Tuesday, 23 August 2016

Sing Along With The Chabloz Goy

What is a self-styled singer-songwriter? Alison Chabloz is one, according to her detractors. As she both composes and performs, and her work can be viewed on YouTube, one is entitled to ask in what sense is she self-styled? This petty dig is probably the slightest slight she has suffered since she came out, not as a lesbian, but as a Holocaust Revisionist.

Miss Chabloz has lived or at least spent some time in the Middle East, and in spite of her beliefs is clearly a left winger who identifies strongly with the struggle for Palestinian statehood. At one time this would have been a death sentence for her musical career; certainly as late as the 1980s Zionist spokesmen were able to insist there was no Jewish Lobby, no Israel/Zionist Lobby, and that any suggestion to the contrary was misguided if not the ravings of anti-Semites.

All that has changed in the past twenty years, a change that has not been down solely to the Internet. It is difficult to portray yourself as a victim when you are standing on your oppressor’s neck. While at one time the Jewish Lobby and the Israel Lobby were synonymous, this is no longer the case, especially in the United States. But the hidden hand is still very much alive, and Miss Chabloz has been feeling its effects because not only does she support the Palestinian cause and openly espouse Holocaust Revisionism, she has set her views to music.

Understandably this has caused considerable mock outrage including at the Edinburgh Fringe where last year the event’s organisers came under considerable pressure to ban her, a pressure which they admirably resisted.

Since then she has recorded a number of songs that are sure to cause the ADL to foam at the mouth, including Kosher Brother and the hilarious (((Survivors))). When you have heard the latter, Hava Nagila will never sound the same again.

Thursday, 4 August 2016

Don’t Destroy Your Face, Lady — Or Anything Else

On March 3, 2016, I was sitting on a seat in a roadside garden under the bright winter sunshine, with time on my hands, when a young woman - younger than me - sat on the bench opposite. She was not unattractive, and as she spoke to me I fancied my chances of at least taking her to the nearby cafĂ©, but I noticed that she had faint tattoos on both her hands, and thought better of it. The wording was the same on both: ACAB. If you are not familiar with that acronym, don’t ask.

I have no doubt that in spite of this she was not a horrible person, although she may have been when she was young and rebellious, which was presumably when she had those marks engraved on her hands. Most of us mellow with time, but a tattoo makes a statement about you, one that may not be true 30, 20, 10, even 5 years on from when you commissioned it. Heck, it may not even be true at the time, but a tattoo does make a statement for all the world to see and interpret, or misinterpret.

If there is one thing worse than a woman with tattooed hands it is, well, take a look at this woman, Elizabeth (Forever) Young.

Difficult though it is to believe, this was taken on her fiftieth birthday. Now compare with this one.
At the time this photograph was taken, Joanna Dennehy was around 31 years old. Even without the tattoo, she looks older than Elizabeth. She has a tongue stud too - yuk. Like Elizabeth she is also an unusual woman, though for entirely different reasons: she is that rarest of rare birds, a female serial killer.

Okay, so perhaps the comparison is a tad unfair, but take the point, if you had to choose, which of these women would you say had blood on her hands?

Tattoos are not always inappropriate, no one bats an eyelid at a sailor with tattooed arms, but tattoos on the neck, legs, really on any other part of the body, are to be avoided for men, and don’t let’s mention women. Then there are body piercings.

A woman who has pierced ears or even double pierced ears is one thing (as is a single pierced ear for a dude), but look at the way some women today are going way over the top. Then there are other piercings, it’s difficult to believe that any woman would pierce her navel or nipples, but there is far worse than that, including for men.

Finally, nasal piercings are a no-no. Okay, an Indian woman who has a single traditional stud, maybe, and at times this can be forgiven in a Western woman, but a woman who has studs in both sides of her nose or a pierced septum...why not go the whole hog and stick a bone through it like a stereotypical cannibal?

I have many, many regrets in my now sixty years, both of things done and of things not done, but one thing I have never regretted is not getting that tattoo. And if you get to my age unblemished by this indelible pigment, you will feel the same way.

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

The Ken & Barbie Killers

This is a 45 minute documentary about Canada’s most hated woman and the serial rapist who married her. If there was ever a case of not judging a book by its cover it must surely be that of Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. All the major elements of the killer couple are covered, from their first meeting at which sparks flew to Bernardo’s physical abuse of her, their joint rape of Karla’s younger sister Tammy, and the deal with the Devil which understandably outraged the Canadian public. The one thing that is not mentioned is that this was sanctioned by Marion Boyd, the feminist who became Attorney General of Ontario.

Although this was early days in the history of DNA profiling, it is difficult to credit the police felt obliged to offer Karla any kind of deal in order to secure a conviction; the case against Bernardo was surely compelling enough without her testimony. In the UK, the two would most certainly have been charged together, and if Karla ever saw the light of day again it would have been as an old woman rather than as a relatively young one who some miserable wretch not only impregnated but married and whisked off to an island paradise.

Did Karla rather than Bernardo kill the two girls? Bernardo’s lawyer seems to think so; the man himself said so, and as he has since confessed to numerous other crimes that will ensure he is never released, there is no good reason not to believe him.

Thursday, 14 April 2016

Milo v Muhammad - Seriously?

One of the most controversial pundits to be given space in the controlled media in recent years is self-styled dangerous faggot Milo Yiannopoulos. While he is spot on with his critiques of the insane totalitarian ideology of third wave feminism, his attacks on Islam and his endorsement of the phony gates of Vienna narrative are sorely misguided, and it is difficult to argue that this ignorance of the world’s third great religion is anything but wilful.

One of the things Yiannopoulos says he worries about is the attitude of Moslems to homosexuals, and he stresses here that he means ordinary Moslems rather than the Saudi brand or the fanatical Islamists of ISIS. What are the facts? Before answering that question, perhaps we should ask a different question, namely, if you were/are the father of a young boy, which of these two scenarios would you rather see for your son: bowing down in the mosque, or bending over in the bathhouse? Women tend to be more sympathetic to the faults of their offspring than men, but no mother worthy of the name would rather her son grow up homosexual anymore than she would rather see him grow up confined to a wheelchair or suffering from cystic fibrosis.

Male homosexuality gave the world AIDS; Islam gave it algebra. This really is a no-brainer. Male homosexuality is a far greater threat to the West than this supposedly anti-Western jihad. Now back to the question, what do ordinary Moslems think about homosexuals? Here is white convert Hamza Yusuf explaining how Islam really deals with homosexuality; Milo can drop his trousers for his black friends all he likes in the privacy of his own bedroom, where there will not be the four witnesses required to grab him by the scruff of his neck and drag him into a Sharia court, but the moment he attempts to bring his perversion into the public space, that is when the mullahs will come for him, that’s if the mothers of his sexual conquests don’t get him first; most blacks are just as revolted by homosexuality as Moslems.

When he discusses the chimera of sexism in the Islamic world, Yiannopoulos wants to have his cake and eat it. On the one hand he says women are oppressed by Islam, yet on the other hand when he tackles the sisterhood about their nonsense on gender roles and the education of girls, he points out rightly that while in the West, very few women take STEM subjects, in Bangladesh and indeed in other Islamic nations, there is no shortage of women engineering graduates and the like. Clearly he is confusing the innate modesty of Moslem women, and the high esteem in which motherhood is held, with Islamic dress codes and the segregation of the sexes. If the West had not removed barriers to sexual segregation, we would not now be plagued with spurious allegations of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and in particular false allegations of historical sexual offences, including rape.

Finally, while like the rest of us he deplores the grotesque scenes of women being violated en masse on the streets of Cologne as happened during the 2016 New Year celebrations, is it right to equate this with Islam? Let’s put this another way, why do brazen sexual assaults of this nature not happen under Sharia? Because in Malaysia, rapists are caned, and in Iran, the sexual violation of a woman can be capital.

So what is the problem if not Islam? Does anyone believe the recent and ongoing mass invasion of Europe would provoke such controversy if the invaders were white? Of course not. This isn’t about religion, it’s about race, in particular white guilt and the hysteria generated by decades of left wing brainwashing.

All mainstream politicians and pundits are terrified of speaking about it for fear of being branded racist, so instead they use facile arguments about foreign workers claiming benefits in the UK and other European countries, or similar issues. Now there is certainly a security issue here, but the simple fact is that no white European in his right mind wants millions more non-white immigrants the same way the Thais don’t want immigrants from different racial backgrounds and neither do the Japanese; the big difference is they don’t suffer from the same kind of guilt and Marxist agitators as Europe. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help these people, but the idea that millions of them should be granted asylum in Europe is a step too far. Incidentally, Moslems are also helping these refugees, as Yiannopolous surely he knows.

In conclusion, which would you rather live in, a society in which homosexuals are kept in the closet, or one in which they are free to spew their poison over not only the adult population but especially the young? A society in which the social scene revolves around alcohol with all the associated evils: drunkenness, violence, sexual violence, ladette culture, cirrhosis of the liver...or one in which alcohol has no place or is at least very restricted? These are just two of the alternatives offered by Islam, and for many people, including non-believers, they are better alternatives to the madness we have at present.

Friday, 8 April 2016

Don’t You Grow Up To Be A Pig

When you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up? Perhaps an actor or an astronaut, perhaps a rock star or a famous author. Of the attainable goals, you might have wanted to become a police officer, probably a detective. There are reasons for this, the profession has been glamourised in literature and on film, and there is a certain attraction about carrying a gun. For girls, well, you get to boss guys around for a change, and that can’t be bad, can it? Actually, it can.

We hear a lot in the modern world about privilege: the vacuous white privilege; the ludicrous male privilege...even so, most people realise that when it exists, privilege derives mostly from money. Celebrity brings privilege too, but this can be a double-edged benefit. Likewise in countries like Britain where there is an hereditary ruling class, there can be a certain privilege in social status or birth. The police have a unique privilege, the privilege money can’t buy.

Unless you have experienced this, you can’t really understand it. There is a big difference between the American police and the British police. The Americans are psychopaths; the British are cunts. There are reasons for this. In the States, the Constitution places severe restrictions on such things as searching property and people. The American police can’t even take a suspect’s DNA without good reason. On the other hand, the American police are armed routinely, and are prone to shoot first and ask questions later. They are also prone to use violence, especially against people lower down the food chain including blacks, the homeless, and even on occasion women.

Although police violence is not unknown in the UK, it is usually confined to public order situations, and is generally much less intense than in the US. This hasn’t always been the case, as for example the murder of Liddle Towers back in the 1970s illustrates, but today you are very unlikely to get beaten to a pulp by the British police. On the other hand, there are few people who are so dishonest. Although they will plant evidence only very occasionally, they will suppress exculpatory evidence, verbal up witnesses to give correct evidence, and place absurd interpretations on even the most prosaic of actions.

This is what is known as noble cause corruption, a behaviour that is of course anything but noble. It is known more accurately as bent for the job; the other type - bent for self - is entirely different, and in general is not tolerated, but acting as judge and jury to fit up some individual who has been judged undesirable is a different matter.

All this is done with the collusion of prosecuting lawyers, magistrates, and even judges. In this age of near total surveillance we have many examples of this, and there are few better or more outrageous examples than the scandalous case of the treatment of Monica Contreras, in an American courtroom. Check out this short video, and in particular the behaviour of the judge who literally looked the other way. Patricia Doninger was fired over her complicity in this incident, and the gutsy victim was eventually awarded a $200,000 settlement. Now ask yourself what would have happened if this had not been recorded; most likely Monica Contreras would have been written off as a head case or would have found herself in a criminal court, perhaps even losing the custody of her daughter. This is the privilege money can’t buy.

Here is another, arguably more shocking example, this time Ronald Jones, a 62 year old man, is set upon by a group of uniformed thugs for no good reason, beaten up, charged with imaginary crimes, and thrown into gaol for 15 months.

An excellent or rather an appalling example of this sort of behaviour from the UK was the death of Ian Tomlinson, who was assaulted by a police officer in broad daylight, from behind, and in full view of numerous witnesses, including unfortunately for PC Harwood, someone who filmed the incident. Ian Tomlinson was an alcoholic, a man down on his luck who had been reduced to living in a hostel, one of the great unwashed, a person of no consequence, indeed the sort of person society is better off without. He was also a very sick man, and an assault which would have left most men of his age bruised and angry led to his death within minutes. Harwood could not of course have foreseen that, but because of the victim’s low social status, this wanton assault was bracketed as bent for the job, and a cover up was instituted. This involved bringing in a tame (or bent) pathologist to fudge the post mortem examination, but thanks to that mobile phone video, the genie was out of the bottle. Again, as with the Monica Contreras and Ronald Jones incidents, consider what would have happened but for the film.

Now ask yourself this question, do you want to engage in that sort of behaviour against strangers - people who have done you no harm - or even have the power to do so? If you answer yes, you should seek psychiatric help. If you don’t, welcome to the human race. Nobody has to grow up to be a pig.

Wednesday, 9 December 2015

A Question Of Priorities

No sooner had Britain’s new world heavyweight boxing champion commented on sexual perversion than some moron had started a petition to remove his name from the shortlist for the Sports Personality Of The Year. Tyson Fury provoked outrage with a common sense if undiplomatic triple observation about homosexuality, paedophilia, and the right to life; his exact words were reported as: “before the devil comes home” three things are needed, “One of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other is paedophilia. Who would have thought in the 50s and 60s that those first two would be legalised?”

I prefer to capitalise the word Devil, it is a proper noun, after all, but as a lifelong atheist I find nothing objectionable in that sentiment. Most fire and brimstone Christians, Orthodox Jews and all Moslems would agree with it. It is also true that in less than two generations, as far as homosexuality is concerned, three and a half thousand years of Judeo-Christian morality has been thrown out of the window. Yeah, I know, argumentum ad antiquitatem, but by the same token, argumentum ad novitatem.

In less than two days, the moron’s petition had attracted well over a hundred thousand signatures. Not only that, another moron, at least one of them, had reported Fury to the police for committing a hate crime, I kid you not. One of his objections was that Fury had compared homosexuality with paedophilia. Well, yes, but he also compared it with abortion, and might well have compared it with road traffic accidents or the current flooding in the North of England. All are undesirable, and that was the point he was making.

On May 27 this year, I started a petition for debt-free money; to date, six people have signed it, including me. This is arguably the most important issue of our times, yet it has been totally ignored. Some people might argue that in view of this and many other things, Western Man doesn’t deserve to survive, and that the Islamist lunatics behind last month’s Paris atrocity should murder us all. Frankly, at this point in time I wouldn’t much care if they did. As long as they started with Manchester’s Gay Village.

Thursday, 3 December 2015

What’s The Matter With Kids Today?

As the song goes. What indeed? I was walking home today, minding my own business as I always do, when on the other side of the road I saw a young, fair-haired boy throwing a hissy fit. I am a terrible judge of ages, but he couldn’t have been much more than ten years old. The woman with whom he was arguing looked young but was almost certainly his mother. There was another one, possible two, kids present, but this one was arguing vociferously, and obviously didn’t want to get in the car. He called her a pig, and used the word bloody, directed at her.

When I was growing up in the 60s - the 1960s, not the 1860s - the word bloody was not taboo even for the young, though it was frowned upon when used as a swear word, but any kid, boy or girl, who called his mother a pig would have been dealt summary justice. As things were, after some more protesting, he got in the car and they drove off. Is it really any surprise they’re now murdering their teachers?