Latest UK Lunacy
- Thread starter Valentine
- Start date
Whites and Christians are generally peace loving people. However, history has shown that a great capacity for violence in the name of justice and values lays dormant within them.
When people wake up and truly start taking back everything, these traitors will be treated the same way German soldiers, civilians and collaborators were treated by Russians after WW2.
Liberals, illegals and Muslims will have no chance at all.
Police following orders as usual. Just like during the pandemic they have absolutely no capacity for critical thinking or the ability to draw logical conclusions in regard to the consequences of their acts and behaviour.
The language is Bulgarian, but as I said in the other thread, our fellow Ali Dumana is almost certainly a gypsy or Turk.
kevork
Other Christian
It's coming. These boats are going to get firebombed. And the 100,000s of parasites that have already arrived might not be given the courtesy of being remigrated.
In the mean time, any thoughts on how an operation to puncture boats at Calais might work? It seems you'd need something like a few drones to monitor hot spots. There would be enough time to be able to spot a planned launch site, then move to the area and make the boat un-seaworthy.
kevork
Other Christian
It depends on gender and age bracket. I would guess the avg. age here is about 40. I am in contact with a lot of guys in the age range 18-25, and you get massive support for very tough immigration policies to full remigration from them. Many are very into Hitler an Nazism, in a bit more of an updated pan-Euro form.
Personally my favourite path is deporting hostiles. That includes 4th generation hostiles. Just get rid of them. Strip them of citizenship and let them live in poverty on their own dime with no support if that's the best you can do. But anything that involved (close to) zero immigration, restricting/limiting high-risk countries like Pakistan, and deportations is the direction. I will take any of it, and we push on.
People I talk to are about as keen to deal with the traitorous idiot leftists as they are with third world invaders. From what I've been looking into, it looks like there has been sprawling decades long collusion between the sodomite lolbour party and the Paki invaders. They got snared, by their own stupidity, brain-dead, anti-reality ideology that their covering up of mass ethnically-targetted rapes got transmuted into exchanging mass vote fraud of muslims into creating gated areas in which they allowed the most horrific systematic rape of pre-teen and early teen girls imaginable. There are such vast parts of the party that are caught up in this, and I think, particularly with the richst man in the world on board, it's just going to spill out eventually. Right now lolbour's inquiry is just controlling the field. But I think it's buying time before it's exposed that lolbour is a rape dungeon.
I also saw analysis that shows that abuse of children by Labour MPs and councilors is much higher than from the con party. That's based on known cases. And it's by a scale of about 20X. There is also the fact that before the Paki rape gangs were more widely known, the largest known case of a child abuse ring was in Jeremy Corbyn's constituency. He was told about it multiple times that it existed, and there is not evidence he ever did anything about it.
The lol party also had MPs in it associated with the Pedophile Infornation Exchange, a group that wanted to legalise pedophillia. Margaret Hodge was one. It was later shut down when it was exposed the leadership were prolific child rapists.
This party needs to be ended and the death penalty brought back for its traitors.
A few days ago I was reading about the Council of Europe. This is a sperate body from the EU, and the parent of the European Court of Human Rights, which is the cause of much of the inactivity of seweage illegally migrating into Europe. It's also not permisable to have the death penalty as a member. This is the extent of th subversion. Their are all of these bodies that come up with guidelins that are institutionaly sacacant. And they are all absolutley 100% wall-to-wall left-wing. Don't just leave the ECHR, leave this Council of Europe permentant leftist govenemtn too. The bare minimum needed is a complete inversion of what we have now - a wall-to-wall left-wing system. It needs to be inverted into a wall-to-wal right-wing system, in which all of the supporters are working to keep it in place. That could be a fake democacy like we have now. It doesn't matters as long as it's wall-to-wall right-wing.
Throughout Europe the death penalty, esp. for extreme cases, is popular on the right. Yet we have this gloablist body that forbids it. And it's bascialy never mentioned. If it was support would probably rise to a healthy majority.
***
Pasting in some stuff I sent someone else on these topics:
***
I wonder how many of these people are not really saying what they think in public. Like whatever Labour MP Douglas Murray was on a Ch4 interview with 10+ years ago. When the MP put forward a positive message re. Islam, but then after the interview he went up to Murray and said, “Don’t worry Douglas, we’re all with you.” To which DM replied, “Well what was all that about?” To which the MP replied, “I can’t do anything, I’ve got a large Muslim constituency.”
Wherein lies the big issue for Labour. They have very obviously shifted their constituency from labour to 3rd world immigrants and middle-class women. That’s been their two pillars of electoral support – that’s where they have redirected state redistribution. You can see how the lolbour MPs with a labour background have plummeted and middle class women and 3rd would immigrants have skyrocketed. So they just aren’t going to change anything.
But now they have the issue that lolbour is required to be a soft, but specifically Zionist party. And lolbours’ main urban constituencies are heavily populated with 3rd world immigrants and middle class women, and general uni graduates. And there just isn’t really much cross-over between those two groups. Particularly Muslims. And lolbour have really been bending over for Muslims for decades. And all they have got back is votes. It’s not like there is any real Muslim support for secular cosmopolitan issues. It’s a one way street.
But with the Zionism issue and the fact it’s been actual lolbour policy to jack in as many voters as they can via immigration, that there are now a considerable number of urban areas that have or could elect Muslim-issue candidates without any real political organisation. And it’s just them. For now at least it’s not thinkable that you’d have, say, black or Indian-issue parties.
I suspect this is now a permanent trend, because lolbour have decided to bet on a fundamentally doomed electoral coalition. They aren’t able to back out of it. They can’t go back to being a labour party. And if the Islam-party grows, then it’s pretty much over for them. The only solid political constituency that would have been unbeatable if arranged was a socially conservative and centrist economic one.
How many people in the parliamentary lol party, and other parties, know that the issue with immigration, particularly Islam, exists. I think it’s probably most of them to varying extents. But all institutions are go along to get along. Who are the commanders, or leaders, or the people with great/terrible ideas who are willing to deal with significant pushback? Pretty much no one. And that’s what you are going to get when you have a safe managed bureaucracy. You are never going to get brilliance from safe and managed. It’s going to come from adversity, endeavour, pushing. A safe manage bureaucracy is a mass of pretty mediocre people with an array of negative psychological traits. They are instinctively opposed to people sticking their head above water, competent elites that can get things done. Because such people make the giant bureaucracy a redundant joke. This is the reason that it takes ridiculous amounts of time and money to do anything now. There is a useless bureaucracy, which is full of people just justifying each others' jobs.
On the issue of Muslims, I think it’s worth saying that there’s obviously lots of things you can say. Generally speaking, women are not relevant to their presence. Then there are different areas, where there are different over-arching cultures. So North Africa, across to Pakistan (minus Iran and Turkey to a considerable extent) is one blob, and is the main problem area. But then you will find the same sort of culture in Turkey and Iran as you will in Iraq or Pakistan, just not as much. Then you have Turkic people, whose culture is very different to the above. And Malaysia too. Like, when have you heard about rapists or terrorists or generally problematic people from there. Not to say those areas would not lead to problems. The point is the culture is obviously different, despite having the same religion. And then in countries like Turkey and Morocco and to some extent Iran, there are a lot of secular people, deists; while at the same time being a lot of religious people.
So in particularly there are people who have moved to Western countries and they are not carrying with them various types of baggage and views that will lead to them conflicting with the citizens.
But then there are huge numbers of people, particularly from the worst countries in the world, and particularly people from poor backgrounds who fundamentally want to live in a separate society. And many are actively engaging in immigration jihad, or are happy/ambivilant for it to occur. It’s not just a small minority. It’s not just people blowing things up.
So when people go on about terrorism, it’s not that relevant. I think the number has gone down in recent years, but in around 2017, over the previous few years there were about 10 Islamic terror plots per year in the UK. And there was only one executed on average, because the people carrying them out are typically dumb. So let’s say the security services stopped trying to stop these attacks. How many people would die a year? 100, 200 maybe. And maybe the terror of these attacks would encourage more. It’s a notable trend, but really, it’s not likely to specifically effect you.
But what is more likely to effect you is that the area you live will become deluged with Muslim immigrants, and everyone else will move out. Sharia law courts will appear, there will be rape gangs, aggressive men on the street, whatever culture you lived in is eradicated over a generation or so, etc. In short, a foreign culture is poured over your head that you don’t want to live in and they don’t really want to live with you either. There is obviously no reason for this to happen. Natives have zero to gain. But the people coming in from backwards $1,500 GDP per capita countries who live dramatically on welfare and contribute nothing that’s needed, they are getting a giant subsidy. And there is no reason for them to be getting it.
The issue is not terror – it’s the ongoing, unwanted, unnecessary replacement. And when do these people ever give any quarter or reciprocal generosity? It’s pretty much animosity and extreme in-group preference.
The attention should be directed away from largely irrelevant terrorism to replacement, incompatible culture and how there is no benefit for you and thus no reason for it to continue. Get rid of them.
As an example, consider you want to marry a Paki. What are the chances that will be accepted by the prospective in-laws? Maybe 10% at best, I think. What about if you convert to Islam? Even only for appearances. Maybe 20%. Consider these are backwards tribal goat-molesters who have been marying their cousins at a rate of 60% for 1,000 years. I’m guessing, but I think this is ballpark. Let’s say you are a girl. Maybe that increases to 10% and 30%. Because the way they think is that they can kind of take in women, but not men.
And how would that be on the other foot – how would a native British family accept that? Hard to say really. But I am certain the majority of people don’t want their children marrying a Paki. Arabs don’t want it, Turks don’t want it, Moroccans don’t want it. Because Pakis are seen in a bad light anywhere in the world. For example, you will find reference to (wealthy) Arabs saying stuff like, “I lost all respect for London when they allowed Sadiq Khan to become mayor.”
So, how can you run a society on this? If there are now various groups who variously cannot ever see themselves as the same people. Yet, you can’t really say this. But the reality is – people behave like this.
Further on this, as well as being one of the world’s rape centres and centre of global terrorism – Pakistan is one of the world’s centres of mistreatment of minorities; specifically the 1-2% of Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and some of the wrong types of Muslims, on top of the various ethnic sectarian issues. In Pakistan you have a phenomena where men will go and rape non-Muslim young girls and try and marry them as a result. Since the situation is once you are raped you are spoiled goods that won’t be able to find a “good” husband. So the rapists will then convert them and marry them. And if that happens to your daughter, you are going to struggle to get any of them almost wholly Muslim institutions to do anything about it. Because you are the other who anything can just happen to and it doesn’t matter. Pakistan is full of realities like this for the minorities.
But then look in the Pakistani press, look to find how many column inches there are about this pervasive discrimination. Next to nothing. Then look at how many column inches there are about the scourge of Islamophobia in the world. It’s 1 to 5,000 inches. Since there is no Islamophobia in Pakistan, they endlessly write about whatever affront they can find anywhere else in the world. And basically all of Islamophobia is people opposing the unwanted and negative presence of Islam in their country.
So when it comes to these people, you can never, ever give them an inch. Never take into account their interests. They will never do it for you. What have they done for Labour, other than vote for them? Labour has let them get away with everything and cannot say anything other than “most people are peaceful, there are a few terrorists.” You would think they might think, “All right well you’ve let us get away with mass ethnicity targetted rapes for a few decades, it’s only fair we support you on letting transgenders run wild or a two-state solution in Israel.” It doesn’t really happen.
At the end of British India, the polity was cut into Pakistan (including Bangladesh) and India. At this point mass killing erupted. I forget the figures. Might be 1-15 million. And what do you think the chances are that it was Hindus that were the impetus behind that? Given that Zoroastrians have lived peacefully in India since around 750, Jews for over a thousand years, Christians for 500+ years? Add to that that India lost 10s of millions of people over 100s of years in Islamic conquests that left a ~14% Muslim population that lives in India without any considerable molestation. And consider that is an abnormal situation historically. i.e. compare that to the lot of Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks who were treated badly in Turkey for 100s of years before being ethnically cleansed and genocided. Or was it maybe the Pakis who have a long history of abuses to this day?
Then in the early 1970s, Pakistan broke up as the Bengalis were being abused in what is now Bangladesh. I again forget how many people died, but around 500,000 women were genocide raped by the Pakistani military and associated jihadists. They were raped as the authoriiitise declared them to be "non-Muslim" and so fit to be raped. These are people who have a similar genetic background and the same religion. And they cannot live with each other for one generation without Pakis going on a rape-spree. So why are people in Europe or elsewhere told they must live with them and constantly bend over to accommodate them? Get rid of them.
The reason I mention this is because these are the ***** now bleeting about Islamophobia in the West. Yet look at their appalling recent history and present that they don’t want to talk about. They are just in it for themselves taking everything they can. They’re worried about people saying things that are true about them, but don’t care less about their crimes, abuses and negatives.
You cannot put significantly different people together. It doesn’t work. There isn’t this magic set of policies and brainwashing that can one day be delivered. You might, for example, find a Jew and a Palestinian (likely secular) who can be friends, and say “Look. we should live like this.” Because not everyone will think like that, ever. Anyone who thinks you can is a dangerous lunatic and historically ignorant. Different people can be put together under some form of suppression of the differences. When the political order falls, it inevitably leads to violence.
Yugoslavia – violence between very similar people as soon as the polity fell, now multiple countries in that region are dominated by specific ethnic parties
Soviet Union – still unravelling since borders were drawn inappropriately, now it seems very similar Russians and Ukrainians can’t live together
Ottoman Empire – centuries of barbarity followed by genocide and ethnic cleansing
Fiji – seven civil wars due to becoming majority Indian via Indians labourers being moved in
Suriname – two generations of political civil war based on different imported groups
Guyana – two generations of political civil war based on different imported groups
And so on.
The way those entities existed was suppression of differences, via various means. Without that they would have fallen apart, as they eventually did or will. The differences between certain people are too big to be discussed civilly. They have to either be turned off, or you have one side with privileges in what you can say. And in the West that’s obviously the immigrants who can say what they want and you can’t say much back without considerable consequences.
I think the difference between Scottish and English is about as much as a difference as you can really put together and be able to really openly talk about differences. i.e. it’s not going to cause a civil war. And still that’s left with a close to 50:50 split on the independence issue. This is because the real differences are relatively small. While if you are talking about blacks or Muslims, the differences are too big to be spoken about without causing something like a civil war.
That’s why there is endless pandering, saying things like “diversity is a strength”, or ‘celebrating’ black history, or Kier Starmer’s regular jaunts to Mosques to say how great Islam is. You wouldn’t need to say those things over and over and over again, every day, and have programs being embedded into every institution to goad people into saying such things if they were self-evident.
If I come up to you and started saying, “Do you know what? Short guys are great, aren’t they? I don’t know how we’d get anything done without them. They’re just there. Doing what they do. They’re just brilliant. We need to celebrate them more.” You’d probably be either confused or think I was joking, or both. Because although male height is a notable attribute with very different realities on the spectrum, it’s just something that people live with without need to politicise it. Society isn’t going to fall apart because 10% of the male population are 5’7” or less. But this is what you have 24/7, non-stop being pumped out on the axis of immigration.