job, it would lose you your online accounts, and it may even lose you your liberty.
It is rather horrible that it has come to this. A burst of applause over the name of a dog in a movie becomes a symbol of how free speech has been closed down. The name of a dog in a film made under differing societal norms in terms of reality is not an insult to black people now, even though it may have been an insult then. The word is curious and so are the shifting of moral tectonic plates. My grandmother, who adopted my mother, once announced that she was having her radiators painted in ‘nigger brown’. Her husband was a policeman.
It has always struck me how thin-skinned the black community’s leaders and their white enablers are. This is partly, of course, because outrage and offence garner results and, ultimately, money. But one thing needs repeating.
White Liberals don’t like black people. If they did, they wouldn’t believe – or pretend to believe - that a black James Bond, skewed quota systems at the Oscars and just about everywhere else, lots of black news anchors, black sportsmen, adjusted SAT scores, the talk, Dear White People videos, and all the other humbug, fluff and jiggery-pokey they indulge in, would help young black men to stop killing one another and selling drugs in Democrat-run US cities. These things are crumbs from the white man’s table.
Racism does exist, and not just the faddish throwing around of the word by SJWs today should anyone voice the slightest doubt about Islam or immigration. If you want to see some real racism, get on to GAB and watch how some of the posters get their dopamine hits.
But, as everyone aware of the facts knows, no one has been allowed to talk about race for so long that the discussions have been forced into underground ideological beerkellars. This is why there is a roar of approval at the showing of a movie when a dog’s name is kept in the film.
Every dog has his day. We may be about to find out if he bites.

Wednesday, 15 August 2018


Come out Jones, we know you're in there.
Photo actually from Constantinople, 
showing Turks attacking Armenian shops

The devil… the prowde spirite… cannot endure to be mocked.”

Thomas Moore, Utopia

The great purge has come. In a sort of virtual night of the long knives, a digital Kristallnacht, the so-called ‘big tech’ companies of Silicon Valley are removing dissident voices from their platforms. The results are part chilling, part comical.
Alex Jones was the first big name to go down. Jones is part zealot, part buffoon, part crusader for truth. His channel, Infowars, has certainly played a big part in the regrouping of the dissident Right, whatever you think of the man himself. In a 12-hour period he was removed from pretty much every major social media platform. What happened next was that his app flew to number 1 in the relevant rankings, overleaping The Huffington Post and CNN. You wouldn’t know that, though, because the rankings only go up to number 2, and no further. It was much like the day that Sex Pistols – they were never called The Sex Pistols, by the way – got to number 1 with God Save the Queen in the week of the Queen’s jubilee in 1977, and the listings just blanked out the whole name and title. If Jones’s treatment wasn’t such a sign of totalitarianism, it would be laughable.
Gavin McInnes has been taken down, with no reason given. Lauren Southern has gone from YouTube. I imagine the dominoes will fall now, Paul Joseph Watson, Candace Owens, Sargon of Akkad and others will all join the queue to be terminated. And the Zuckerbergs will have done their job for their new masters.
The internet looks like a public square, an agora, but it is increasingly becoming an interview room in a welfare office. Answer the questions correctly, and show the right opinions, and you get the job. Mess up even once, and out the door you go.
I am not entirely certain that people quite understand what is coming down the pike. Once a state begins to quash free opinion, only one thing is inevitable, and that thing is not a good thing. The state does not work directly here, however. It has the Silicon Valley companies as its provisional wing. Mark Zuckerberg is a fundamentally bad human being, although I have to say that the fact he is a Jew I find to be merely incidental.
If you have read The Devils by Dostoevsky – sometimes translated into English as The Possessed – you will know how the authorities come after dissidents. After that book, if you have read The House of the Dead, you will know what happens next. People are already going to prison in the UK for what they have written online. This is not suddenly going to stop.
When the internet first became the latest craze in the UK – about a decade after it took off in the USA, like television – politicians couldn’t stop crowing about it. They don’t mention it now, unless to be censorious. It is the most dangerous thing to have happened to those in power since Gutenberg’s printing press. They will shut it down, as I have been saying for years.
First they came for Alex Jones, but I was not Alex Jones, so I said nothing...

Tuesday, 14 August 2018


Westminster? Seriously? Try the English towns, guys...

Car trouble, oh yeah.
Adam Ant

Well I am your crazy driver.
Iggy Pop

A few more people are mown down outside Parliament in the UK. For the elites, this is collateral. For the individuals involved, although apparently still alive, it is trauma, pain, injury, mental scarring, and the terrible guilt about their thoughts if it turns out to have been a Muslim at the wheel. But something is not quite right.
Like Keith Richard, I have been playing these riffs for years. But here they come again.
The periodicity of these attacks seems a little regular. Are they signed off by Muslim/Leftist high command to keep the citizens of Traumaville just that little bit scared?
How much planning does it take to drive a car into people? There are, supposedly, thousands of jihadis waiting to kill kufr in the UK. Can’t they drive? Can’t they find their local Avis?
Westminster, although I haven’t seen it for almost three years, has apparently been filled with concrete blocks to prevent exactly this type of attack. Why would you choose Westminster instead of, say, Market Dewsbury, where you will actually kill kufr?
Why do ‘heavily armed police’ always rush to the scene after these simple attacks? To traumatise those there even further?
Why can’t we know the name of the suspect? Oh yes. I remember now.
He will be, if Islamic, defined as mentally ill. Well, can’t argue with that one.
Islamist terrorism is a great sales pitch, but I’m not buying. The script is too good, the actors too polished, the lines too obviously rehearsed. Also, the plot has some serious flaws.
The UK ‘intelligence services’ insist that there are thousands of potential jihadis in Britain. They could strike at any time and vigilance is everything along with, of course, massive surveillance.
When one does finally attack on Westminster bridge, it takes him weeks of preparation, maps, synchronization with a web of accomplices, and an intricately wired explosive device. Oh, wait. No, it doesn’t. It takes a rental car.
This is a point I have made before. If I returned to England tomorrow and sauntered down to an ATM for a few grand, I could have a couple of guns and ammunition by the end of the week. I know how to do that and which contacts would set the ball rolling. Once tooled up, I could pop along to a shopping centre of my choice on a busy Saturday and I bet I could get a kill list in double figures before I got whacked out. Are the UK intelligence people really trying to tell me these crazed and covert jihadis couldn’t do the same? Or would it be patiently explained to me that this is just white privilege in action?
A car, of course, is easier to obtain than a gun. It would count me out of martyrdom as I don’t drive but, again, am I really expected to believe that these psychotics would not strike every hour of the day and every day of the week if authorised?
And that is the key to what stinks about the Westminster attack. Islamic attacks in the UK are starting to look very apportioned. One every now and again just to keep people afraid and allow the media to froth about diversity being strength and the danger of the far-Right. The police get more powers. Politicians get to preen their moral feathers. And the little people come incrementally under government control. The frog slowly boils but will not leave the pan.
It is quite possible that there is an Islamic chain of command working in collusion with the British version of the state. I can quite easily see London’s mayor signing this one off and telling the boys to take it easy for a few months. This is how anarcho-tyranny works.

Monday, 13 August 2018


Ma, she's making eyes at me

You will have noticed that many if not most of the news items run by the MSM are designed not to inform but to distract. The media are the provisional wing of big government and the deep state that acts as its marionetteer, and they do not want you looking behind the curtain like little Toto. Even when you cut away the dead wood of endless pieces on celebrities and people who play sports, what is touted as hard news is still designed to make you look the other way. That is when it is not lying to you outright.
In the UK, the carnival sideshow for the last week has been Boris Johnson’s comments in an article on the burka, the creepy body veil which hides Muslim from sight. Johnson is a curious character, but be in no doubt that he is positioning himself for the position of leader of the Conservative Party. He is a fraud, in my view, but then he is a politician, so no real news there. But it may be that he is more of a Conservative than the pathetic pairing of David Cameron and Theresa May, who were and are no such thing.
Of the burka, I can’t really add anything to the stream of verbiage for and against. My view is simple. It is a visual indicator of the superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture. It is sinister and oppressive, but it has helped to highlight the ridiculous nature of both the Western Left and Western feminism as they strive to defend it because they must. For these people, Islam represents their version of the Black Panthers, dangerous, sexy, real men fighting the Man. They are unaware that Islam will soon be the Man. Also, it shows the corners the Left paint themselves into. Many women who talk nonsense about how this item of apparel is ‘empowering to women’ don’t actually believe that, but you can’t break rank. The Left is every bit as zealous about apostasy as Islam is, it’s just that they don’t chop your head off for it. At least, not yet.
The argument for and against banning the burka is of secondary importance, however, to the reactions not to Johnson’s position – he is in favour of the freedom to wear it – but to the reactions to the language he employed, and this is the core of the modern Left’s latest offensive against freedom.
Johnson wrote that the burka makes women look like bank robbers or letter-boxes. The first is ridiculous. What sort of armed robber would wear something in which you can’t run while wearing? British journalist Rod Liddle – a Lefty but a naughty one – says it is entertaining to watch women in burkas cross the A11, a busy road in London. The second quip is unoriginal. I have seen cartoons and read that comparison before. But Johnson, to paraphrase Julie Burchill’s description of Stephen Fry, is a stupid person’s idea of what a smart politician is.
But it is the reaction that is of interest. The police were alerted and, although they decided there was no ‘hate crime’ to be prosecuted, 97% of London’s moped crime goes unsolved while coppers are mulling over this crap. The Conservative Party has considered removing the whip from Johnson. Don’t worry, non-British readers. British politicians don’t actually carry whips. The term is used to indicate parliamentarians who are able to vote. Johnson’s party is also clamouring for him to be sent to Soviet-style ‘diversity training’, despite the fact that Johnson has Islam in his family heritage. The media, predictably, are clutching their pearls and swooning in the drawing-room.
Old Traumavillians will be all too aware of the reasons I believe are behind this repetitive orgy of virtue signalling; protecting brand Islam. Also, you will be familiar with the fact that I have written many times of the difference between British libel law and its Islamic equivalent. In the UK, libel means a specific defamatory comment or set of comments intended to disparage a person privately or professionally. In Islam, it means saying something about someone that they don’t like. The door is open in the UK. Ah, shariah. Glad you could make it. Come on in.
I think Johnson is intelligent and canny. A good friend of mine, a journalist, tells a story of watching Johnson preparing to go to a press conference, and artfully tousling his mop of blond hair the better to promote his apparently goofy image. It will be interesting to see if other politicians break ranks when they realise that the people still matter. Johnson has a 60% approval rate for his comments, with 33% against. The 7% of ‘don’t knows’, by the way, make me think that the Isle of Wight should be made into a sort of Guantanamo Bay for people who say ‘don’t know’ in polls. Have an opinion, for Christ’s sake.
Finally, I don’t want governments banning anything. Once they start, they get a taste for it. If the burka is banned, this is what will happen.
Firstly, it will annoy Muslims, a creed almost perpetually annoyed to begin with. We have a phrase in the UK for being in a bad mood. You got out of the wrong side of bed. For many Muslims, both sides of the bed are the wrong side. There is no right side, and the bed was made by kufr bastards.
Secondly, Muslim women will still wear the burka in public. Do you think a police force who wouldn’t touch Muslim rape gangs for decades will arrest them? If they do, see above.
Thirdly, the Muslim Council of Britain and their affiliates will demand a quid pro quo. What will go next? Football colours? Crucifixes? The little black skull caps Jews wear? Tommy Robinson T-shirts? Dogs are already banned, de facto, in Muslim areas. So are gays. And alcohol. You watch the escalation in prohibition if the burka is banned.
Finally, it will just ramp up the coming civil war.
So, let Muslim women wear the burka. And don’t forget. It hides a black eye.

Sunday, 12 August 2018


Sorry, what did you just say?

For ten years I lived on a narrow boat. That is a canal boat, for my non-UK readers, and yes, it is two words. When I first bought the vessel, a 40-foot Sternie for those in the know, and whose name, Dorothea, is tattooed on my back. I bought a couple of books to enlighten me on what was a very new and unfamiliar venture.
One of the books was written by a minor journalist whose name eludes me. He and his wife decided to chuck it all in, buy a boat, and take to the canal. It was a fun read, and instructive. One scene stays with me.
I noticed myself, during my life on the canal – of which there are 3,000 miles in Britain, by the way, mostly in England. Home of the industrial revolution. Just thank us – how much trash was discarded into the canal. I saw all sorts of detritus in the water. Plastic bags were the worst, as they would snarl up in the propellor shaft and mean that you couldn’t steer – or tiller, as it is called – until you had cut the plastic out. I saw all kinds of crap in the canal. One day, cruising up towards north London – the canal cuts straight through my favourite park, The Regent’s Park – I saw a fucking car in the canal. And I saw more than a few motorbikes.
I also saw a lot of shopping trolleys. For my non-British readers, these are the carts made of wire that look like the bastard offspring of a go-kart and a wire coat-hanger. You use them in supermarkets, and you can even pop little kiddies in a sort of rack their legs go through. On each one, by law, one of the wheels will not work properly, and they will sprawl over the floor like a Wetherspoon drunkard. Sorry, I’m not explaining that reference.
Anyway, in the book, the guy who is about to embark on his new adventure is walking down the towpath one evening. He sees, in the canal, a half-submerged shopping trolley. It occurs to him that the person who pushed or threw it into the water must have enjoyed doing so. I mean, they aren’t trying to hide it. It is unlikely to be a murder weapon. He drags it out. He then pushed it back into the canal. He registers his pleasure at doing so. None. Zero. Nada. (I’m not quoting by the way, these are just my memories of the passage in the book). He drags the trolley out and tries again. Still no pleasure. He drags it out and parks it by the side of the canal, still at a loss to work out why someone might enjoy doing such a thing as pushing a trolley into a beautiful canal.
I have often tried an analogous experiment.
I have tried to be offended.
Nothing happened.
Offence is a fascinating phenomenon. Like a unicorn, everyone knows what it is even though it doesn’t exist. I will explain offence to you.
Let us say that someone says to me, your mother is a whore. Am I offended? No. I am annoyed or angry, and if I believe I could achieve the feat, I would punch the person who said it. But offended? Sorry, not with you.
But anger means nothing. It doesn’t work. It is like Monopoly money. It looks like money, but you try going to a store and spending it. Unlikely to buy you much, except the attentions of a security guard and possibly the police. But offence? A whole different currency.
Offence is the marketable tender for which anger and resentment is the gold reserve. Anger doesn’t work. In evolutionary terms, people respond to anger either by fight or flight.
Now, the reason that Muslims in particular, and non-whites in general have achieved such advantage in the offence stakes is that they have transmuted anger into offence. In the case of Islam, this is easily explained. Islam has come into the West and found a secular, godless society. Now, this needs unpacking.
I am not religious, although I go to church once a week or so, when it is empty. I don’t really know why. Partly for the silence and the iconography, which I understand, I think. Perhaps it is to do with the wonderful line from the movie The Usual Suspects;

Keaton always said, I don’t believe in God, but I’m afraid of him.’

I don’t believe in God as depicted in Christianity, but I do believe in what the Roman writers called providentia, or providence. This means that I believe life has a meaning, and that meaning is not to do with piecing together a successful career or having fun with your chums or anything to do with you yourself. Meaning pre-exists us and will still exist when we are dirt in the ground, or the ocean. But the West as a whole is determined to expunge Christianity and, as we know, nature abhors a vacuum.
I don’t honestly believe that the more vocal and agitative Muslims don’t believe in Allah, but they do believe in power and, to their concealed amazement, they have found that taking offence in the Western countries they are trying to conquer works. Western people react, and quickly, if the swirly writing on a fast-food coffee contained looks vaguely like the Arabic word for Allah. The offence is soon remedied. There is, as has been pointed out, a whole offence industry, an offshoot of the race industry and the identitarian industry. It thrives on offence and relies on offence for its existence.
The offended person is effectively saying this; You have done, said or portrayed something I told you I did not want you to do, say or portray. This has angered me. You will not do so again, and I have authority on my side to ensure that you do not.
And that’s it. I’m angry. Don’t do it again.
Offence is thus a victory for the offended over the offender.
As I say, I miss out on the jamboree because I simply don’t have the capacity offence. Do you remember those pages in magazines years ago that were composed of thousands of coloured dots? If you looked at them long enough, a picture would emerge. It never worked for me. I just saw thousands of coloured dots.
I should have taken offence.

Thursday, 9 August 2018


Two Jordan Petersons. Only Blogger knows why.

What do Jordan Peterson and Tommy Robinson have in common? Not very much, you would be forced to concede at first glance. But their two circles overlap in one small Venn diagram; the Left are out to get them.
With Robinson the task is an easy one, and the state is on the case. He has a checkered past, he is working class, the state has shown recently that it can lock him up in the most damaging way they can short of killing him, and he is anti-Islam, which means the Liberal-Left hate him by default in deference to those who will soon be their masters.
With Peterson it is harder. The state can’t touch him. To begin with, he is an intellectual. Piers Morgan is not equipped to take him on in the same way that he reviled Robinson. Peterson has a calm, measured approach to interviews mixed with a mild underlying menace born of intellectual self-confidence. Robinson is a hot-head where Peterson is cool and calm under fire. But this does not put him out of the trenches.
After the infamous Cathy Newman interview, the media have obviously assembled what they believe to be their big guns to take Peterson down. These are their main lines of attack:
  • The majority of Peterson’s followers are men, particularly young men. Peterson defends this by pointing out that he operates primarily through social media, which is mostly read and followed by young men.
  • As an extension of the above, the media constantly imply that Peterson is a creature of the Alt. Right, whatever that is this week. Peterson always calmly deflects this on the principle that he is not responsible for his followers’ beliefs. This is a powerful dart for the media, as they have conflated, in many of their followers’ minds, the Alt. Right, racism, white nationalism and the ethnostate and, of course, Nazism.
  • Leftist interviewers follow the Newman line of so what you’re saying is… or so you say… or why do you think that… Peterson rebuts this angle by explaining that whatever the point under discussion is, it isn’t what he’s saying or thinking, it is what the data indicate. The Left hate this approach because it goes against their denial of objectivity in favour of subjective ontological construction, the replacement of fact by emotiveness.
  • Following on from this, Leftist interviewers arrive with a pre-formed ideology, and use this to goad Peterson. However, they are dealing with both a clinical psychologist and an evolutionary biologist who is aware that dogma often runs contrariwise to changes in reality.
  • Interviewers almost always imply that Peterson is morally deficient for the questions he asks of reality. Because he comes across as conservative, this automatically triggers the media’s Leftist default position.
  • Peterson stresses the impossibilty of equality of outcome and the importance of equality of opportunity. This is anathema to the Left as it leads to a notion of meritocracy and brings the notions of natural hierarchies into play.
  • Peterson stresses that all media criticism of political viewpoints is directed against the Right, and therefore the fact that the Left is responsible for dreadful excesses is, as it were, given a pass.
As of the time of writing, and if it were a sports match between Peterson and the Left, the Canadian would be many points ahead. Without being conspiracist about the man, it is possible to imagine media board meetings dedicated to bringing him down, shaming him in the public square. The Left is so dogmatic, their zeal so quasi-religious, that anyone who even remotely swims upstream is not just fair game but a clear and present danger.
They have tried every trick in the book to nail him, but it is not working, and I suspect that there will be those who will begin to see the desperation of the Leftist media. Anything to get their man. Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, Milo, Robinson, Gavin McInnes, Katie Hopkins, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and a host of others are easy targets because they criticise Islam. Peterson has wisely kept away from that particular hot potato.
He has, however, spoken about immigration, stating what seems self evident, that the majority of entrepreneurs in the USA are from the Asian sub-continent, and that they are the type of immigrants a country need, implying that non-productive welfare recipients are not. That, of course, is enough for the Left to have you burnt at the stake.
In the end, however, it is Peterson’s mind that the Left fear. He barely misses a beat when replying to some loaded question from a hostile interviewer. And, in the MSM, they are all hostile. As I have pointed out many times, the Left despise intelligence as it threatens their strange, other-worldly lexicon and their preference for subjectivity and feelings over objectivity and reason. This is why, at present and with the Left apparently winning the culture wars, dumb is the new smart.
As I said to begin with, you could hardly find two more different characters than Tommy Robinson and Jordan Peterson. But in a curious way they are united by those who despise them.
The internet, as I have said before, is the most remarkable of achievements, but there is a storm on the horizon. Dissenting channels and contrarian voices are being closed out. Sorry to blow my own trumpet, but I have repeated for years that the state would come for the internet in the same way the Communists went after producers of samizdat, then-illegal literature criticising the new masters. For samizdat is what the dissident internet is. Peterson has something to say, as does Robinson, as does Sargon of Akkad, Count Dankula, Paul Kersey, Candace Owens, Nigel Farage, Paul Weston, Katie Hopkins, and a host of others. Gradually, they will be erased, expunged, excommunicated. The Left are going to win this fight, and then the Western world is done. I won’t be here, and I have no children, so I don’t much care. But there is a great sadness in watching a once-great civilisation give itself over to stupid people.

This is a very good video, incidentally, that chronicles the history of the hit-pieces on Jordan Peterson by the MSM.

Wednesday, 8 August 2018


The Scapegoat, by William Holman Hunt, 1956

The Greek ritual scapegoat, referred to as the pharmakos, provides an essential foundation for the study of legendary lives of the archaic Greek poets. The lives of Aesop, Hipponax, and Tyrtaeus are especially close to pharmakos themes and characteristics. The Greek ritual scapegoat is a complex religio-historical phenomenon, and aspects of it have been vigorously debated by scholars. Nevertheless, that the pharmakos complex existed in some form is undoubted.

The Pharmakos in Archaic Greece, Harvard University, Centre for Hellenic Studies

And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Leviticus 16, 7-10

Here is a little question that looks at first like a joke, except that it isn’t funny.

Q: Why is the Western mainstream media like South Africa?
A: Because it’s open season on white men.

I often wonder whose fault it is that the world is going to hell in an air-conditioned, Wi-fi zone, Starbucks-endorsed, plasma-screen TV inclusive, wealthy, disease-defeating, humanitarian aid-enhanced, technologically unmatched handcart. Then I read the MSM, and the Leftist alternative media, and I discover the answer, which is before me in every mirror. Me. It’s my fault.
Yes, amigos, the white male is to blame for all the ills of the world. That darned Renaissance, that pesky Enlightenment, that bloody awful industrial revolution, the tech boom that has so inconvenienced people of colour, air travel and all its mischief, medical advances that so irritatingly mean that many fewer people die of preventable illness, trauma improvement that keep so many more black boys alive after other black boys have stabbed them, that blasted technology that means you can buy the complete works of Shakespeare for 77p UK, the horror of more people being dragged out of poverty than at any other time in history, the sheer evil of women earning more than at any other time in history, the maritime industry, agriculture, sustainable energy, the legal system, policing, democracy, the armed forces and cheap food.
One thinks of the scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Except, as I say, it’s not funny.
Let’s get this absolutely straight. Blacks have done pretty much nothing to improve the world. All they have done is stick to white skin and suck the lifeblood out. Now, however, their media enablers are telling them that they are victims of white evil. As Christopher Walken’s character Frank White memorably says in King of New York, confronting a white policeman who is criticising him for his vigilante justice in killing mostly non-white criminals;
And you make me public enemy number one? I mean, is this some kind of a joke?’
It is not difficult to see what is happening here. Blacks, Muslims, indeed any variety of non-white person, are all hanging on to the flying coat-tails of the self-hating white ideologues, usually pretending to be journalists. They could not have achieved what they have achieved in terms of media profile without whitey.
Let’s rewrite history. Let’s remove from history anything that evil white man was responsible for. Abolition of slavery. Gone. Enlightenment. Gone. Civilising empire. Gone. Wade vs. Roe. Gone. The welfare state. Gone. Tech. Gone. Medicine. Gone. Surgical advances. Gone. Literature. Gone. Cinema. Gone. Shall I continue? As Obama once said in another context – except I am saying it to non-whites and self-hating whites – you didn’t build that.
Whitey did.
If you believe you waz kangz, and Wakanda exists, and cops shoot blacks for sport, and there is institutional racism, and whites can be racists without even knowing it, and we need to sit down and shut up, and white racism causes black crime, and non-whites can’t can’t be racist, and non-whites invented almost everything from the printing press to the large hadron collider, and literature is oppressively white, and positive affirmation advances civilisation, and SAT scores should be rigged to get more blacks into utterly worthless university places, then guess what?
Training shoes won’t help you.
Whitey fooled you again.