Today I wanted to take a break from all the serious, ‘we’re doomed’ stories and instead bring you the sad tale of the pride of the Norwegian navy – the advanced frigate KNM Helge Ingstad:
You might have seen this story in the news a couple of weeks ago. The warship, one of Norway’s five top modern frigates, was on her way home to Haakonsvern naval base. Unfortunately, on 8 November on the way, the well-equipped modern warship managed to collide with an oil tanker:
The KMN Helge Ingstad is one of five Nansen-class frigates billed as “unsinkable” due to its construction with water-tight zones designed to keep the warship “intact and operable”.
Yet the collision with the oil tanker left a big enough hole in the starboard side of the frigate for the warship to take on water. The crew was forced to abandon the vessel and now the ‘unsinkable’ frigate has sunk:
Oil tankers are quite big – this one was around 250 metres long. So they’re not the kind of ship that could tiptoe past one’s cabin window without you noticing they were there. Moreover, the weather was excellent while the waters in the area offer maritime traffic real-time shipping control. Also, there was radio-contact between the vessels when the accident happened.
So one is left with the nagging question as to why the frigate, with all its radars and sensors and other smart navigational stuff, could not spot the massive oil tanker and change course to avoid the collision.
It’s all a mystery
The big bosses in the Norwegian navy have been remarkable quiet about how they managed to lose their unsinkable frigate on a quiet, calm, peaceful day. However, the selfsame big bosses have not always been so reticent in talking about this particular boat.
In the Norwegian magazine, Armed Forces Forum No. 2 in 2017 it was proudly stated that “Four out of five navigators on frigate KNM Helge Ingstad are women“.
“It is advantageous to have many women on board. It will be a natural thing and a completely different environment, which I look at as positive,” Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus said. She is a navigation officer at KNM Helge Ingstad, according to Defense Forum.
In yet more politically-correct, libtardian guff, the magazine claimed that:
“There has always been a perception that the Armed Forces are characterized by a very masculine environment, and in many ways it is true. It is mostly men in the Armed Forces, but it is important for me to show that you do not have to be ‘one of the guys’ to assume a role in the Armed Forces. Finding one’s place should not be at the expense of being a woman,” said Ophus.
When more women are able to work together, “it becomes easier to discover and to create a more balanced defense,”Armed Forces Forum opined.
In the same magazine where the Norwegians boast about gender equality in their Navy, they also explained that they are looking into every department of their Armed Forces to increase the number of females.
Not only did the sinking of the unsinkable frigate cost the Norwegian Navy its entire annual budget, but the country reportedly lost millions with several oil and gas fields which were temporarily shut down due to the accident.
Perhaps they were holding the map upside down?
At this point one could be tempted to make jokes about women navigators and maps.
One might also wonder whether the good lady navigators were so busy discussing their lipstick or nail varnish or new hairstyles that they forgot to look out the window.
But I’m far too mature and enlightened and feminist to sink so low!
(my thanks to the excellent website zerohedge for this story)
Hopefully readers looked at my weekend blog and understand from the UN report I featured that the idea of diluting and then replacing white, indigenous Western populations is a conscious policy of our rulers and not some crazy, right-wing conspiracy.
So, today let’s summarise the thinking of our rulers and then expose its fatal flaws and how it is likely to lead to the next series of wars.
Our rulers’ mindset:
1. Countries are responsible for wars
Our rulers look back at the 20th century and conclude that the two world wars and the slaughter of maybe 100 million people were due to the existence of countries. Thus, they believe that if they abolish countries and replace them by transnational organisations like the EU and even the UN, then wars are less likely. Just in the last few weeks both Adolf Merkel and her French poodle – the miniature, necrophiliac French banker, Emperor Emmanuelle Macron – have been sounding off about the dangers of ‘nationalism’
2. Replacing an ageing population
Our rulers keep being told by their ‘experts’ that, as the advanced West’s population ages and decreases, we need to import people to work and pay taxes to support the increasing numbers of the elderly. Moreover, by importing millions of Third-Worlders our rulers hope to dilute the concept of countries, belonging and patriotism. What the ‘experts’ forget to mention is that increased automation and use of artificial intelligence mean that we actually need fewer workers to support our ageing populations and that there are ever fewer unskilled jobs for migrants.
The fatal flaws
1. Countries are not responsible for wars
The two world wars were not caused by nationalism. Instead they were caused by German and Japanese fascism, a racial superiority ideology and a genetic need to dominate and slaughter all those the Germans and Japanese considered to be inferior races. And now we’re in the 21st century, the Germans are at it again. But this time (thankfully) they’re using their economic power, rather than their military might, to dominate and rule Europe.
But by replacing the concept of countries, which people feel they belong to, with utterly corrupt, wasteful, supranational, globalist organisations like the EU and the UN run by a privileged hereditary bureaucracy our rulers are not going to bring us perpetual peace. Instead they are going to alienate people and lead to protest, violence and conflict
2. Mass migration will lead to new wars
Bringing in millions of Third-Worlders is a disaster because most of those being imported are often illiterate, often uneducated, often low-IQ, often violent, often intolerant men of military fighting age. They’re not coming from their impoverished sh*tholes to work and pay taxes to support an ageing Western population. In fact, (if comparative studies of IQ levels are to be believed) far too many of them have an IQ that is too low for them to function in a modern Western society.
Rather than integrating into Western societies, many of the imported millions intend to live parasitically off the work of the indigenous white populations. Meanwhile, as the Third-Worlders increase their numbers through UN-encouraged, open-border migration and through prolific breeding, they intend to take over the West and transform it into the same kind of violent, impoverished sh*tholes they have come from:
The future is war
As historians look back on the 20th and 21st centuries, they’ll see in the two great wars of the 20th century Europe committing ethnic suicide through the slaughter of the brightest and best in the European gene pool. Historians will then be able to trace how this genetic suicide led to a cultural, economic and racial suicide as an impoverished gene pool left a population unwilling and unable to protect its own culture and wealth from a Third-World invasion.
Rather than bringing us peace, our rulers are sowing the seeds for social disintegration, racial conflict and probable civil war in several countries. The former communist East-European countries and probably Austria will avoid the coming civil wars as they have seen the future and refuse to allow invasions of their countries. Other countries – Sweden, Belgium, Holland and maybe even Spain – will surrender to the invading Third-World armies and hand over control of their countries without a fight.
The interesting issue will be whether Britain, France, Germany and Italy will fight to preserve Western European culture or whether their populations too have become so cowed and cowardly that they will also submit to the invading hordes.
Though, given that Treacherous Theresa May has refused asylum in the UK to the Pakistani Christian – Aasia Bibi – because of her fear of upsetting you know who, perhaps we should place Britain in the group of countries like Sweden and Belgium which will submit to invasion and takeover without a fight?
This may be one of my most important blogs in all my years of blogging in the (usually vain) hope that more than 3% of readers might show some support by buying my books
The UN report nobody dares mention?
Try claiming to anyone that our rulers are implementing a deliberate policy of diluting and then replacing the ethnic white populations of advanced countries with Third-Worlders and you’ll be dismissed as a crank and as a right-wing, racist conspiracy theorist.
So, please let me draw your attention to this United Nations report from April 2000. It’s called “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”
Its publication was proudly announced in several press releases by the United Nations:
But, as the issue of mass migration has become ever more politically sensitive, many of the links to this document and the press releases have mysteriously disappeared.
Here’s what the report covers:
United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.
Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates
The report looks at various scenarios for repopulating the West (including Japan and the USA). To give an idea of the future that is being planned for us, one of the mid-level scenarios suggests the following levels of immigration in total for the years 2000 to 2050:
Germany – 40 million; Italy – 35 million; the EU – 153 million; Europe in total – 235 million.
The USA and the UK get off quite lightly in this total catastrophe with the USA scheduled for 44 million (because the US has already been so thoroughly enriched by migrants and criminal gangs from Latin America) and the UK getting a mere 13 million (I guess because we have so many multi-cultural enrichers here already busy raping, robbing and murdering while getting benefits, free housing, free healthcare, free everything).
Ooops! Did the biased, lefty idiots at the BBC and the overpaid buffoons at C4 News – Jon Snow, Kathy Newman and Krishnan Whatever – forget to tell you about the UN’s plan for dilution and then replacement of the white population? What a surprise!
Here’s a link to the report (just to prove it exists):
So, I hope this reassures you. If you suspected that our rulers have a deliberate plan to dilute and then ultimately replace the ethnic white populations in advanced Western countries, you weren’t mad, you weren’t a conspiracy theorist and you weren’t even a waaacciiiisssstttt.
You just spotted a truth that other people either haven’t seen or blindly refuse to recognise.
(And, by the way, I suspect that Merkel’s decision to flood Europe with often illiterate, often violent, often low-IQ, often unemployable, usually parasitic, worthless Third-Worlders was actually part of her personal career ambition to become the next UN Secretary General when she’s pushed out of German politics. Remember, when it happens, you read it here first)
I’ve actually read the UN Compact for Migration. It is truly frightening in what we will be signing up to. If I were to pull out the two most important points, I think they would be these:
1. It’s aimed at encouraging ever-increasing migration
We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration.
2. It aims to censor any media criticism of increasing migration
Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media
We can already start to glimpse how this will work by looking at Justine Trudeau’s Canadistan. Metrosexual Justine has decided to give $595m over 5 years in tax breaks to media that Justine considers to be ‘eligible’ and ‘trusted’. I suspect that any media daring to criticise Justine’s plans to flood Canadistan with migrants from our favourite religion will not be considered either ‘eligible’ or ‘trusted’.
As Tommy Robinson could probably confirm, it’s a very small step from handing out taxpayers’ money to obedient “eligible” and “trusted” media to using the laws and prisons in order to “sensitize and educate media professionals on migration-related issues”.
The difference between the American and European approaches to mass migration?
Here’s the democratically-elected US President proudly displaying his hopes for his country:
And here’s the ruler of all Europe proudly displaying her hopes for her empire:
I’d like to stay on the subject of the UN Global Compact for Migration for at least one more day. Why? Because it’s probably one of the most important agreements Britain will ever sign. Yet it has mysteriously not been mentioned by any politicians, not been debated in parliament and not been covered by any of the mainstream media. I wonder why not?
As far as I understand the UN Global Compact for Migration, anyone arriving in a Western signatory country can (of course with the help of lefty, no-borders, probably George Soros-funded lawyers) sue the government of that country if they are not given immediate access to free healthcare, free housing, free education, free food, free everything. It doesn’t matter if that person is an asylum seeker, an economic migrant or even a terrorist threat. According to the UN Global Compact for Migration they must be given everything they want.
In the US, when democratically-elected President Trump tried to protect the USA by restricting travel from certain countries, lefty lawyers got this decree blocked by the courts. And just this week, when Trump issued a decree that people entering the USA illegally cannot claim asylum, once again lefty lawyers got this decree blocked by the courts.
These episodes demonstrate how national governments are losing control over their laws and borders and the USA isn’t even a signatory to the dreadful UN Global Compact for Migration
Below is a 6-minute video of a speech in the German parliament from an AfD politician. In it, he exposes what a catastrophe the supposedly wonderful UN Global Compact for Migration is and how it is a complete betrayal of national sovereignty. But our politicians will sign this document as they have forgotten that they were elected to protect the interests of their own populations and not the interests of the globalist, country-hating, patriotism-loathing elites.
When civil war breaks out in the countries that sign up to the UN Global Compact for Migration, the politicians and journalists who have foisted this catastrophe on us will have long since retired to their luxury, gated, well-protected communities. As for the rest of us, as the slaughter erupts around us, we’ll wonder how we allowed ourselves to become unprotected, vulnerable minorities in our own country.
But no problem, we’re dispensable as we’re going to be replaced by the violent, illiterate, often low-IQ, unemployable, parasitic, Third-World hordes that our rulers prefer to us.
Hopefully readers know that on 10 and 11 December in Marrakesh Britain will sign a UN agreement called the “UN Compact for Migration”.
You may wonder what it’s all about? Well, to give you a better idea, here’s the full title: “GLOBAL COMPACT FOR SAFE, ORDERLY AND REGULAR MIGRATION”
There are a few key words here. Firstly, this document is not about people seeking ‘asylum’, it’s about helping people ‘migrate‘. Secondly, the Compact is “for migration” – that means it’s there to help facilitate ever-increasing migration. Thirdly, it states that migration should be “safe, orderly and regular” – it seeks to actively encourage migration. In fact, the agreement makes migration a Yuman Right!
This dreadful agreement is based on the following principle: “Migration has been part of the human experience throughout history, and we recognize that it is a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development in our globalized world, and that these positive impacts can be optimized by improving migration governance”.
Though, any of the thousands of Europeans who have been killed or maimed by terrorist attacks:
or raped:
or just been victims of migrant crime might be tempted to disagree with the UN’s claims of the “positive impacts” of migration.
Some countries have realised that this ghastly document is little short of surrendering national sovereignty, control of borders and agreeing to full race replacement. So far, countries that have pulled out are the United States, Hungary, Austria, Croatia, Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Israel, and Estonia, with Australia, Italy, Belgium, and Switzerland likely to follow.
Britain will, of course sign.
The video below, at almost 14 minutes, is longer than I usually recommend. But it’s the best one I’ve found so far explaining this total disaster – a total disaster that nobody in the mainstream media seems particularly interested in discussing. I wonder why not?
May God help us because we’re doing nothing to help ourselves.
I don’t think I’ve told you about “McNamara’s morons”. During the Vietnam War, the US military was desperately short of manpower. Large numbers of young men didn’t want to get killed and so found ways of avoiding the draft. So, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had a cunning plan. It was called “Project 100,000”. The idea was to accept 100,000 men a year who had much lower intelligence levels than the US military had been prepared to accept in the past.
By the end of the war, McNamara’s program had taken 354,000 such men into the armed forces — 71% in the Army, 10% in the Marine Corps, 10% in the Navy, and 9% in the Air Force. Among the troops, these men were often known as “McNamara’s Morons” or “the Moron Corps” or “McNamara’s Boys”.
Many of these men were illiterate and, in spite of intensive training, many never learned how to shoot a rifle or throw a grenade and were more of a danger to themselves and their fellow soldiers than they were to the enemy.
Now the US military will not accept anyone with an IQ of below 85. The average IQ in most advanced Western countries is, of course, around 100 and about 16% of the population will have an IQ lower than 85:
Falling IQs?
Here’s a small part of a report from the Times:
The IQ scores of young people have begun to fall after rising steadily since the Second World War, according to the first authoritative study of the phenomenon. The turning point marks the end of a well-known but poorly understood trend known as the Flynn effect, in which average IQs have risen by about three points a decade for the past 60 or 70 years.”
The decline, which is equivalent to at least seven points per generation, is thought to have started with the cohort born in 1975, who reached adulthood in the early Nineties.
Nothing to do with immigration
Scientists have given many excellent explanations as to why IQ levels appear to be falling. Some say that the deterioration could be down to changes in the way maths and languages are taught, or to a shift from reading books to spending time on television and computers.
Others have argued that the nature of intelligence is changing in the digital age and cannot be captured with traditional IQ tests.
The one issue nobody dares mention is immigration – could falling IQ levels in any way be linked to the fact that we may be importing millions of migrants from countries with much lower average IQs than we have in the West?
This takes us to a chart I have used many times which suggests that there are significant differences in IQ levels between different parts of the world and it links average IQ levels to GDP per head:
If we go back to McNamara’s Morons and if we believe the figures in the above chart, then it looks likely that we are importing many people with IQs close to or even below 85. This means their IQ is too low for them to function in an advanced Western society however much training and help they are given.
Merkel’s Morons?
And here’s a rather boring, but worryingly factual, video from Germany in which we get two rather conflicting views of the ‘benefits’ migrants will bring to Germany. One ‘expert’ thinks the migrants are highly educated and will make a huge contribution. The other explains why most of the millions imported by Merkel – (“Merkel’s Morons”?) – will be a massive burden on German society for their whole lives not to mention all the many tens of thousands of crimes and rapes they’ll commit every year:
Before I get into today’s blog, I just wanted to share a photo with you. I read an article about Professor Alice Roberts fronting a Humanist UK campaign to stop all government funding for faith-based schools. The most recent research has shown faith-based schools – particularly Catholic, Jewish and Church of England – tend to achieve much better educational results than most other schools.
Anyway, I started to wonder why a highly-educated woman like Professor Roberts would want to drag these high-achieving faith-based schools down to the dismal standard of most non-faith schools. So, I tried to find out if perhaps Professor Alice Roberts was a Jeremy Corbyn supporter. Then I found this photo of Professor Roberts and Jeremy Corbyn together:
I think that’s definite proof of Alice Roberts supporting our Jeremy
Oh, and here’s another nice photo to cheer us up on this cold Monday morning. It features one of France’s and Europe’s most famous granny-grabbers showing great affection for yet another older woman:
We demand more diversity!
I want you to repeat after me:
“We demand more diversity! Diversity makes us stronger! We demand more diversity! Diversity makes us stronger! We demand more diversity! Diversity makes us stronger! We demand more diversity! Diversity makes us stronger! We demand more diversity! Diversity makes us stronger!”
Please keep repeating this until you start to believe it.
Anyway, here’s the subject of today’s blog – one of the most popular spectator sports in that filthy, backwards, excrement-covered, primitive, hell-hole Crapistan.
I hope you all have strong stomachs.
I believe this wonderful cultural festival is already being slowly introduced in certain areas of Britain, France and Belgium. Hooray for diversity! Hooray for multi-culturalism!
I wanted to do a story about diversity this weekend. But then I came across this wonderful short (2 minutes) video which all readers really should see. (Apologies if you’ve already seen it)
One effect of alcohol is that it often brings out our real characters: whether, for example, we’re calm and relaxed, at peace with ourselves and just enjoy a few drinks and laughs with friends; whether we’re pig-ignorant, violent, frustrated scrotes spoiling for a fight; or whether we’re arrogant, self-righteous, elitist bullies who treat all those we consider our inferiors with contempt.
That brings us to Simone O’Broin, 50, who is apparently some kind of Yuman Rights lawyer or barrister or whatever who had apparently worked for several supposedly ‘oppressed’ people including the Palestinians.
The fragrant Simone was filmed using a string of four-letter words when staff would not let her have more wine when she was travelling in business class on a flight from Mumbai to London.
This Yuman Rights lawyer’s verbal assault could even be seen as rather racist, when she told the Indian flight crew, who remained impeccably calm throughout: “I work for all you f***ing people. … ‘The f***ing Rohingyas, the f***ing people of all Asia, for you, I’m an international criminal lawyer. Don’t get any money for it by the way. But you won’t give me a f***ing glass of wine, is that correct?”
She then called a female crew member “Indian f***ing money grabbing bastard,” shouting that she will “turn you inside f***ing out, you f***ing stupid c***s.”
The lovely Simone can also be seen waving her arms about and turning her anger on her fellow business class passengers, attacking them for not “standing up against injustice”.
I believe that, at one point, sexy Simone shouts “this will be all over the f**king news!” Well, the (IMHO) loudmouthed, self-important, sanctimonious, lefty scumbag at least got that right. Though perhaps the incident was not “all over the f**king news” in the way she had hoped?
I think we should all thank the sensuous, slinky Simone for showing us what so many (IMHO) arrogant, holier-than-thou, self-righteous, intolerant, lefty libtards are really like:
With all the heat and noise being generated over Treacherous Theresa’s Brexit supposed ‘deal’, I could hardly expect to add anything to the fury, anger, ignorance and chaos.
There seem to be a few incontrovertible facts:
we got totally screwed by the EU because we had worthless, UK-hating, Europhiliac, Remoaner bureaucrats pretending to negotiate while actually surrendering at every opportunity
our two so-called “Brexit secretaries” – David Davis and Dominic Raab – were hardly involved at all in the process – instead they were just front-men while the bureaucrats cobbled together our capitulation
human slime like Blair, Clegg and others kept encouraging Brussels to face down the British demands in order to force us into this humiliating capitulation or even to remain shackled to the EU
the EU has done everything it can to cripple us economically to ensure that Brexit is a failure so that other countries won’t be tempted to follow us out of the EU
having humiliated us and won so much, the EU sees no need to make any compromises now and Germany in particular is relishing its victory over us and its ability to humiliate us
One could go on, but I imagine most readers understand our situation much better than I.
The key issue now is how best to move forward. In business or economics there’s the idea of ‘sunk costs’ – that you shouldn’t let costs that have been incurred in the past influence future decision-making.
When making business decisions, organizations should only consider relevant costs, which include the future costs and revenue of one choice compared with another. To make an informed decision, a business only considers the costs and revenue that will change as a result of the decision; sunk costs do not change because they have already been incurred and cannot be recouped so should not be considered:
With the Brexit situation, there’s no point bleating about sunk costs – what happened in the past:
May’s disastrous general election decision losing her parliamentary majority
how Berlin’s stooge, Martin Selmayr, has out-negotiated the civil-service scum that were supposed to represent Britain’s interests
how the Tory Government has wasted the last two years fighting among itself rather than working together to try to get a decent deal for Britain
But we are where we are and nothing can change that.
So, looking forward, we should be considering only what costs and benefits can be achieved by different options taking our current position as a starting point – getting rid of May; parliament voting down May’s deal; leaving on World Trade Organisation terms; trying to renegotiate with the EU under a new Tory leader etc.
The ideal situation would be for the Tories to dump May, put in an interim Brexiteer leader without a leadership battle, go back to Brussels, explain May’s ‘deal’ is unacceptable and get something better.
But is that going to happen? Given two years of Britain being betrayed by the elitist Remainer ruling classes, is Brussels going to give any concessions now? I doubt it. Why would a victor give concessions to a loser?
Therefore, personally I believe we should swallow May’s capitulation, leave the EU next March and make the best of an extremely bad job. What could have been achieved has not been achieved because we have been betrayed by our own ruling elites. Britain has been in worse position in the past and has always succeeded due to the innovative culture and energy of its citizens. The past is a sunk cost and should not influence future decision-making.
I think we have to accept that we’re in a dreadful situation and just get on with it. Or, as a lovely blond young lady once said to me many (too many?) years ago “Forget the foreplay, shove it in!”
I suspect most readers will see this as defeatist and will disagree with me.
David Craig, on November 27th, 2018
