Skip to content

The Islamic Invasion Is A Plutocratic Project

The Islamic Invasion Is A Plutocratic Project published on

It never ceases to amaze and dismay me that so many left wingers and liberals – I would argue a majority of them – see the Islamic Invasion of Europe and other western countries as some sort of liberal/leftist project.

Let’s face it, it’s not as if the 800 thousand Muslims that flooded into Germany last year are socialists, communists, or anarchists – or even liberals, for that matter. These are people so conservative that even the European right wing opposes their presence, though many of them do so for reasons of their own. Yet everywhere I look there is some member of the Retarded Left going on about how wonderful it is to have the European countries flooded with homophobic, misogynist, racist reactionaries who give more of a shit about Muhammad than they do about Marx! Hell, most of them have probably never even heard of Uncle Karl, and if they care about class issues at all, that concern probably goes no further than their own families. Yet they keep arriving, in their million hordes, from Ibiza to the Norfolk Broads, to the cheers of humanities graduates and Gandhi wannabes whose brains have been damaged by decades of politically correct irrationality.

Why this is a plutocratic rather than conservative project

The fact that most of these new arrivals are conservatives of various stripes is clear from their backward views on pretty much anything you care to name. But how does their conservatism make this a plutocratic project as opposed to a conservative one? It all comes down to who benefits from this particular type of conservatism, and it isn’t the average Western right winger. While a flood of lily white conservative Christians might delight the average European or Amerikan right winger, the influx of swarthy Muslims does little to make them happy since Islam threatens to displace their own brand of stupidity. The plutocrats, on the other hand, benefit massively from the new arrivals. In the long term they get a less liberal population that doesn’t hold so many annoying ideas about equality and human rights and all that crap. And in the short term they have us worrying more about rapes and mass shootings than we worry about the wealth gap and the erosion of freedoms we once took for granted, while also getting more peons willing to work for peanuts – and, thanks to the Retarded Left, they get to look like the good guys while doing so! This would certainly explain the plutocracy’s reluctance to do anything to stop the invasion. They own the politicians and the media, and so could, within a few short weeks, have most Europeans and Americans telling the Moorish invaders to fuck off. They can stop it, yet they don’t. Why? Because it is not in their interest to do so, that’s why.

Why is everyone so convinced it’s a left wing thing?

But how did such a clearly plutocratic project end up being perceived by both Left and Right as a left wing thing? The average person does not just pull these idiotic perceptions out of their asses. In the same way that the average right winger supports neo-liberal policies that clearly do him no favors because his leaders tell him do so, so the Retarded Left supports the Islamic Invasion because that is what their crypto-conservative leaders tell them to do. Most of them don’t even need any logical pseudo-reasons to support the thing, it’s all about the feelz. Tell the fools that good people support “X” for long enough, and most of the fools desperate to be perceived by both themselves and others as good people will support “X.” Tell them that it’s the in-thing for their group to do, and most sheeple wanting the warm fuzzies you get by belonging to the flock will soon be declaring their allegiance to “X.” So the leaders of the left roll their bullshit out across the cable channels and “left wing” websites, and before you know it the majority of leftists and liberals are openly supporting a plutocratic project! At the leadership level, the majority know exactly what they are doing, but at the ground level – the retards who do the voting at the polls and the screeching on the social media – the majority seem to truly believe they are carrying out some sort of leftist mission. Not being grossly irrational, it is always difficult for me to understand why people who condemn the homophobia of gay marriage opponents would support an invasion by people most of whom, at best, want to make homosexuality itself illegal and, at worst, want to stone gays to death! But, like I said, I am not batshit crazy, while most leftists and liberals these days clearly are.

But why would the leaders of the left do such a thing?

The answer to this one is simple – just because you lead the sheep does not mean that you yourself are wooly and go “Baaaa!” Contrary to what many right wingers think, the leaders of the left are not a bunch of pinheaded hippies whose brains have been damaged by too many magic mushrooms. You don’t get to be a master of propaganda and manipulation by being dumb as a hole in the ground. What these people are, from the academics that rule your local university’s social sciences department to the major “liberal” politicians running most Western countries, is highly deceptive individuals whose primary purpose in public life is to serve the plutocracy. They do this in many ways, but the most pertinent one in this case is by flooding the West with people who have not been brought up with all those pesky liberal ideals about everyone being given a fair shot in life and even the lowest amongst us being treated with some measure of dignity. These ideas are quite a burden on the plutocracy and since it’s too late to stop the natives being raised to be so fucking liberal – and in the West even most conservatives hold these liberal ideals – you may as well balance things out by importing some mouth breathing knuckle draggers whose social and political views make the average Southern redneck look like Martin Luther King.

Looking at the evidence and at who stands to benefit, it becomes very clear that the Islamic invasion is a plutocratic project meant to destroy Western liberalism and similar ideologies. Clear to me, at least, but alas not at all clear to the Retarded Left, who will, no doubt, continue to scream “racist” and “Nazi” at the few of us who can still tell shit from chocolate. I suspect that, eventually, even such pathetic animals will realize the error of their ways, but by then we will all be up to our necks in Mohammeds and Abduls and it will be too late to do anything except learn how to shout out “Allahu Akbar!” That is, of course, if you still have a head with which to shout!

Is Souad Faress A False Rape Accuser?

Is Souad Faress A False Rape Accuser? published on

Back in December of 2014, Mark Pearson was walking through Waterloo Station when he passed the profoundly unattractive sixty-something Souad Faress, who was on her way to a rehearsal after having taken a class on how to lie about being raped. According to Faress, Pearson, ignoring all the hot young crumpet on offer, shoved three fingers up her vagina and kept them there for 2-3 seconds. Weird thing to do, and not only criminal but also in very bad taste. The problem is, there were no witnesses, no forensic evidence, and the security cameras showed there was absolutely no way he could have done what she says he done!

The cameras take a photo every second, and show that the guy spent less than one second near her! Not only that, but he appears to be holding a newspaper in one hand and has the other hand on the strap of his bag! So, to have committed the crime, he would have had to put away the paper, gotten past the rancid old ferret’s pants, kept his fingers inside her vagina for 2-3 seconds, then grabbed the newspaper and run off – all in less than one second! Unless this guy is The Flash, there’s no way that happened.

But wait, it’s possible that some other dude assaulted Faress because, as we all know, women never lie about this kind of thing. Problem is, there’s no mention of any camera footage showing that being done by anyone else, either! On top of that, Faress claims she yelled when the attack happened and that people all around her froze to see what was going on. But again, those pesky cameras show no such thing happening, they just show her looking back at the guy. And why was she looking back? Because, according to her, he had not only sexually assaulted her but also bumped her shoulder! Could this be what it all comes down to? Is Souad Faress such an evil woman that she decided to frame the guy for rape for the unforgivable crime of having bumped into her sacred female person? It wouldn’t surprise me, especially given that during the police interview she seemed more concerned with the shoulder incident than the so-called rape…

As is usually the case with such dirtbags, Souad Faress’s name has been kept out of the newspapers in order to encourage other women to make false allegations against innocent men. This is why there is a question mark after the title of this post – said mark does not refer to the supposed assault, which is clearly bullshit, but to the identity of the perpetrator of the false accusation. The one source naming Faress is an anonymous web post cited by Paul Elam in one of his videos. I’m sure it wouldn’t be the first time someone got things wrong while doxxing a dirtbag, but Faress does fit the description of the perpetrator of this crime and she hasn’t issued a denial. So, far as this little piggy is concerned, it looks as if Souad Faress is – probably – a lying piece of scum and should be locked up for her crime. That is highly unlikely to happen, given that Faress is not only a woman but also a minor celebrity in the UK. She has, apparently, been doing some long running radio show called The Archers, has appeared in one-off roles in many TV shows, and has a small role in the upcoming season of Game of Thrones. Put femaleness and celebrity together, and a person can get away with just about anything – just ask confessed child molester Lena Dunham, or confessed man-rapist Amy Schumer, or confessed man-basher Rhonda Rousey…

Article on the matter

Elam’s video

Anonymous post revealing name

Why David Bowie Mattered

Why David Bowie Mattered published on

As everyone knows by now, poor old David Jones has died a somewhat untimely death thanks to that bastard thing called cancer. As has become de rigeur on such occasions, everyone has taken to social media to bemoan the passing of someone whose work they probably haven’t given a shit about in years. Hell, I would be willing to bet a lot of the younger attention seekers didn’t even know who Bowie was until the news hit, or simply thought of him as “Some old guy that my dad likes.” As usual, everyone loves you once you are dead…

I am not about to eulogize Bowie. I am not going to go on about how remarkable it is that he managed to turn out so many good songs over so many decades, or how big an influence he was on today’s rather inferior crop of singer-“song-writers.” Like most people, I didn’t even pay any real attention to his last album release – but unlike so many of those people I am not about to pretend I bought it soon as it hit the stores. Hell, I just looked it up and “Blackstar,” the single, peaked at only 129 in the UK! Yet, now that the poor bastard has kicked the bucket, everyone is acting like he was Jesus in order to horn in on the nigh-pornographic thrill of yet another celebrity death. Like I said, everyone loves you once you are dead…

What I will do is go on about how Bowie mattered as a human male. To me, and I am far from alone in this, Bowie was an icon of two things – male creativity and male rebellion against gender roles. In a world in which most of the creative people are male, yet in which, paradoxically, being creative is seen as not such a male thing to do, Bowie was one of the few male figures known primarily for his creativity. Not his popularity, or his good looks, or his ability to take a lot of drugs and then die young, but primarily for being one incredibly creative bastard. The willfully eccentric music; the wild costumes; the makeup; the use of different personas at a time when such things could still be called creativity rather than mere cheap ploys for attention; even the unexpectedly skillful acting, especially notable in pieces like The Man Who Fell To Earth, all these things labeled David Bowie as “an artist” and a male one at that. This then, is the first reason why Bowie mattered – his full-on commitment to creativity made it more okay for a man to be “artsy” in a world where most people would still prefer that we played football instead.

Then there’s that gender rebellion thing. Eccentric even for an Englishman, Bowie gave the impression that he didn’t care in the slightest if you thought he was some poofy weirdo. He dressed different, acted different, and he was even – Shock! Horror! – a bit on the effeminate and delicate side! Other than what appears to have been a very brief flirtation with bisexuality, Bowie seems to have been basically heterosexual – all those wives and kids, you know – and this made his somewhat delicate ways much more subversive than those of gay stars. For gay males to be rather…er…gay means little – for a man with a wife and kids to be acting a bit “fruity” is a real kick in the teeth of those who would prefer men to stay in their place. That is true even today, but even more so in the old days when a teenage Bowie set up the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Long-Haired Men because he was sick of people calling him “darling”! Nowadays, nobody gives a shit if a man has long hair, in part because men like Bowie have made it a bit more acceptable for men to express themselves and their individuality in a variety of ways. The gender cage is still there, but thanks to Bowie and others like him, it is a bit bigger than it used to be.

And that folks, is why I think Bowie mattered – not because of his great music, but because he made the lives of men and boys a bit better, a bit freer, a bit happier, in a society that really couldn’t care less about the happiness of men and boys. For that, we owe old Dave a nod of respect and the wish that, if the religious people are right and there is life after death, he ends up in the right place!

Why I Support Donald Trump

Why I Support Donald Trump published on

When writing that headline I almost wrote “Duck” instead of “Trump.” I guess it’s because they are both bad-tempered cartoon characters with barely intelligible speech! But you have to play the team you have, not the team you would like to have.

As I see it, whoever gets into the White House is going to be a plutocratic piece of scum. That is just as true of Mr. Duck as it is of everyone else. Clinton has made it clear that the 1% has nothing to fear from her, and we can take her word for it because, given that she and her husband have tens of millions of dollars in assets, she is one of the 1%. Trump and the other Republicans are also members of the plutocracy to varying degrees, so on this matter they are all bastards and bitches.

Here’s where the differences arise, though. While Hillary is clearly a neo-conservative Amerikan Imperialist who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would probably launch one or two more if she could have her way, Trump has for years been saying the war in Iraq was a big mistake. He only said it after it was well underway, of course, but that’s better than we have gotten out of Clinton. The other Republicans who stand a chance of getting the nomination are about as bad as Clinton. Jeb Bush is actually one of the signatories of the Project For The New American Century’s statement of principles! It’s no longer online, but it basically said, “Let’s take over the world! Yeeeharr!” Marco Rubio seems to be a full-on neo-conservative who would have signed the Statement of Principles if he had been of consequence at the time. Ted Cruz doesn’t seem too bad when it comes to Amerikan imperialism, but having been born in Beaver Land, he may or may not be eligible for the US presidency, and that uncertainty alone will probably stop him from getting the nomination. So, the way things look right now, that leaves the fight for the White House as a Clinton v Trump, Clinton v Rubio, or Clinton v Bush proposition. And that means, alas, that a certain hamster-haired idiot is the lesser of the available evils.

And sure, I would prefer someone with a proven left wing record like Bernie Sanders, but we all know the old guy has no chance of winning the Dem nomination. Why? Because he’s a guy! And the Dems are hell-bent on putting a woman in the Oval Office no matter how big a piece of shit she is. So Bernie stands no chance of doing anything except forcing Clinton to pretend to be a lefty during the primaries. Once she wins the nomination, it’ll be a swing to the center to get enough votes, then, once in the WH, she will show her true colors – just as Obama did. Elizabeth Warren might be able to beat Clinton, either as Batman or as Robin to Sanders’ Batman, but she has made it clear she wants no part of this particular comic book. Therefore, unless footage surfaces that shows Hillary was the second gunman on the grassy knoll, it will be Clinton who gets the nomination.

So, the choices for President seem to come down to a rabid, plutocratic, Neo-con Democrat piece of shit, a Neo-con Republican, another Neo-con Republican, or a retarded baboon with a dead hamster on his head – I’m going with the retarded baboon!