George H. W. Bush, govor o stanju nacije povodom pobjede nad komunizmom, 1992.



George H. W. Bush, svjedok na lezbijskom vjenčanju, 2013. (čarapice su zgodan detalj)

Veliki put smo prevalili. No još ima mnogo posla.

A Night at the Opera


After the lights dimmed for the Metropolitan Opera’s Russian-themed opening night gala on Monday evening, the first solo voice that rang out in the house was not of a tenor or soprano, but of a protester criticizing the recent antigay laws signed by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

“Putin, end your war on Russian gays!” a man shouted in the vast auditorium, which was packed for the black-tie gala opening of Tchaikovsky’s “Eugene Onegin,” before turning to two of the evening’s Russian stars: Anna Netrebko, the popular Russian diva, and Valery Gergiev, the artistic director of the Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg. “Anna, your silence is killing Russian gays! Valery, your silence is killing Russian gays!”

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/201 ... the-opera/

No naši hrabri jurišnici u košuljama duginih boja hrabro jurišaju dalje.

Truly post-American America and reviving Russia must be very different places! Can anyone imagine publicly prominent American artists openly supporting a politician who acts to restrain the homosexual assault on American society? Or a politician who says things such as these, as Vladimir Putin just did at the Valdai Discussion Club’s meeting last week?:

People will lose their human dignity without values enshrined in Christianity and other world religions, without moral standards that have taken millennia to take shape, said President Vladimir Putin.

“We believe that it is natural and appropriate to defend those values. Any minority deserves respect for its distinctive identity, but the rights of the majority must not be questioned,” Putin said during a meeting of the Valdai discussion club.

He believes, that Russia can’t move forward without cultural and national self-determination. Otherwise the country won’t be able to respond to external or internal challenges, can’t be successful in global competition.

“Events that take place in the world represent one more serious challenge to the Russian identity. There are foreign policy and moral aspects to this. We have been able to see many Euro-Atlantic countries effectively embark on a path of renouncing their roots, including Christian values, which underlie Western civilization,” Putin said.

“That involves the negation of moral principles and any traditional identity – national, cultural, religious, or even sexual,” he said.

“Policies are pursued that put large families and same-sex partnerships in the same category, belief in God and belief in Satan. Excesses of political correctness reach the point where there are serious discussions on the registration of parties that have propaganda of pedophilia as their objective. People in many European countries are ashamed and afraid of speaking about their religion, holidays are abolished or given other names, names that shyly conceal the nature of those holidays, and aggressive attempts are made to force this model on the rest of the world,” Putin said.

“This is a direct path to degradation and primitiveness, to deep demographic and moral crises,” he said.

“What can be a better indication of a moral crisis in human society than its loss of the ability for self-reproduction?” Putin said.

And can anyone imagine a Western politician who says such things today being elected president or prime minister of his country?


Za to vrijeme barbari s istoka šire herezu.

Zar opet iz Rusije dolaze ovakve poruke?

Ludi su totalno.

Oni od svih ljudi da prkose Hominterni.

Ma ne, učini mi se da sam čitao par puta slične poruke baš iz Rusije i baš na ovim temama. Nešto se previše brinu. Ili se ti ponavljaš.

Ovo je prije par dana Putin izjavio.

The Happy, Snappy World of Baby Buying


MEN Having Babies, an organization that helps its “gay clientele” rent wombs and buy babies, is having its Ninth Annual Men Having Babies Surrogacy Conference in ten days. Check it out. This is a pedophile’s dream come true. All of this is perfectly legal in good ol’ America, where anything can be bought and anything can be sold.

Pusti pedere na miru. Oni su kao Cigani, ne zanima ih politika. Daj im da vode Eurosong i Big brother i oni presretni.

To ne znači da su potpuno bezopasni, posebno zato jer gay prava mogu biti uvod u nešto više. A i posebno je zanimljivo koliko se svijest ljudi promijenila u zadnjih deset godina, od potpunog neprihvaćanja te zajednice pa do činjenice da te u nekim krugovima gledaju s podsmijehom ako si protiv gay brakova. Dao im se nokat, ali zagrizli su kao pitt bullovi i spremaju se uzeti cijelu ruku...

Ne znam kako u Hrvatskoj, ali u Srbiji danas imaš likove, posebno Beograđane, koji su toliko zagriženi za gej prava, a strejt su, da je to nešto nevjerovatno... čime li je to postignuto, pitam se.

Grižnja savjesti, frka ih da ih ne nazivaju "fašistima":

We live in an era obsessed with gender oppression. For example, Americans were recently alerted that the women of Harvard Business School are deprived of their rightful grade point averages by being asked out so often on expensive dates by well-heeled suitors.

http://takimag.com/article/prohibition_ ... z2gP4vWOXD



Čitaš i nevjeruješ.

Those Who Must Not Be Named


In the popular Harry Potter series, arch-nemesis Voldemort is superstitiously referred to as “he-who-must-not-be-named.” He is thought to be so evil, that the mere mention of his name might bring down his wrath or, worse, make him appear.

Colin Flaherty’s White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America is a reminder that superstitious dread is not confined to the world of make-believe. Mr. Flaherty documents America’s epidemic of black mob violence—and shows that the media ignore it. Mr. Flaherty lists over 500 violent incidents, in over 60 cities, since 2010. The e-book includes links to YouTube videos that capture the violence (the bound volume has still images). The stories are then linked to the media’s sanitized version, and the contrast is jarring. Mob attacks on whites become “fights,” race is never mentioned, and the incidents are buried on back pages, if they are even reported at all.

Mr. Flaherty is an award-winning writer who has been published in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Boston Globe. He has been writing about race since the 1980s, when he was a staffer for Hispanic Republican Uvaldo Martinez, and later as a ghost writer for Clarence Pendleton, the first black chair of the US Civil Rights Commission. He has exposed several fake hate crimes and his reporting for the San Diego weekly, The Reader, led to a black man’s release from prison. He paints a picture of a media-enabled wave of horrific, anti-white violence.



The book takes its title from a 2011 Independence Day riot in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The attack started as a flash mob of about 100 “youths” who robbed a BP gas station after a fireworks display. The mob then headed to a nearby park, where 10 to 20 whites were relaxing. Police described what happened next as “fights,” which, Mr. Flaherty says, “is a curious way to describe a riot where some of the victims may have tried to defend themselves.” The thugs ran away when police arrived, and officers refused to file a report or start an investigation.

It was left to James Harris of 620 WTMJ in Milwaukee to tell the truth:

This was not a colorblind crime. We have this epidemic of black teenage mob violence happening all over the country. It is from a perfect storm of entitlements and white guilt where people are afraid to identify who is doing the crime and why they are doing it. [The mayor and police chief] were more worried about being accused of racial profiling than the fact that black mobs were roaming down the streets hurting people.

The book goes on to describe black mob violence at amusement parks, shopping malls, sports venues, and on public transportation. Most of the attacks were caught on tape, either by surveillance cameras, bystanders, or the perpetrators themselves. And more often than not, the victims they chose were white.



Weary of living in denial, black Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter finally took to the pulpit of a black church and admitted his city had a problem with violent young black men. “You have damaged your own race,” he told them. The head of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP, J. Whyatt Mondesire, praised Mr. Nutter, saying “These are majority African-American youth and they need to be called on it.”

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/08/t ... -be-named/

Zašto?

Zašto zavaravanje? Zašto samozavaravanje? Zašto prikrivanje? Zašto laganje?

Zašto je istina zastrašujuća?

Što mislimo postići ignoriranjem stvarnosti?

Kad ćemo prestati biti rasisti i poćeti ljude tretirati jednako nevezano o rasi?

Kad ćemo lopova ili nasilnika tretirati jednako bez obzira koje je rase?

Čemu ovo glupo ponašanje?

Zar je tako jednostavno kako Mark Twain kaže. "Zašto da se brinemo, nije li većina idiota u ovom gradu na našoj strani? I nije li to većina u svakom gradu?"

Even many white liberals favor such policies—as long as the beneficiaries are not white. They will happily help protect the Tibetans or the Indian tribes of the Amazon from alien incursion. Why is it so difficult for such people to see that it is fair and right for their own race to enjoy the same protections?


A odgovor je možda jako jednostavan.

Etnomazohizam. Mržnja svojih, opravdavanje tuđih.

Jer kako objasniti da je za zapadnog liberala činjenica da Kinezi koloniziraju Tibet, naseljavaju ga i postat će većina i nadglasati Tibetance neprihvatljiva, a za isto vrijeme da Kinezi doseljavaju u Englesku i postanu većina u Engleskoj prihvatljiva? Čak toliko prihvatljiva da ako kažeš štogod protiv toga to postaje neprihvatljivo.

Zašto engleski liberal staje u zaštitu Tibetanaca, ali ne i Engleza?

Zašto kad se dogode dvije identične situacije ali u jednima je počinitelj "naša" strana liberali sasmu drvlje i kamenje po "našima" a kad to isto naprave "tuđi" onda skaču u obranu i izmišljavaju sto razloga i isprika zašto to nije tako strašno i zašto se ne bi trebalo osuđivati?

Mi imamo posla po prvi puta u povijesti sa grupom ljudi koji smatraju naprednim/normalnim mrziti svoje, a voliti tuđe. I činiti nepravdu prema svojima, a privilegirati drugačije.

I to je poremećaj.

To nije napredno, to nije progres. To nije plemenito i to nije normalno.

Mržnja je mržnja. Diskriminacija je diskriminacija. Rasizam je rasizam.

Zašto bi se nekome dopuštala mržnja prema Englezima samo zato što se rodio kao Englez?

Mazohizam je poremećaj kao i sadizam.

Samoubojstvo je poremećeno kao i ubojstvo.

Onoga tko mrzi sam sebe i spreman si je oduzeti život ne bismo smatrali normalnim i pružili bi mu psihijatrijsku pomoć.

No zašto toleriramo tu samomržnju, autorasisam, obrnutu diskriminaciju, liberala?

To je poremećaj i problem našeg vremena. I time se moramo pozabaviti. Ili će nas uništiti.

Domaće primjere već vidimo. Hrvati, Srbi...imaju takve pojedince koji su neobjektivni i samo ih zanimaju nepravde/pogreške "njihovih". Nepravde učinjene od drugih prema "njihovima" ih uopće ne zanimaju. Nisu u fokusu.

To je samo početak...

The Diversity Illusion


This well-written, interesting book by a veteran journalist seeks to explain how Britain came to allow massive, unselective immigration, without particularly intending to. Ed West documents a typically British muddle, composed of idealism, ignorance, expediency, optimism, and lashings of embarrassment. He has charted the story with bemused dismay, analyzing yet another example of history being more cock-up than conspiracy. The actual decisions lurched from one expedient to the next, until the conquered peoples of the Benighted Isles conceded that their position was lost. An unspoken and much denied retreat from immigration has begun, with the often-muttered sentiment, “With any luck it can be confined to the cities.”



Those who objected to immigration itself, or to unselective immigration in particular, could be silenced by the accusation that they were covering up their own racism. Racism was wrong because it was a judgment based on skin color alone. Therefore immigration in general was good, and opposed only by bigots.

As a consequence, as Mr. West notes:

Never in modern history has a free population simply suppressed discussion of a major issue. In living memory barely a newspaper article, radio or television show has seriously questioned the diversity orthodoxy, and even in the intelligent right-wing press, skepticism has had to be couched in such a cryptic way that the paper’s horoscopes are more candid.

This was useful for employers, who could avoid the charge that they were breaking the unions with foreign labor by sneering at the xenophobia of the working class. Liberal and wealthier classes were ashamed of small-minded, anti-immigrant sentiment, and found themselves in favor of immigration as a point of honor, perhaps even as a point of snobbery. As a consequence, Mr. West notes, “British people have come to accept these changes, assured that to do otherwise is morally repugnant.”


The only sort to oppose immigration

Of course, some people opposed it, most notoriously senior Conservative politician Enoch Powell. However, when he decided to talk about the problem, he did so in such florid and apocalyptic terms—“like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’ “—that it was embarrassing. The English do not like being embarrassed. Thereafter, to be concerned about immigration was treated as if it revealed some distorted, childish version of penis-envy, best epitomized by the front cover of the satirical magazine, Private Eye, which showed an animated Enoch Powell with arms fully outstretched, saying “I tell you, some of them have got them this long.” The debate has yet to recover.

Indeed, there has essentially been no debate at all. As Mr. West notes:

Everyone in a position of power held the same opinion. Diversity was a good in itself, so making Britain truly diverse would enrich it and bring ‘significant cultural contributions’, reflecting a widespread belief among the ruling classes that multiculturalism and cultural, racial and religious diversity were morally positive things whatever the consequences. This is the unthinking assumption held by almost the entire political, media, and education establishment. It is the diversity illusion.

Mr. West might as well have called his book The Diversity Religion: “A belief in the benefits of a multicultural, multi-racial society is an article of faith in today’s largely atheist society; to not believe is to not be in communion.”

Of course, diversity’s devotees seldom practice it: “If diversity is such a good thing, why do so many people vote with their feet to avoid it?”


White liberals’ preferred habitat.

Mr. West has a clear view of the evolutionary reasons why mass immigration does not work:

The universalist ideal rests on the belief that human beings are willing to share such a collective system with the rest of humanity. But evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have developed kin selection, those tribes with the strongest sense of in-group altruism being the most likely to survive. . . . No universal altruism has evolved because a sense of universal altruism would have no evolutionary advantage. Garrett Hardin argued in a 1982 essay, ‘Discriminating Altruisms’, that a world without borders or distinctions is impossible, because groups that practice unlimited altruism will be eliminated in favor of those that limit altruistic behavior to smaller groups, from whom they receive benefits.

And further:

Racism, or what anti-racists understand as racism, is a universal part of human nature, ‘as human as love’ as novelist Thomas Keneally put it. . . . One might regret that, just as one might regret that greed, lust and violence are part of human nature, but building a society based on the assumption that they can be driven out through re-education is an optimistic idea.

Mr. West recognizes that ancient nations like Britain have deeply-rooted assumptions about how society should be organized, and how its members should behave. The following passages recognize the threats to those assumptions of massive immigration by people who may not share them:

The creation of nations, under which common law ensured that Justice was dealt out by disinterested magistrates, allowed the radius of trust to expand and, even where the authorities were not close at hand, mutually-understood norms of behavior were built up. And so, with enormous increases in social capital, people living in nations, social solidarity maintained by a deliberately-encouraged patriotism, we were able to speed ahead of societies where men still owed their loyalty and protection to clan and tribe.

The basis on which you can extract large amounts of money in taxation, and pay it out in benefits, is that most people think that benefit recipients are people like themselves facing difficulties which they too could face. If values become more diverse, lifestyles more differentiated, it is harder to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state.

Social capital, just like any other kind, requires generations of careful saving and hard work, and can last long after its original source dries up. Perhaps we are currently running on the reserves that were built up by our ancestors.

Mr. West notes the difference between the free movement of goods and the free movement of people, a distinction lost in fashionable praise for “globalism:”

Globalism has many benefits, but mixed with universalism it can become an ideological dogma that ignores the human consequences. [British economist] Phillippe Legrain asks: ‘Why can computers be imported from China duty-free but Chinese people cannot freely come to make computers here? Why is it a good thing for workers to move within a country to where the jobs are, but a bad thing for people to move between countries for the same reason?’ That is because human beings are not computers. Goods can be freely moved about only because they can be discarded when they are no longer useful; humans cannot. Immigration is long-term and has permanent effects for everyone involved. . . .

An extreme example of this [globalism] is the white liberal environmentalist who decides, for the good of the planet, that he or she should remain childless—the result being that future generations will contain fewer white liberals.



Mr. West also notes the double standards that are almost universal:

Writing about Tibet, [a] liberal blogger . . . once stated that China ‘has resettled Han Chinese colonists there to the point where Tibetans are at risk of becoming a minority in their own homeland.’ On his own country he declared that ‘further mass immigration obviously has the potential to rejuvenate the population of this island once the politicians can get their head around the idea.’ Tibetans becoming a minority in their country are a threatened species; the English are being ‘rejuvenated.’ Of course the Tibetans have no choice in becoming a minority, yet when the British express their opposition to ‘rejuvenation’ they are condemned as racists.

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/06/t ... -illusion/

Jak članak. Isplati ga se pročitati.

Velika preporuka.

Odgovor ti je elitizam, to su ti liberali umislili da su napredniji oblik života, i zato npr. Tibetance brane, a ne Engleze jer su za njih Tibetanci kao neka niža vrsta ugroženih životinja.

A da ne govorimo kako bi taj slobodni Tibet bio teokracija, vjerojatno s nekim oblikom plemstva, dakle vrlo reakciono uređenje. Ta podrška Tibetu mi je jedan od najvećih misterija današnjih liberala, valjda mrze sve uspješne države

Ja ću popizdit s tim amrenom i njihovim slikama.

Dok sam bio malo na Huff postu, pročitao sam upise nekog tipa
koji je homo i u braku (istoga spola) oko 15 godina. Veli da ima dva sina koja je
dobio na taj način, dao spermu uz lovu za umjetnu oplodnju.

Pitam ga jesu li mu sinovi homići, a on će, skoro ljutito- ma ne.
Inače veli da im stalno utuvljuje u glavu da ako se zatelebaju i ožene, da napišu
dobar predbračni ugovor jer bi mogli, ako se razvedu, ostati i bez gaća.

Stvar je ispala smiješna, no čovjek je OK. Dosta razuman, neki biznismen
i pragmatičan lik. Pitao sam ga za te parade, a on odgovori s gađenjem
da je to za zadnji šljam i egzibicioniste.

No, glavna su mu glavobolja žene koje ganjaju romantične muškiće, a
onda ih iscijede i ostave na cesti. Nije to ni smiješno, nešto se u RH u zadnjih 1-2 mjeseca promijenilo glede zakonodavstva u smjeru američkog i EU ludila..

Mislim- nisu naše ženske takve, nemoj, žgadije ima s obje strane, no
fakat je da zakon može debelo pokvariti sve živo. Nijemci su bili manje
antižidovski 1933. nego prosječni Amerikanci sada, pa eto što je ispalo ...

Ma nek je što hoće, samo da je tibetski. Što će ti bilo koji sustav kad ti otmu zemlju ili ju preplave strancima.

Posljedice pristojnosti


British leaders repeatedly swept the Muslim statutory gang-rapist phenomenon under the rug for over a decade. Way back in 2001, Nick Griffin of the British National Party began to point out that Pakistani pimps in Britain were targeting white girls under 16.

The genius of the system is that the pimps don’t pay the girls, not even their room and board. After each party, they dump them back at their moms’ council flats.

Is this rape?

Of course. These girls are adolescents, far too young to give consent to being gang-banged.

Is it racial?

Feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 bestseller Against Our Will famously argued that “rape is a crime not of lust, but power.” That’s obviously missing much of the point. And yet conquest and rape seem to go together.

It might seem insane that this kind of Bronze Age predatory pattern would work so well in a sophisticated country such as England, but that’s exactly why it worked: Noticing patterns is now derided as “stereotyping.”

Moreover, the highest priority in Europe is to never provide any fodder for right-wing organizations. Thus, a decade ago when a Channel 4 documentary crew working on a snoozer about social workers in Bradford stumbled upon this widespread practice, the police insisted that Channel 4 postpone the documentary because it might help the BNP in upcoming elections. The network complied.

Slowly, very slowly, it has become ever so slightly more respectable to mention this horrific practice. In 2011, former Labour government Home Secretary Jack Straw spoke out gingerly after two pimps were convicted:

Pakistanis, let’s be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offenses, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders’ wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders. But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men…who target vulnerable young white girls.

The Guardian tut-tutted:

The former home secretary Jack Straw has been accused of stereotyping Pakistani men in Britain after he accused some of them as regarding white girls as “easy meat” for sexual abuse.

In the Tory Telegraph last month, Sean Thomas wrote about Nick Griffin’s role:

As long ago as 2001, Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, was making claims about Asian grooming gangs. In 2004 he repeated these allegations in a speech clandestinely recorded by the BBC for a TV documentary, Secret Agent. He was arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred.

So Griffin is a hero for risking prison to alert the nation to this horrific pattern of abuse? Wrong. According to The Telegraph, when you stop and think about it, the decade’s delay was mostly Griffin’s fault:

No doubt Griffin feels vindicated today: for telling the truth before anyone else. And yet, paradoxically, it was his thuggish intervention that gave society another excuse to ignore the scandal. And thus the abuse continued.

Strikingly, the Pakistani pimps and johns seem astonished that anybody would object to their behavior. If the girls’ parents cared about protecting their daughters, in their view, they would keep them locked up at home like good Muslims do.

The pimps seemed convinced that since their victims’ families haven’t organized lethal vendettas against them like any honorable Pakistani family would, they must not have cared.

Moreover, since the English people hadn’t carried out mass communal violence, such as burning down Pakistani neighborhoods in the time-honored South Asian manner, clearly they didn’t mind.And if the English government didn’t want Pakistanis to act Pakistani, they wouldn’t let them into England, now would they?

You have to admit the defendants have a point.

It’s difficult for Americans to grasp precisely why European elites are so terrified of populist organizations such as the BNP or the ascendant English Defence League that they instinctively cover up the crimes of barbaric foreigners.

A major difference between the US and Europe is that almost every European country has a rudimentary set of localist/nationalist organizations for young men already in place due to the more organic nature of sports over there.

The English Defence League, for example, emerged in part out of soccer hooligan firms.

This scares European elites. To them, Pakistanis are no challenge. Sure, they’re good at gang-raping little girls, but they’re hardly a threat to the establishment. It’s European men—with their talent for self-organization—who frighten Europe’s ruling class.

http://takimag.com/article/the_real_thr ... z2gZFtRFRm

Znači imamo pakistanske silovatelje engleskih djevojčica.

S druge strane imamo nepristojne desničare koji o tome pričaju.

Što ćemo napraviti?

Ignorirati silovanja, pustiti Pakistance da se iživljavaju na engleskim 13 godišnjim djevojčicama, samo kako nebi dali "zadovoljštinu" desničarima.

I onda reci da je Zapad normalan.

Civiliziranost, kultura i pristojnost će nas u propast odvesti...

Postali ovi lijevi ekstremisti nervozni. Nikako da "Amerika i Engleska bude zemlja proleterska."

http://spanishvida.com/2013/10/02/lefti ... e-believe/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Dev ... story.html

California Allows More than Two Parents

As predicted in a recent post, Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill that will allow children to have more than two legally recognized parents. Those who said homosexual “marriage” wouldn’t lead to more radical innovations have been quickly proven wrong. According to The Los Angeles Times:

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Friday that will allow children in California to have more than two legal parents, a measure opposed by some conservative groups as an attack on the traditional family.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said he authored the measure to address the changes in family structure in California, including situations in which same-sex couples have a child with an opposite-sex biological parent.

Notice the idiotic wording above, suggesting it is possible for two women to have a child without someone from the opposite sex.

The future custody disputes are dizzying to contemplate and include the inevitability that children will travel to multiple households, perhaps staying with a father and his homosexual friends one night, a lesbian mother another and a lesbian who now hates the lesbian mother a third night. But, it’s all done in the “interests of children.”


Ja kao priprosti latinski seljak...

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

koliko god Kartažani bili "napredniji" od nas svih.

Tradicionalna rimska vrlina jednostavnih seljaka će na kraju nadvladati punski grimiz i raskoš u kojem Moloh jede svoju djecu.

Ili nas neće biti.