November 2017
« Oct    

Oh no! The Warmies are getting hot under the collar again!

(Wednesday/Thursday blog)

We’re gonna get cooked!

Great week for the Warmies. The BBC are claiming that 2017 may be one of the hottest 3 years since records began. And I think there’s a Warmies’ meeting in Fiji. (How nice – I wonder why they never have these meetings in the Arctic or even Greenland? Perhaps the hotels aren’t up to the standard the juncketing Warmies’ have become accustomed to?)

Anyway, apparently the purpose of the Fiji meeting (apart from lots of free booze, free food, sun and cheap sex) is for the world’s most corrupt (and therefore poor) countries to extract billions from richer, less corrupt countries as supposed ‘compensation’ for the supposed ‘destruction’ caused by supposed Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming.

We’re gonna freeze!

Do you remember the 70s? Great rock music and free love for everybody except for me. There was one other important event in the 70s – the absolute certainty of most climate experts that the world was heading ineluctably into a New Ice Age:

To justify their claims, the supposed ‘scientists’ used both ground temperature measurements and satellite data:

So there was no possibility of them getting this prediction wrong. And most of the supposedly serious press were soon full of grim warnings about the New Ice Age. Here’s Time magazine:

And here’s Science and Mechanics:

What happened to the New Ice Age? Search me, I’m still waiting for it.

We’re gonna get cooked!

Of course, none of the supposed climate scientists ever mention their predictions of a New Ice Age anymore. They’re too busy getting generous grants and awards for predicting catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming. And the press have picked up the “we’re gonna get cooked!” narrative just as keenly as they reported the 1970s “we’re gonna freeze!” story:

In the 1970s a gentleman called John P. Holdren became quite well known for being a leading expert on the coming New Ice Age and wrote a series of articles in which he predicted that the cold weather would lead to crop failures in Northern Europe and the US and these would result in starvation and a mass movement of people from North to South.

Given the fact that the New Ice Age stuff was all total bollox, you might have thought that Mr Holdren and friends would have crept away in embarrassment never to be heard from again. How wrong you would have been. Showing the flexibility of thought that ensures success in the ‘scientific’ world, Mr Holdren became a leading figure in the “We’re gonna get cooked!” Warmie movement and even served, probably lucratively, as President Obummer’s scientific advisor on Man-Made Global Warming.

A little sanity?

When the Warmies produce their charts showing the supposedly ‘massive’ rise in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, these always look very dramatic:

But the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm (parts per million) (0.028%) during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century, increasing to 407 ppm (0.041%) as of mid-2017.

Let me try to put this into context. If you had a salary of say £50,000 and you got a salary increase of 0.041% (407 ppm) you’d get an extra £20 a year. 0.041% is small, very small, Yet the Warmies are claiming that an increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 407 ppm will be catastrophic for our planet.

Not only will this increase in something that makes up a tiny part of our atmosphere not be catastrophic, it may actually have benefits by improving crop yields.

There’s neither the time nor space here to provide a fuller debunking of the Warmies’ seemingly endless torrent of bollox. But surely the fact that some leading Warmie ‘scientists’ were once just as convinced of a New Ice Age as they now are of Man-Made Global Warming should perhaps cause people to have more than a niggling doubt about the Warmie scientists’ credibility?

Of course, the climate is changing. It always has and always will. But it is questionable whether human activity has any influence on the climate. It’s more likely that things like solar activity are the main influence on our climate.

The BBC and Channel 4 may believe the Warmie nonsense – but we don’t have to.

Will the BBC’s lies about Trump ever end?

(Monday/Tuesday blog) One of the main headlines on the BBC’s world news and business news at the weekend was “US jobs data disappoints” and “US jobs growth below forecast”. The Trump-loathing BBC’s implication was, of course, that Trump was failing to boost US economic growth.

But at the same time, I got an email from MoneyWeek magazine claiming that “US jobless at record low”. 

These conflicting opinions were very confusing for someone with a small brain and limited understanding of economics like myself.

It seems someone was lying. But who? The BBC? Or MoneyWeek?

So I found a financial (non-political) website to check what was really happening, to check whether the BBC might be deliberately lying to us.

Here’s what I found – the US economy expanded an annualized 3% on quarter in the third quarter of 2017, beating expectations of 2.5% and only slightly below 3.1% reported in the previous quarter which was the strongest growth rate since the first three months of 2015.

Can you imagine that? A 3% growth rate. Just for comparison, here’s a chart from the same website showing the UK’s economic growth:

Oh dear, a bit disappointing, don’t you think? Try to picture the joy in Westminster if Britain could achieve 3% instead of the miserable 1.5% that the British economy is actually getting.

In the new post-crisis era of low growth, achieving anything like 3% is amazing, it’s something to be celebrated. Yet the BBC managed to put negative spin on what should have been a good news story. How did they do that?

So I checked the jobs growth figures for the US:

In October, the US added another 261,000 new jobs – the highest number for quite some time. (The figures for September were exceptionally low due to several hurricanes). But somehow various ‘experts’ had forecast 310,000 new jobs, even though (as far as I can see) this level has never been achieved. So, in spite of record jobs growth, the BBC was able to claim that jobs growth “disappoints” and was “below forecast”.

I think what has happened is the following. Under pressure from Trump to stop closing US factories and moving them to Mexico and other cheap-labour countries, some US executives have abandoned plans to ‘offshore’ their production thus helping to lower the US jobless figures and contribute to US (rather than Mexican) economic growth.

When a recovery starts, at first businesses try to meet increased demand with overtime and with hiring more workers. But gradually this hits the law of diminishing returns as the supply of well-trained, well-motivated workers decreases and there isn’t enough equipment to keep up with rising demand. Then businesses are forced into making investments into new equipment to meet further demand – US business investment on new equipment increased by an impressive 8.6% annualised rate.

But BBC economists (like most economists?) have never had a real job in their lives, so they don’t understand the mechanics of economic recovery.

US companies are doing what all the experts say they should be doing – investing in new equipment to increase productivity.

So, although the US unemployment rate has fallen to a record low of 4.2%, displaying an incredible ignorance of economics and their visceral loathing of Trump, the BBC managed to turn this extraordinarily good news story into yet another “bash Trump because we hate him” attack.

Moreover, all of this has occurred before the Republicans have even delivered on their tax cut and reform package. If the Republicans can stop squabbling among themselves and can sideline Mad John “I hate Trump” McCain and revamp the US tax system, then billions of dollars being held abroad by US companies might flow back into the country further boosting business investment and growth.

Trump’s Asian tour “disaster”

Most people don’t have the time or energy to research whether the overpaid, over-pensioned, economically-illiterate, libtard scumbags at the BBC are ever telling us the truth. But once you do check BBC stories against reality, it’s amazing what you can find.

Anyway, now that Trump has embarked on a 12-day tour of a few Asian countries, we can expect a couple of weeks of sneering, contemptuous know-it-all BBC supposed ‘reporters’ repeatedly telling us what an embarrassing disaster the whole tour is.

And yes, there will be problems as Trump tries to deal with issues that the BBC’s Nobel Prize-winning Saint Hussein al Obama ignored during his eight years improving his golf handicap while supposedly being US president.

But whatever Trump does or doesn’t achieve, there’s one thing we can be sure of – most of the BBC’s reporting of the Trump Asian tour will be the usual biased, anti-Trump, BBC libtard torrent of lies.

You have been warned!

It’s not a fair cop!

(weekend blog) My thanks to a reader for making the following comment in reaction to my blog about how the police seem to be making up laws to crush whatever they classify as ‘hate’ or ‘hostility’ or even ‘dislike’:

But surely, if it hasn’t gone through Parliament and been set down as a law, then we’ve nothing to fear? Although some liberal idiot policeman might arrest you, it’s never going to make it to court, as there isn’t a law covering it as long as you don’t ‘threaten’. Do I have that right? Surely, it’s like ‘suspicion’, the police might arrest you for it, but you aren’t going to be in court unless you have actually committed a crime.

The reader quite rightly asks: why are the police making up new laws and new interpretations of existing laws if these have no chance of standing up in court?

Good point, Mr Reader.

Let me start to answer that by giving you a statistic: at the moment approximately 75% of alleged hate crimes result in a guilty plea, according to the CPS themselves:

CPS Hate Crimes

This is extraordinary, is it not? There can’t be that many other ‘crimes’ where the supposed ‘criminals’ confess in 75% of cases.

How can the police achieve such an amazing success rate, you might wonder.

This is what’s really happening:

The police have deliberately and cynically redefined a criminal act – ‘hate crimes’ – so they can arrest people who haven’t actually broken any law and who have probably never broken any law in their lives. The police can then handcuff them, cart them down the police station and then threaten them with the maximum sentence (seven years imprisonment) in order to get them to break down and admit they’re guilty. Moreover, they’re told they’ll only be given a caution if they do plead guilty without having to go to court.

In those circumstances – isolated from your family and friends, surrounded by threatening plods, being told you’ll probably lose your job and that they’ll ruin your life if  you’re obstinate enough to claim innocence, given a choice of a caution or a ruinous court case – what would you do? Naturally 75% confess and are relieved to just get a caution.

This is a wonderful result for the police for four reasons:

  1. They don’t need to go to court and have their ludicrously unjustifiable interpretation of the law tested before a magistrate, judge or jury
  2. Your confession counts as a conviction in their annual crime statistics, simultaneously adding weight to the idea that hate crimes are constantly on the rise
  3. This supposed ‘rise’ in hate crimes then justifies the Plods’ increasingly ridiculous expenditure on policing the internet while all but ignoring real crime
  4. The Plods can all pat each other on the back for a job well done. Another supposed ‘crime’ detected, another supposed ‘criminal’ admitting the fault of their evil ways and promising to reform.

In the meantime, the police can turn a blind eye to thousands of white children being systematically gang-raped, gang-sodomised and tortured in anti-white hate crimes across the country because the police have been instructed to overlook these real crimes to hide the disastrous effects of diversity and multiculturalism.

I hope this casts a light on how our rulers are able to use ‘fake laws’ to crush freedom of speech and impose thought control.

We might expect such repression of free speech in a totalitarian country – but it’s incredible that we’ve allowed this to happen in Britain.

Do you dislike anyone? You’re a criminal now!

(Thursday/Friday blog) There’s a photo circulating on the Internet. It appears to show a police officer giving a speech about hate crimes, or “hostility” as he terms it:

Police Hate Crime Hostility

This is really important. It shows how we have drifted from having one of the world’s most admired (and copied) criminal justice systems to one that George Orwell warned about in “1984”.

Here’s how our rulers moved from freedom of speech to total thought and speech control in four easy steps:

Step 1: Invent the idea of a ‘hate crime’

The original definition of a hate crime in the UK is (I believe) from the Public Order Act 1986

“A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) they intend thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”

Why we needed the concept of a ‘hate crime’ is unclear as there were already plenty of other real criminal offences that could be used against someone spewing insults and threats.

Step 2 – ‘Guilty because someone says so’

Then somehow the definition of a ‘hate crime’ expanded:

‘The Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS have agreed a common definition of hate crime: “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

The key idea here is that this new definition means the police don’t need to “prove hatred”. It’s enough that any person claims they perceive hatred for you to be automatically guilty.

After nearly a millennia of proof being required and anyone being innocent until found guilty, the British Police have decided they no longer need proof to accuse someone of being a criminal.

Step 3 – Words are as harmful as real violence

Next, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, decided, without any act of parliament, that words written on the Internet should be prosecuted in the same way as actual physical attacks.

Step 4 – Hostility and unfriendliness are now ‘hate crimes’

And now we appear to have some useless Plod lecturing other Plods that ‘hostility’ and ‘unfriendliness’ can be considered as ‘hate crimes’.

It’s almost laughable, except these people are a large, armed gang of political-correctness-loving thugs and they have the right to kick in your door, arrest you, and generally make your life hell.

Furthermore the Criminal Justice Act 2008 added sexual orientation and religion but also clarified that:

“In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.”

In the past, insulting someone or some group wasn’t a criminal offense, it’s not threatening, it’s merely abusive. There has been a clear distinction for years, and one which by and large the police were supposedly abiding by. The CPS even published a handy picture showing what a hate crime actually is

CPS hate Crimes

Even though intimidation, harassment, damaging property and violence sounds rather all encompassing it’s hard to argue that a single case of a slur could ever really be considered harassment, the vast majority of negative interactions on social media, short of threatening violence never used to be classed as ‘hate crime’.

Calling someone a monkey, making fun of their mental illness or being unfriendly should not be hate crimes. They never have been. The police have no more right to define hostility or unfriendliness as criminal acts than they do to outlaw toasters, and kick in the door of every person they suspect is harbouring a toaster with intent to make a piece of toast. Without relevant legislation it’s completely illegal for them to do so.

By redefining hate crimes as mere “hostility” and saying “we do not need to prove hatred” or even that “unfriendliness” can be classed as a hate crime the police are attempting to rewrite statute and enforce laws they themselves have invented. This is a clear breach of the behavioural code they themselves should abide by, an attempt by our Orwellian Thought Police to become not only Judge, Jury and Executioner but the legislator as well.

It’s the law of the madhouse! It’s insanity!

And somehow, we’ve allowed it to happen.

Rising real crime? Sorry, police too busy with ‘hate crimes’


And here are some more showing off their dance moves:

Meanwhile Britain’s criminals are also happy and probably dancing in the streets too. Statistics show the number of arrests being made by British police has collapsed — while forces focus increasingly on stupid PR stunts and so-called “hate crime” and “malicious communications”.

New Home Office figures reveal that arrests have plunged 12% over the last year, and by a remarkable 48% over the past nine years.

Police arrested some 1.5 million people in the year ending March 2008, but just 779,660 in the year ending March 2017 — despite huge increases in recorded crime.

Total crime has risen by 19% in the year to June 2017, with violent crime up 19%, rape up 22%, knife crime up 26%, and gun crime up by an amazing (in view of  Britain’s tough gun ownership laws) 27%.

Acquisitive crimes (e.g. shoplifting, burglary, robbery and theft) are also on the increase — and a suspect is only identified in one burglary out of ten.

Police lay the blame for the sharp drop in arrests on swingeing budget cuts, which have seen police numbers reduced by 20,000 constables to their lowest level since 1985.

The Tories, who have been making cuts, first in conjunction with the Liberal Democrats and then on their own after the end of the 2010-15 coalition, argue the cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit bequeathed to them by the economically-illiterate, financially-incontinent Gordon Brown. But the cuts have been made at a time when the foreign aid budget has shot up from about £7bn a year to over £12bn a year – there’s a nice little £5bn+ that could have been used to help pay for more police, more troops and more for the supposedly cash-strapped NHS – and financial contributions to the European Union have also been increasing every year.

But while arrests for real crime have been falling, the British Police have arrested at least 3,395 people for supposedly ‘offensive’ online comments in just one year – that’s almost 10 people a day for comments made on social media in 2016.

The Metropolitan Police have even suggested they will not even bother investigating many so-called “low-level” crimes such as shoplifting and vandalism anymore as it is “not practical” in a time of cutbacks — while boasting of having more than 900 specialist officers dedicated to “hate crime” investigations:

We have 900+ specialist officers across London dedicated to investigating all hate crime. For more info visit  

Arrests for supposedly offensive comments were up by 53% in London — now more dangerous than New York City, where police numbers are roughly comparable to London — and by an extraordinary 877% in the West Midlands.

Meanwhile our police continue painting their nails to show solidarity with some group or other and wasting money on making stupid videos and other pointless publicity stunts:

Actually, I suspect that most ordinary police are decent people who are as disgusted with their career-obsessed bosses’ fawning political correctness as the rest of us. And I further believe that most police would rather be out dealing with real criminals than chasing after supposed ‘hate crimes’.

But as real police retire or leave and a new generation of feminised, politically-correct, emasculated fools take their place, we risk ending up with a police force that is about as useful as a eunuch in a harem.

No doubt our useless police bosses will soon be ordering their minions to start arresting anyone who dares criticise the police?

Scrotland – twinned with North Korea?

(Monday/Tuesday blog – I have decided to write just 3 blogs a week from now on. This is not because there’s little to write about. It’s because our increasingly draconian censorship laws put most important subjects off limits as mentioning them might ‘offend’ a snowflake or two)

Here’s a story from the glorious People’s Democratic Republic of Scrotland twinned with the equally glorious People’s Democratic Republic of North Korea.

There seem to be several similarities between the two countries.

Similarity – 1 Are Sturgeon and Kim Jong-un related?

Here’s a young Nicola Sturgeon and her lookalike – young Kim Jong-un – clearly they both used the same hairdresser:

Or are they related? I think we should be told.

This was, of course, before the lovely Nicola (who I cannot call the “ginger dwarf from the North” as that would probably be a ‘hate crime’ for mocking the fact that Sturgeon is both ginger and vertically-challenged) adopted the more modern Krankie look:

Hopefully, Sturgeon’s North Korean look-alike/brother will also soon modernise his coiffure too

Similarity – 2 Both get 99% to 100% of the vote

There’s another similarity between Scrotland and North Korea – the tendency for opinion polls to give each country’s Dear Leader a score of somewhere between 99% and 100%.

Recently Nichola Sturgeon asserted that the Scottish people, who were supposedly consulted on their views on fracking, were 99% against it. As a result the SNP government decided to extend the moratorium on this shale oil and gas extraction system, indefinitely.

This does indeed seem like a strange decision for two reasons:

  • Firstly, on 10th February 2015 there was a symposium at the Scottish National Gallery, organised by the Scotsman newspaper, titled, “Is Scotland ready for Fracking?”  Back then the answer was a resounding “yes” and the delegates were sent off with assurances from Scottish Government officials of total support for any business that was willing to invest in this cutting-edge technology.  The delegates were assured that fracking was the answer to Scotland’s future energy needs
  • Secondly, the SNP’s new-found opposition to fracking seems odd as most of the fuel imported from the USA for refining and use at Grangemouth is extracted by fracking methods. If fracking is so bad for the planet, why do the SNP believe is it ok to use this extraction method in the USA but not in Scrotland?

This wonderfully convenient (for the SNP) result of 99% of Scrots being supposedly against fracking clearly had nothing to do with the fact that, as the SNP have not got a majority of seats at Holyrood, they need the support of Holyrood’s six Green MSPs. So, to guarantee the Green MSPs’ support, the SNP have effectively bribed the Greens by ensuring the fracking consultation was rigged, in as much as only those who would be in opposition to fracking were asked their view.

‘Ban on fracking after 99 per cent reject technique,’ screamed the headline in the Scottish edition of Metro. The ban, or technically ‘extension of the moratorium’, came as no surprise to anyone who follows Scottish politics. The SNP is quite uninterested in economics, adopts every fashionable progressive cause and, of course, needs the votes of the six Scottish Green MSPs to give itself a reliable majority in Holyrood.

What did surprise, though, was the claim that 99% rejected fracking. It turned out that this North-Korean-style figure came from a Scottish government consultation. But how did they do it? A brief internet search, a couple of clicks to get to the relevant page of the report on the consultation, and there was the answer.

Of the 60,535 responses, 34.4% were generated by Friends of the Earth Scotland (FoES). Of these, more than 16,000 were generated online from FoES portals and a further 4,582 were by postcards issued by FoES. A further 50.9% of responses came from three petitions: 38 Degrees (21,000 responses), Scotland Against Fracking (4,000) and (5,000). Greenpeace generated 2,555 responses and the Scottish Greens a modest 836.

However, this stunning 99% result as announced by the SNP was still a disappointment to many as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is able to get much better results than that with approval ratings of 100% whenever he organises a vote:

In short, the activist Left organised the vast majority of responses, drowning out more rational voices. There may be reasons to oppose fracking, although the benefits may vastly outweigh any environmental impact. But the figures produced by Kim Jong Sturgeon were a pack of lies.

An even bigger bunch of lies

However, the Scrotties’ claim of 99% being opposed to fracking is a mere white lie compared the the absolute whopper often trotted out by the Greenies and Warmies – that 97% of ‘scientists’ agree that Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever it’s called this month) is partly due to human activities.

I have explained before on my blog (see link below) how the real figure is just 8% of scientists and how the Greenies and Warmies manage to fiddle the figures to make this very modest 8% into a much more impressive (but misleading) 97%.

The Warmies looked at the abstracts of 12,280 scientific papers discussing supposed Global Warming. They didn’t even read the full articles – just glanced at the abstracts. Of these 12,280 abstracts, 8,269 didn’t take a view on whether human activity was responsible for Global Warming. So the ‘researchers’ took these out of their study. Of the remaining papers, a minuscule 65 (0.5%) endorsed the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory and were confident enough to quantify by how much the earth would warm. Then there were just 934 (7.6%) which endorsed the AGW theory, but were not confident enough to make any numerical predictions about the expected warming. So, we actually have a pathetic 8.1% that explicitly backed up the theory of AGW. This is laughable! And it’s rather far away from the claimed 97% or 98%!

Then we have a big bunch – 2,934 scientific papers’ abstracts (23.9%) – which the ‘researchers’ (perhaps creatively) interpreted as “implicitly” supporting the AGW theory. So in total, out of the 12,280 abstracts reviewed, on a very liberal interpretation only 3,933 (32%) explicitly or “implicitly” could be classed as supporting the AGW theory. On a more conservative interpretation, only a tiny 8.1% actually posited that human activity was responsible for Global Warming.

I guess the Warmies couldn’t resist ‘doing a Kim Jong Sturgeon’ with the figures to get the result they wanted.

The lesson we should learn from this is that anyone claiming 90%+ or 80%+ or even 70%+ or even 60%+ backing for their particular cause is probably lying.

The claim that “98% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming” is a blatant lie

Is this how the European civil wars will start?

(Friday, Saturday, Sunday blog – apologies to those who have already read this blog from Friday. I’ve decided to leave it up over the weekend and start again with a new story on Monday)

I found the piece below somewhere floating around the Internet. I have customised it a little to reflect my own thoughts. It suggests how civil war could break out in one or several European countries.

I believe this scenario is totally wrong in one regard – it suggests that Sweden may be one of the first countries where there will be civil war. From my experience of working and living in Sweden, I believe Swedish men are so brainwashed into accepting the surrender of their country and have become such emasculated, feminised, spineless, diversity-loving cowards that they won’t fight to preserve their country and culture.

However, having spoken to a few French ex-military, I do think the normally cowardly French will finally rise up and fight to preserve their culture and country. And, as far as I understand, many French former soldiers have weapons at home and so, once atrocities against the indigenous French reach a certain point, these former soldiers will fight back.

I’ll leave it to my readers to decide if the scenario below is the crazed fantasy of an unbalanced mind or something that our children are likely to experience before the end of this century.

(Dear PC Plod. I am not advocating violence, I have never advocated violence and never would. But in the same way as many ‘experts’ speculate that there could be military conflict between North Korea and the USA or Russia and Europe or China and the USA and its Asian allies, I am merely positing the possibility that the next wars might not be between nation states but be European civil wars within European nation states).

Anyway this hypothetical case study of how events could play out in Europe is based in Sweden although, if the following scenario were to happen, I think France is the more likely location for this to kick off:

  • White flight out of Malmo and the surrounding areas has left the city devoid of the personnel needed for it to function. There are massive shortages of teachers, medical personnel, firefighters and EMT’s. Government services increasingly exist in name only. Police officers must be bussed in from neighboring areas. The justice system is collapsing and the judicial system has fully collapsed
  • Increased friction between the Swedish state and immigrants has enflamed tensions throughout the country. Malmo begins seeing increasing immigrant-on-Swede violence of a level previously unknown. Further, the violence has become a cultural phenomenon or purposeful “Intifada” similar to the “Days of Rage” in Palestine. Swedish women are raped openly in the streets. Swedish men are attacked regularly. The police force in Malmo is on the brink of collapsing. Their operations are increasingly militarized as any form of regular policing is impossible. The immigrant communities have progressed completely out of government control, short of tactical incursions by government forces necessitating large numbers of police and riot troops with military vehicles
  • Native Swedish vigilante violence begins as chaos escalates. There are multiple shootings of immigrant men. Some involve self-defense, others offer unclear motives and appear to be politically or “racially” motivated. Middle-Eastern restaurants are burned to the ground. Refugee centers are burned and shot up.
  • The increasingly isolated Swedish government, massively threatened by the destabilization of society, begins violently clamping down on free speech. Supposed political “hate speech” from patriotic Swedes on the internet is prosecuted vigorously. Right-wing anti-immigrant groups are attacked, shut down and their members imprisoned
  • With Malmo in state of insurrection and chaos and calls for violence from immigrant (mainly Moozerlum) communities across Europe, Denmark completely seals off the Øresund Bridge and fully militarizes its border with Sweden
  • The Swedish government outlaws the Sweden Democrats who, despite widespread support among ethnic Swedes, still have not taken power because of the ever-increasing number of foreign-born immigrants being hastily granted citizenship and voting rights. Sweden Democrat supporters march in the streets and there are acts of violence and vandalism against representations of the government and against the immigrant community
  • Ethnic violence escalates in Stockholm and Gothenburg. There are riots in heavily immigrant areas. Massive nightly car burnings occur, along with a number of homicides. Grenades, petrol bombs and pistols become ever more common. The government attempts martial law as Sweden’s main cities become increasingly Balkanized
  • In addition to the vanguard of small-scale native Swedish vigilante groups that have sprung up, larger and slightly more mainstream self-defense militias begin expanding and arming themselves, despite government attempts to violently crack down on them. These are made up of men with relevant experience in law enforcement, the military, hunting, etc, and represent a “normalization” of vigilantism. Increasing numbers of weapons are smuggled into Sweden from the Balkans via Russia and Finland
  • Government legitimacy disappears as coalition government starts to crumble. Events from Sweden begin to appear as front-page news on a daily basis throughout Europe
  • As violence between Swedish militias and immigrant gangs escalates, first trickles of external funding begin to appear for Preservationist groups/militias (most likely from either Denmark, Poland, Russia, Finland, or any combination of the above) and volunteer white European fighters start arriving in Sweden. Funding likewise grows for increasingly organized Islamist/immigrant groups. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations are responsible. Also immigrant fighters head for Sweden to defend the migrant communities
  • Non-Moozerlum migrants, whatever their background, increasingly convert to Izlum as they see that as the only way of protecting themselves against violence from ethnic Swedish groups
  • As Malmo becomes under 100% Izlumic control due to massive white flight and the inability of security system to maintain order and, as violence grows throughout country, the national government falls
  • Killings are occurring every day, Preservationist militias are patrolling streets, migrant gangs make incursions into native areas and carry out killings, suicide bombings begin to occur
  • The vastly overstretched Swedish police force and the “cosmetic” Swedish military collapse
  • Preservationist militia begin taking over Swedish Army depots and bases and arming themselves
  • Immigrant gangs and Izlumists begin doing same in Malmo and other heavily migrant areas
  • The EU, hamstrung by political impotence and infighting and having massive problems of its own, is largely powerless to act. The EU calls for a ceasefire and peace talks – these calls are ignored by the warring factions who blame each other for the conflict
  • Full-scale 4GW (4th Generation War) fighting expands between Preservationist militias and migrant gangs/organizations. Fighting is fiercest in towns in the southern half of country where most migrants have settled and where migrants are in a majority. Thousands are killed as each side struggles to maintain control over neighborhoods and areas. As in Afghanistan and Lebanon, territory is fluid and some areas change hands on an almost constant basis as the fighting escalates
  • Widespread atrocities are committed by both sides, just as they are in almost all civil conflicts. Hundreds of migrants at a time are slaughtered by Swedes and white ethnic European fighters and buried in mass graves, just as in the Balkans. Swedish men, women, and children are murdered and often beheaded. Other Swedes are found dismembered and tortured to death. Young Swedish girls are abducted and kept as sex slaves by local commanders, just as Russian girls in Chechnya were in the 1990s. The first real military weaponry begins to be used, including mortars, RPGs, missile launchers, etc
  • Indigenous white Swedish refugees attempt to flee the country in large numbers. Norwegian and Finnish governments allow them in. Non-Swedish refugees are prohibited and many migrants are forced to eek out a primitive existence in now war-torn, gang-controlled suburbs, often without heat or utilities
  • Eventually troops from neighboring European countries are sent in to take over the country. The original Swedish government has ceased to exist. Heavy fighting continues in many areas of the country. There are riots in other European cities with migrant communities protesting against the involvement of each country’s military in the Swedish conflict. The riots become ever more violent and start provoking a local backlash against migrant communities. Brussels, Paris and several German cities are the worst affected. France, Germany and Belgium start down the same utterly predictable road to civil war as Sweden
  • Most people can see no way for peace to return apart from splitting Sweden into an ethnic “Swedish” area in the north along the borders with Norway and Finland and a migrant-controlled Caliphate in the south
  • The conflict spreads to other European countries

What do you think, readers?

(click on the title to leave comments)

Yet another hate crime that is NOT a hate crime?

Apologies, but today’s blog is going to be quite long.

What happens when there’s a ‘hate crime’?

I have previously written about how the ever-expanding concept of a ‘hate crime’ has little to do with real crimes and is only a way for the ruling elites to control what white British people say, do and even think. Thus, exploding a bomb at a concert full of young teenagers in Manchester or running innocents over on Westminster Bridge are NOT considered ‘hate crimes’ by our rulers because they are not carried out by white Brits. But when white British make a sarcastic comment about a woman dressed as Darth Vader or chuck a bacon sandwich at a mosque, these are considered ‘hate crimes’ and the supposed perpetrators are harshly punished.

Below is a story from the Derby Telegraph and British Pakistani Christian Association. The story is unremarkable – a man gets beaten up by a group of men because of his religion. So what? If we are to believe the politically-correct mainstream media, Britain has seen a massive rise in such ‘hate crimes’ over the last few years.

If this story had been about a Hindu or Sikh or Moozerlum man getting beaten up by a group of white men – preferably with shaven heads and ideally (for our rulers and their obedient media) with links to Tommy Robinson, then it would have been all over the national news. Just imagine the sneering Fiona Bruce, Jon “F*ck the Tories” Snow, Kathy “Screeching Harpy” Newman and Krishnan Whatever – they’d be creaming themselves as they reported on the supposed ‘racism’ and ‘Izlumophobia’ of white Brits.

Just imagine all the outraged discussions there would be on TV with streams of holier-than-thou, self-righteous, hug-a-rapefugee libtards demanding the British abandon their customs, freedoms and country to the Third-World hordes pouring over our non-existent borders. We might even get a few celebs like Emma Thompson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lily Allen, JK Rowling, Gary Lineker or Bob Geldorf emerging from the safety of their well-protected mansions to lecture us on how we should all be as wonderfully liberal as they are.

As for the police, huge resources would be dedicated to finding and prosecuting the ‘racist, Izlumophobic thugs’ who carried out the attack. And in the courts some pompous, treacherous, West-hating judge would further their own lousy career by ensuring that the guilty were locked away for years because of their appalling ‘hate crime’.

But there’s a small problem with the story below. It concerns a Pakistani Christian man being beaten up by a group of Moozerlum Pakistani men because of his religion.

Ooops. That doesn’t fit the narrative of the ruling elites that white Brits need ever harsher laws to control their actions, words and thoughts because they are mostly racist and Izlumophobic bigots while all minorities are paragons of virtue and tolerance and always the victims of white British prejudice.

So, the story below won’t get reported in the national media – it won’t get a mention. And we won’t get Bruce and Snow and Newman and the fat Indian guy hyperventilating with fury and berating us for our racism and Izlumophobia – at least not this time. And we won’t get Lily Allen or Geldorf or JK Rowling or Cumberbatch or Lineker even mentioning the incident.

As for the police, they’ll issue a statement asking for witnesses knowing that (to their relief) none will come forward. So the politically-correct police will be able to forget the matter, no hate crime was committed, nothing ever happened.

The hypocrisy of it all could make you sick.

Anyway, here’s the story:



A 45-year-old Pakistani Christian man residing in Derby had to be taken to hospital after being assaulted outside a popular restaurant on Friday 20th October 2017.

Tajamal Amar, a food delivery driver, suffered a broken nose along with several lacerations to his head and body after a group of Moozerlum men attacked him without warning.

Mr Amar was rendered unconscious and woke approximately 5 hours later at Royal Derby Hospital where he was admitted overnight, after having been transported there by emergency services.

A local police spokesman said: “We were called to a report of an assault outside the Red Chilli restaurant, in Littleover, at around 8:45 pm on Friday. It was reported that a 45-year-old man had been kicked and punched. He was hospitalised at the Royal Derby Hospital with a broken nose and we have not yet arrested anyone in connection with the assault.” 

Mr Amar, remembers being stared at by a group of Moozerlum men who seemed to be taking offence at the cross in his vehicle and the two large poppies that were displayed on the front of his car.

After this Mr Amar is not very clear on what happened but he seems to have been hit on top of the head and then suffered further violence as he lay on the floor unconscious.

He cannot specifically describe any of the attackers and police are seeking witnesses who saw the attack, which happened outside a very popular restaurant during peak hours on a Friday night.

Anyone who saw the attack or who could help the police with their inquiries should call 101 quoting reference 17000454535.

Mr Amar, said; “Several times local Pakistani people in Derby have taken offence from the fact that I am Christian, when they first find out many stop talking to me. My wife and I have often been shunned. On the day of my attack the visible display of a cross in my car and two poppies just below the front bonnet, triggered the violence against me. I know this, because for a few days before the attack the same men glared at me after they noticed my Christian paraphernalia”.

He continued; “I fled from Pakistan to escape violence such as this, but more and more the same violence is coming into Britain. Freedom of religion should be the right of any British citizen but today I feel unsafe, even then nothing will stop me going to church. I will pray for my attackers and hope they will change their hard-line approach to faith which is very dangerous for our society.” 

Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association, said: “This unprovoked attack on a Christian for simply displaying a cross and two large poppies is an example of the religious intolerance that some strands of radical Islam promote in Britain.  An innocent man has been hospitalized, he has had to take several days off work, and now he is living in fear of further reprisals, simply for adhering to the Christian faith”. 

This incident is very similar in tone to the attack on Nissar Hussain, who in 2016 had to be protected by a 16-man police escort when retrieving a box of furniture from his former home in Bradford (click here) .  Earlier in 2016 local police gave Nissar two weeks to leave his home of 8 years after stating that they could not provide adequate protection to him, because of the heightened threat to his life.

Now Tajamal wants to leave the city of Derby where he no longer feels safe.  He originally left Pakistan after being shot by Moozerlums there after refusing to convert to Islam.

Mr Chowdhry, added: “How many people will have to flee areas where they no longer are safe just because of an adherence to a faith outside the norm for the location.  In a democratic country this simply should not be happening. Besides if this social malaise continues one day there will be nowhere else to run.  Britain has to find a solution that allows all people to live in harmony without any fear or trepidation.” 

Bye, bye Sweden – Part 1 It was nice knowing you

If I was to mention ‘Sweden’, these are probably some of the images you’d think of:

This is the Sweden I used to know when I worked there and went sailing there.

But Sweden has changed probably faster than any other European country in the last few years.

Sweden has taken more immigrants per capita than any other European country. Now the country’s share of foreign-born people is over 17%, the highest in the Nordics – Norway’s share is some 14%, Denmark’s 8.5%, while Finland has only a third of Sweden’s share at 5.6%. And the stories coming out of Sweden nowadays are not about blonde girls, football, forests and lakes and are more usually about riots in no-go areas, rapes, violence and truck of peace attacks:

You may think that 17% of the population being non-ethnic Swedes is high, but not disastrous. However, that’s before you consider the age distribution of ethnic Swedes compared to those from other ethnic backgrounds.

In 2013, the proportion of people in Sweden with a foreign background in the age group 0-44 years was 33.3%. One year later, in 2014, the percentage increased by almost 1% to 34.3%. Now, it’s probably over 36%

But now let’s look even further into Sweden’s demographics. The best estimates I’ve seen are that in the 18-30 demographic group, around 40% of ‘Swedes are either foreign-born or children of foreign-born parents. As for the 1-18 age group, it is likely that over 50% are either foreign born or children of foreign-born parents. (It’s difficult to get accurate figures as now any child born in Sweden is considered ‘Swedish’)

As I’ve shown in previous blogs, due to the massive invasion of Sweden by Third-World migrants, even the corrupt, politically-correct UN has admitted that Sweden will itself be well on the way to becoming a Third-World country by 2030:

Within 20 years, the majority of Swedes of working age may be either foreign-born or the children of foreign-born parents. One commentator even predicted that ethnic Swedes would be a minority in their own country by 2041. I think that by 2050 looks more likely.

Please note that these predictions of Swedes becoming a minority in their own country are NOT the rantings of some right-wing lunatic, they are simple arithmetic. If the number of ethnic Swedes is declining and the number of non-ethnic Swedes is rising, then at some point ethnic Swedes will be the minority.

The politically-correct, emasculated Swedes are getting what they voted for and their treacherous rulers are now ordering them to adapt to this takeover of their once beautiful, peaceful, civilised country:

In just around 70 years – less than a normal lifetime – Sweden will have gone from a country with a 90% ethnic white majority to a country where ethnic Swedes are in a minority without a bleat of protest from ordinary Swedes.

As a former Swedish Prime Minister said, probably without understanding fully the reality behind his words “Sweden belongs to the immigrants”:

Here’s to you Tommy Robinson

Tomorrow, I’ll look at the wonderful effects mass immigration are having on the once envied Swedish educational system.

In the meantime, to cheer us all up on another dismal autumn morning, here’s a song about our very own Tommy Robinson – enjoy:


The next war is unimaginable – until it happens!

In the Sunday Times ‘Culture’ section nine days ago, I read about a new book called “The Future of War” by some great military and strategic expert I had never heard of – a Sir Lawrence Freedman. I haven’t read (and am not going to read) the book. But I have read the Sunday Times review and looked at the blurb on Amazon and the contents of the book.

The blurb on Amazon is, in my humble opinion, extraordinarily perceptive. I imagine it came from the introduction to Sir Lawrence’s book. Here’s the best part:

In 1912 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a short story about a war fought from underwater submersibles that included the sinking of passenger ships. It was dismissed by the British admirals of the day, not on the basis of technical feasibility, but because sinking civilian ships was not something that any civilised nation would do. The reality of war often contradicts expectations, less because of some fantastic technical or engineering dimension, but more because of some human, political, or moral threshold that we had never imagined would be crossed.

For me the most important part in the above is the piece which states that the main reason we are usually unable to imagine the next war is NOT a technical one (what kind of weapons will be used for killing). The reason we are unable to imagine the next war is a human one (because the next war will cross a human, political or moral threshold we had never imagined humans would ever cross).

Before WWI, people knew what weapons would be used. But nobody imagined that their rulers would permit the mechanised, industrialised slaughter of millions of soldiers. Before WWII, (with the obvious exception of the atomic bomb) again the weapons to be used were largely known although they did improve during the war. But nobody imagined the depths of depravity our German and Japanese friends would sink to as over 60 million people – mainly civilians – were butchered for not a single inch of territorial gain.

So, what about Sir Lawrence’s great book? What stunning insights into the future of war does this erudite, forwarding-thinking genius provide? From what I can see, not too many. According to the contents list, he apparently writes about possible future nuclear wars and cyber wars and nuclear wars started by cyber wars and so on and so forth. But he seems to me to completely overlook the most likely war scenario facing us – civil wars in several European countries between the indigenous populations and the invading armies of multi-cultural enrichers.

Why would an expert like Sir Lawrence apparently (remember, I haven’t read the book) overlook the possibility of civil wars in Europe? Would it be because he’s too stupid to even imagine these breaking out? Possibly. Or could it be that political correctness prevents him mentioning such a scenario as mobs of the ruling lefty, holier-than-thou, we-know-best libtard elites would come howling and screaming and accusing him of racism and bigotry etc and would ensure his public humiliation and the end of his career?

There is another book  which I noticed and which I have bought (it’s completely free as an ebook to download on Amazon Kindle even if you’re not an Amazon Prime member). The title of this book is “The Coming War in Europe” by a Julian Langness.

Of course, I don’t know if Julian Langness’s predictions of future war are any more accurate than those of Sir Lawrence. What surprises me is – if Julian Langness even considers that there might be a series of civil wars in Europe, why does Sir Lawrence (apparently) not deal extensively with this possibility in his book?

It’s all very odd.

And to return to the blurb on Sir Lawrence’s book, I fear we are about to enter a period of the most appalling slaughter because we are currently unable to imagine the depth of depravity that will be reached and the human threshold that will be crossed when the European civil wars start. Like previous generations, we believe we are now so civilised that we could never sink to butchering each other in the millions. I think we’re about to be proved wrong, yet again.

Now, I’m not saying that most multi-cultural enrichers are violent, bigoted, inbred, murderous scum intent on conquering the West, destroying Western civilisation and taking us all back to the Stone Age. That would be stupid as most are peaceful people. But here’s Birgitte Gabriel explaining to the immensely ignorant that it only needs a small minority of people intent on war to cause the most horrific slaughter, that the “peaceful majority are irrelevant” each time mankind embarks on the mass murder of millions: