Yesterday I showed a photo of the supposedly “17-year-old Iranian child refugee” who was attacked by a group of thugs while waiting at a bus stop.
Being cynical and bigoted and a Little Englander and a waaaccciiissssttt, I cruelly suggested that the “17-year-old Iranian child refugee” might actually be slightly older than 17, that he might have lied about his age in order to be allowed to stay in Britain and that he might actually be a migrant rather than a refugee.
Apparently, the Iranian “17-year-old child refugee” has a 23-year-old brother. I wonder if the 23-year-old is his younger or older brother?
Moreover, I suspect that the “17-year-old child refugee’s” family may have sent him to Benefits Britain so that he can then demand that they be allowed to follow him to Benefits Britain on Yuman Rights grounds once he has been granted the right to remain here.
I’m no expert in the ageing process. So I picked a few pictures at random from Google Images of 17-year-olds who actually are 17 years old.
Here’s one young chap:
And here’s another:
And here’s yet another:
And once again here’s the supposedly “17-year-old child refugee”:
I leave it to my dwindling band of readers to judge whether the “17-year-old child refugee” is really a “17-year-old child refugee” or is actually a lying, deceitful, benefits-scrounging, parasitic, (at least) 25-year-old economic migrant sent by his family so they can all come and sponge off us naive idiots in Benefits Britain for the rest of their useless lives.
First, here’s a picture of the supposedly “17-year-old” Iranian “child refugee” who was recently attacked. If he’s only “17 years old”, then I’m the King of China:
At a guess, I’d say this “17-year-old child refugee” is actually about 25 years old. Or maybe 30? Who knows?
Strange as it may seem, none of the mainstream media have thought it worth commenting on how ‘mature’ this helpless “17-year-old child refugee” seems to be. I wonder why they’ve said nothing?
And here’s the greatest living Briton laying into the corrupt, wasteful, greedy, undemocratic EU scum:
What are the greatest oxymorons of our times? There’s “free speech” or “border control” or “child refugee” or even “moderate Muslim”.
But one of the best is probably “Swedish police”. Up until the great Religion of Peace and Violence invasion, the Swedish police never really had to police anything. Occasionally they might have had to pick up a couple of drunks and stick them in the cells overnight to prevent them from freezing to death had they passed out on their way home during the winter. But that was about it. Being a policeperson (I assume one is not allowed to write ‘policeman’ or ‘policewoman’ any more) in Sweden meant either sitting in a well-heated Volvo or an even better-heated office all day eating Fallu-korv (a rather large sausage [korv] with an unfortunate but appropriate name from the town where it is made) and waiting for your early retirement and generous pension.
But following the invasion of Sweden by Religion of Love and Murder hordes, the Swedish police have had to do some real policing – well at least try – and they’re failing miserably. There are over 50 no-go areas in Sweden which are run by Religion of Happiness criminal gangs and which the police and emergency services are afraid to enter. Begging, robbery, burglaries, rape and violence are spiraling out of control and the Swedish police seem unprepared and helpless .
Anyway, here for your education and amusement is a short video of three rather well-fed (too much Fallu-korv?) Swedish policewomen, later assisted by a Swedish policeman, trying to arrest a migrant from Sweden’s most popular religion who is suspected of burning down at least one asylum centre and vandalising buildings and cars to show his gratitude to the Swedish people for being allowed to come and live off eye-wateringly generous benefits in Sweden.
First the three fat policewomen try to overcome the migrant – with little success. Then when a man, a member of the public, tries to assist them, they pull him away from the allegedly arsonist migrant. Next a Swedish policeman bravely joins in the fray. But the migrant manages to beat him off. Then all four courageous cops attack. But the migrant succeeds in overpowering the four policepeople (or should that be ‘policepersons’?) who run away from him allowing him to vandalise their police car before walking away – probably to burn down another couple of buildings or rape a few under-age girls or sell drugs or whatever it is that such migrants do to enliven their lives in stupefyingly boring Sweden.
The first duty of any government is the protection and security of their citizens. If I were Swedish, I wouldn’t have much confidence in the Swedish police protecting anyone except for invading migrants.
If we look back at the 20th Century, simplifying slightly we could almost split it into two clear halves;
1. 1900-1945: The two world wars
Two great (and utterly pointless) world wars both largely due to the German need to conquer and dominate other countries. Result – over 77 million slaughtered – a mere 17 million in WWI but a more impressive 60 million in WWII.
2. 1945-1999:Communism vs democracy
The struggle between communism/socialism and democracies which ended in the collapse of communism/socialism everywhere except in fatboy’s glorious People’s Republic of North Korea. The victory of free-market democracy over socialism was believed to be so momentous and so final that in 1992 one celeb historian, Francis Fukuyama, even wrote a book called “The End of History” in which he predicted that what we were witnessing was not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
As the rise of West-loathing, democracy-loathing, freedom-loathing radical Islam has shown, Mr Fukuyama could not have been more wrong.
The 21st Century
So, what about the 21st Century? What will happen? I propose that we’ll also be able to split the 21st Century into two clearly distinguishable phases:
1. 2000-2050: The people vs the elites
For at least the next 20 to 30 years, we’ll see a struggle between ordinary people and the ruling elites. The people will want to live in clearly-recognisable countries with their own borders, traditions, national identities and democratically-elected governments answerable to voters. The ruling elites want to eradicate the concept of individual nations and using mass migration and transnational institutions like the EU and the UN hand power over from national, democratically-elected governments to a corrupt, wasteful, undemocratic, unelected, privileged bureaucratic elite who know what’s best for their supine subjects
2. 2050-2099: The Great European Civil Wars
There are currently around 55 million followers of the Religion of Love and Tolerance in Europe (excluding the goat-botherers in Turkey) – about 7% of the population. By around 2050 there will be somewhere in the region of 100 million. This will only account for about 15% to 20% of the European population. But our Religion of Peace friends will be concentrated in the main cities where they will be a massive majority.
Moreover, the block Religion of Ecstasy vote will be decisive for deciding which party wins any election. So only political parties wanting more Religion of Happiness immigration and pandering to Religion of Joy demands for things like Sharia Law, censorship of free speech, FGM, wife-beating, murder of gays, Jews and apostates and subjugation of the national culture to Islam will be able to win power. Feeling themselves powerless to defend their own countries and identities, the indigenous white populations will start to fight back and violence between the indigenous populations and the invading Muslim armies will increase and lead to civil wars in several countries.
How many will die? I don’t know.
Cheer up
And here to cheer us all up on this Monday morning is the astonishing Pat Condell:
(weekend blog) Below is an article by someone much more intelligent than me explaining why our progressive, ever-so-liberal, voter-despising, internationalist rulers and the mainstream media are so afraid of Putin and everything he represents.
The gist of the article is that our rulers in the West (apart from Donald Trump obviously) and their obedient mainstream media want to eradicate the idea of national identity and countries with borders and elected leaders answerable to their voters. Instead they are using mass migration and the undemocratic, corrupt, wasteful EU to replace countries with a new socialist superstate (the EUSSR) run by a venal, self-serving unelected bureaucracy chosen from the ruling elites and their families hiding behind a sham parliament that is only interested in giving itself ever more privileges and ever more of our money.
Putin, on the other hand, believes that each country should have its own borders, traditions and national identity and that each country’s rulers’ first priorities are the well-being, safety and security of their citizens.
In summary, Putin wants what most ordinary people want. We want our countries back.
And this is anathema to our internationalist, progressive, migrant-loving ruling elites.
The great battle of the 20th Century was between Capitalism and Communism.
The great battle of the 21st Century will be between ordinary, patriotic people and their supposedly ‘democratically elected’ ruling elites.
Here’s the article:
“If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time.
“On the world stage, who could vie with him?”
What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders?
“When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.
“In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.”
Putin’s approval rating, after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Trump’s?
Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization.
What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first.
And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.
The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a “killer.” He invaded and occupies Ukraine. His old KGB comrades assassinate journalists, defectors and dissidents.
Yet while politics under both czars and commissars has often been a blood sport in Russia, what has Putin done to his domestic enemies to rival what our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has done to the Muslim Brotherhood he overthrew in a military coup in Egypt?
What has Putin done to rival what our NATO ally President Erdogan has done in Turkey, jailing 40,000 people since last July’s coup — or our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte, who has presided over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of drug dealers?
Does anyone think President Xi Jinping would have handled mass demonstrations against his regime in Tiananmen Square more gingerly than did President Putin this last week in Moscow?
Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia’s interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant.
He not only remains popular in his own country, but has admirers in nations whose political establishments are implacably hostile to him.
In December, one poll found 37 percent of all Republicans had a favorable view of the Russian leader, but only 17 percent were positive on President Barack Obama.
There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America’s elite do not take even a neutral stance.
Putin has read the new century better than his rivals. While the 20th century saw the world divided between a Communist East and a free and democratic West, new and different struggles define the 21st.
The new dividing lines are between social conservatism and self-indulgent secularism, between tribalism and transnationalism, between the nation-state and the New World Order.
On the new dividing lines, Putin is on the side of the insurgents. Those who envision de Gaulle’s Europe of Nations replacing the vision of One Europe, toward which the EU is heading, see Putin as an ally.
So the old question arises: Who owns the future?
In the new struggles of the new century, it is not impossible that Russia — as was America in the Cold War — may be on the winning side. Secessionist parties across Europe already look to Moscow rather than across the Atlantic.
Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism.
I’m sure that all my few and ever-diminishing band of readers know that emojis are ideograms and smileys used in electronic messages and Web pages. Emoji are used much like emoticons (what’s the difference? I’ve no idea).
Originating on Japanese mobile phones in the late 1990s, emoji have become increasingly popular worldwide.
Here are some typical emojis:
Of course, these emojis are Kuffir emojis and not suitable for a person from the Religion of Tolerance, Murder, Hatred and Peace – especially if used to represent female emotions.
Fortunately, our ever-inventive Muslim friends have started to come up with a set of emojis that can be used by Muslims.
I understand that these are the most commonly used female emojis in more traditional Muslim countries:
And here are typical female emojis from the more enlightened Muslim countries:
There have been attempts to further improve Muslim emojis.
But I suspect if a Muslim female was to use any of the emojis featured below in some hellhole like Saudi Arabia or Iran, they would be arrested and whipped, raped or even worse for using pictures that clearly revealed far too much of a woman’s face:
As for male Islamic emojis, I’m led to believe that this is one of the most commonly used:
I imagine most readers never believed Britain’s “Independence Day” would ever happen given the fact that the whole Establishment, the political classes and almost all the mainstream media were united to keep Britain as a cash-cow German colony ruled by a bunch of fourth-rate, Fourth Reich Nazis in Berlin through their posturing glove puppets in Brussels.
But enough garbage has been spoken and written about Britain leaving the deadly asphyxiating clutches of the wasteful, corrupt, undemocratic EUSSR – the world’s newest totalitarian state.
So, instead I’ll use today’s blog for a few ‘hospital stories’ in case any of these might be useful to any readers or their families:
A bit of a moral dilemma
A couple of weeks ago my 90-year-old mother suffered a massive stroke that left her hospitalised and unable to speak or walk properly. Since then, my mother has been refusing food. At first she was ‘force fed’ through a tube and she still gets regular saline drips to keep her hydrated. But my sister and I are fairly convinced that my mother is trying to die because she doesn’t want to go on living as a helpless cripple unable to communicate or look after herself.
Prior to her stroke, my mother had talked about wanting to die if she became a helpless cripple. And every time anyone from the family visits her in hospital she just glares at them in fury at her condition.
So, we have a small moral dilemma – my mother wants to die, but we’re doing what we can to keep her alive. Oh dear!
Aspirin, not statins, you idiots!
For years my mother’s doctor has been prescribing statins to keep her levels of cholesterol under control. But hold on a minute. My mother is already 90 and is extremely thin. So what are the chances of her having a heart attack due to the build-up of fat in her coronary arteries? Pretty low, I’d say. However, what are her (or were) her chances of having a stroke? Rather high as the risk of a stroke increases with age.
For several years, I’ve been telling my mother to stop taking statins. But her doctor disagreed. Perhaps my mother’s doctor should have thought that, with someone of my mother’s age, replacing statins with a blood-thinner like Aspirin or even Warfarin would have been a bit of common sense?
Beware a hospital with lots of fresh flowers
The other day when visiting the hospital, I noticed two ladies with a trolley refreshing the flower displays along one of the corridors. I imagine they were local volunteers helping out at the hospital. Trying to be pleasant, I complimented them on the hospital flower displays and asked if the flowers came from hospital visitors as patients are no longer allowed to have flowers by their bedside.
“Oh no,” one of the good ladies said cheerily, “the flowers come from the crematorium. Once they’ve burnt the bodies, they send the flowers back to us and we arrange them along the corridors”.
The lesson, I take from this is: beware any hospital with a lot of fresh flowers along the corridors as that’s a sign the hospital is keeping the local crematorium furnaces well supplied with bodies to burn and fresh flowers to be returned to the hospital.
Pride kills
Like a lot of people of her generation, my mother took pride in her independence and kept denying to herself that she was ageing and becoming increasingly frail. Although we provided her with an emergency alarm system connected to a call centre and an alarm activator she could wear round her neck, she has always refused to wear the activator. Instead she kept it in a drawer. After all, only old people need alarms and my mother never saw herself as ‘old’.
So, when she did have her stroke, she was unable to press the alarm and remained untreated for around 12 hours during which she sustained massive brain damage. This would not have occurred had she pressed the alarm and been treated within 5 to 6 hours of having the stroke. The doctors at the hospital told me this was very common – elderly people having alarm systems but not wearing them because they considered them ‘unnecessary’.
The ‘good news’ and the ‘not so good news’
The other day I had a classic “good news, bad news” experience. The good news was that my mother could be discharged from hospital and go home. The not so good news was that she was not being discharged due to an improvement in her condition, but because there was nothing more the hospital could do for her.
Conclusion (of sorts)
My take from all this is that we should all give a little more thought to our deaths and the effect they will have on those close to us – write a will, make sure your financial affairs are in order, avoid as much inheritance tax as possible, make clear what we want in the event of a serious heart attack or stroke etc etc.
Oh, and here to cheer us all up is a half-minute video of some Muslim ladies disco-dancing in their sexist outfits. Good grief!!! (click on headline below to watch)
First the wonderful news. The BBC and Channel 4 and the Guardian and the braindead libtards are spitting nails today as the wonderful President Trump has signed an Executive Order scrapping idiotic Barry ‘all talk no trousers’ Obummer’s climate change targets and also giving a boost to America’s suffering coal industry.
Yippee – the fatuous, data-twisting, lying Greenies will be apoplectic with rage. Finally someone, Donald Trump, has had the courage to stand up to the Greenies and expose the Greenies’ supposed “man-made climate change” quasi-religion for the total bollox it most certainly is. What a great day for mankind!
Anyway, back to airport security. Following my blog yesterday about the cost and inconvenience Muslim terrorism is causing air travellers around the world, a reader sent me a link to a short video which reveals the stupidity that political correctness has imposed on supposed airport security.
Readers will probably know that airport security staff are not allowed to search passengers on the basis of profiling – if the passenger looks like a Muslim terrorist and acts like a Muslim terrorist, to pick them out for a search would be “waaacccciiiissssttt”. Instead, security staff must pick out passengers for body pat downs at random. This results in most pat downs being done on passengers who could not in any way be considered a danger to airline security.
Here’s a short video taken by a furious mother showing how her son was humiliated by US airport security staff as they bravely defended us against potential Muslim terrorists
When elected US President Donald Trump issued his first travel restrictions on air passengers travelling from 7 countries where Islamic extremism is rife, there were howls of protest from the usual, big-mouthed, brain-dead libtards about “racism” even though Islam is not a race but a supposed religion of peace (or violent death cult depending on your point of view).
Another complaint was the inconvenience that would be caused to several thousand mainly Muslim air passengers from these 7 countries.
But none of the mainstream media has ever thought of mentioning the inconvenience and costs caused to air passengers around the world by Muslim terrorism.
There were about 3.6 billion air passenger flights in 2016. The annual figure has increased every year for quite some time:
If we assume that due to security screening each of these 3.6 billion people had to arrive half an hour earlier at the airport than would have been necessary without the growing threat of Muslim terrorism, then that’s 108 billion minutes of inconvenience. If my calculations are correct, that equates to 206,000 manyears or more than 2,000 people’s lives every year spent just waiting at security because of Muslim terrorism.
That’s rather more wasted time than the few hours delay a few hundred Muslims experienced before a libtard judge struck down Trump’s travel restrictions for being “unconstitutional”.
But none of the mainstream media bothered to mention this massive waste of millions of people’s time. Why not? Because most of these travellers weren’t from the Religion of Love, Hatred, Tolerance, Intolerance and Peace.
And what about the cost?
Statistics from the US and Canada suggest that it costs around $10 to security-screen each passenger:
(The top line is the US cost and the lower line is the cost per screened passenger in Canada)
Of course, the cost in many Third-World countries will be less as the airport security staff are paid a pittance. In Turkey and many Arab and African countries, the cost per screened passenger is less than $1. Although how effective a $1 security screening is I’ll leave to your imagination.
Anyway, if we assume for ease of calculation that it costs around $10 to screen each passenger (as most air passengers tend to come from the developed world), then worldwide the annual cost to screen air passengers because of the threat of Muslim terrorism is $36 billion (about £30bn). That’s £30 billion that could have been used to look after the elderly or buy food for the starving or provide housing for the homeless or help improve food production in cesspit African hell-holes or whatever.
So, when the lefties start screaming and foaming at the mouth over President Trump’s attempts to keep Americans safe from Muslim mass murderers, remember the huge amounts of people’s time and our money wasted each year purely due to the threat of Muslim terrorism.
David Craig, on April 7th, 2017
