Tag: war

If the UK Home Office is successful in getting Tommy Robinson killed in prison, I suspect they may be more than a little surprised at the consequences.

U.K. officials have moved political prisoner Tommy Robinson from the safety of Hull prison, where he was serving out a 13-month sentence, to Onley, near Birmingham. The move, which happened on June 12, effectively hurls Robinson into what supporters say is certain death.

Onley, a notoriously violent prison, is overrun by Muslim gangs and has a reputation for riots. A colleague of Robinson told InfoWars Robinson estimated the wing of his new cell was about 70 per cent Muslim.

InfoWars’ Paul Joseph Watson tweeted inmates were banging on Robinson’s cell all night chanting death threats. According to a press release, Robinson’s family confirms he has received numerous death threats from Muslim inmates who object to Robinson’s critique of radical Islam.

They’ve also reported he is sleeping in an unheated cell that has nothing but a thin mattress. The family believes the abrupt move, which happened without warning, was intended to disrupt a new legal appeal being put together in his defense.

This appears to be war by judiciary. If the UK authorities are willing to go this far – and the death of Kevin Creehan suggests that they may be – the British people are going to have to accept that they have entered glorious times and respond accordingly.

I asked Nigel Askey, the author of the massive Operation Barbarossa: The Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation, about his opinion of Viktor Suvorov’s thesis we’ve been discussing this week. He graciously gave permission for me to quote his reply on the blog.

Your email has prompted me, and I have now ordered a copy of Suvorov’s Chief Culprit. I haven’t read this one by Suvorov; I probably should. However it looks very similar to, and an extension of, his original Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? This one was also an entertaining read. I might as well express my opinion about the overall Suvorov hypothesis as it has gained such a lot of attention.

I agree with Suvorov on some points, but definitely not on others.  I believe Stalin did have plans to invade Western Europe at some point, and it completely fits with the overall Soviet – and Stalin – policy of communist expansion as well as Stalin’s character. He definitely gambled on the fact that Germany would be embroiled in  prolonged war with France and Britain, which would buy him time to prepare. He gambled on it lasting at least until 1942, which was backed up by his own Stavka assessments. In addition, it was around this time he attenuated, and mostly stopped, the massively damaging officer purging that were going on. He realised that any Red Army that was going to conquer Western Europe would need decent officers, and that Germany was now a bigger external threat to him than any ‘internal’ threat from his officer corps. I believe Stalin was hoping his Army, especially the mass of newly formed Mechanised Corps with its new tank types; all belatedly formed after the Germans had demonstrated their panzer corps in France, would be ready by the summer of 1942, one year after Barbarossa started. Similarly, his air force was desperately reequipping with more modern fighters and bombers (Yak-1, LaGG-3, Mig-3, Pe-2, etc), and a massive air crew training program was underway.

France and Britain, of course,  had handed all this to him on a plate, so to speak, by declaring war on Germany when Germany invaded Poland, but then only a few days later did not declare war on the USSR when it did exactly the same thing from the East! From a moral perspective, this has always left a ‘bad taste in my mouth’: especially when Britain and France historically claim the moral high ground about why they declared war on Germany in 1939. It turns out that so called treaty with Poland by France and Britain was worded so that it only applied to German aggression; apparently anyone else could do what they liked to any of the three countries. How’s that for selective moralising  and post-war hypocrisy? Anyway I digress.

Where I really disagree completely with Suvorov is timing. 1941, definitely not. The summer of 1942 was very likely Stalin’s plan, and even then, there was a struggle to be ready. I can guarantee that there was absolutely no way the Soviet armed forces were in any shape to conduct a major offensive into Poland and then into Western Europe in June or July 1941. They were just so totally unready at so many levels, they would have been very easily stopped. Their logistical and C&C set up was so bad they would have almost stopped themselves, as they almost did in Poland in 1939. One just has to look at their absolutely dismal performance when they did invade Poland from the East – it degenerated onto a ludicrous fiasco against a  very token Polish force – and the almost equally poor performance against Finland in the Winter War to see just a few of the problems.

I have examined in extreme  detail the Soviet forces right across the USSR on 22nd June 1941, and not just apparent raw number in the Western Military Districts  as Suvorov does. This analysis has been done for the Red Army (the RKKA) and the air force (the VMF). Special attention has been reserved for the forces deployed in the Western Military Districts and the Mechanised Forces. These include a massive and complete Soviet Tank Deployment Matrix and Aircraft Deployment Matrix, which in a great many cases go down to individual tanks and aircraft. In addition, readiness, training, and HQ assignments are included, as well as positions ‘on the map’. In addition, the Soviet truck park is analysed, and it was in a terrible state, along with the Red Army supply and logistics state. All this will be fully published in Volume IIIB. The published Volume IIIA has the Western Military District land forces already.

In comparison to this and some research done by others, I find Suvorov’s figures to be high-level, superficial, token, and worst of all, very selective. I am sorry to say he takes the statistics that suit his agenda, and then simply throws them at the reader with a convincing argument. For the reader, presented with these ‘facts’, the conclusions are  convincing. However, no amount of convincing rhetoric can, in the end, replace weak argument foundations. For example, deeper analysis shows that the Soviets were employing what is termed an echelon defence strategy as laid out by various (now dead from the purges) Red Army theorists in the ‘Deep Battle’ and Deep Operations’ manner. These are not just offensive methodologies, they also lay out the mechanism to defend against  these types of attack as well. The fact that the Wehrmacht had surpassed this in real practical terms and totally ripped through both the 1st and 2nd level of these defences and then encircled them all was surprising, especially  to the Soviets. This, of course, has led to the “why were so many Soviet forces forwards and vulnerable?” questions. The Germans then had to work a bit to penetrate the 3rd echelon defences which were also being deployed and still formed on 22nd June 1941, largely the Stavka Reserves.

Well, its only with post-war hindsight, and the realisation of just how fast the Wehrmacht could operate and had perfected mobile warfare, that we realise how vulnerable the Soviet echelon defence was. To the Soviets at the time, and to the Western observers, it looked like a very reasonable set up. We are talking hundreds of kilometres of depth here, with multiple lines of defence, and not just a single concentration  of forward deployed troops apparently massing for an attack as proposed by Suvorov. Unfortunately, the Wehrmacht, as it was in 1941, could penetrate even hundreds of kilometres of such a defence in days, making all this look extremely vulnerable. Thus, with post-war hindsight, this looks like an extremely incompetent deployment, even for a defensive posture. Note, the Deep Battle and Deep Operations theories stressed the ability to go from a defensive posture to an offensive posture relatively quickly. Thus, when ready, the Red Army could transit from one to the other in a matter of weeks. Eg, in this case the  1st defensive line, mostly rifle divisions, would perform the breakthrough assault, while the 2nd echelon defensive lime, usually mobile mechanised forces, would exploit the breach. I am only stressing this because I do not want to portray the Red Army, or Stalin’s regime, as inherently a defensive force backed by a defensive ideology: the echelon defence used suited both. But it does not mean the Soviets were about to attack in June 1941, and it does explain why they were deployed as they were historically.

Another example is the relatively forward deployment of many VVS units, another fact used by Suvorov. Yes it was stupid to deploy so many VVS air units within a few hundred km of the border and these were hit by the initial surprise airfield attacks. However, the VVS was a huge force, the biggest air force in the world at that time, and was deployed in a great many locations across the USSR. The very large majority of these units were undergoing replacement and training operations and exercises, including those in the Western military Districts, the vast majority of the VVS including most of their new fighter and bomber units were actually deployed well inside the USSR in the Internal Military districts, and the vital Long Range DBA forces, the largest strategic bomber force in the World at that time, was deployed very deep in the USSR and completely unreachable by the Luftwaffe. Suvorov only talks about the VVS forces in the Western Military Districts and how they were therefore obviously “deployed for an attack?”. He doesn’t mention that over 70{329aa4aef5613a80085c3dd6bd84f5d0e8f5581fdc29e0868f0c3a40e8b25a32} of the VVS and VMF (naval air-forces), and especially the bomber forces, were in no position to attack anything in the West, and that the DBA, a very large and totally offensive force was so far back it could barely reach Western Europe.

He also doesn’t focus on the overall readiness of the VVS forces in the Western Military Districts just as he doesn’t focus on the readiness or state of the mechanised force (see below). Only raw numbers are used, which are close to useless if there is no context and other factors are not included.  No doubt these VVS forces in the depths of the USSR would have been redeployed forward by the summer of 1942. As it was they survived the initial Luftwaffe onslaught. The fact that the Luftwaffe the systematically destroyed these forces from July to October 1941, is a separate discourse. It does, however, again, highlight how unready the VVS was overall (again, supposed to be fully ready by 1942, if lucky), and how most of the VVS units were entrenched in the depths of USSR that it took that length of time for the Luftwaffe to reach them. None of this suits with Suvorov’s hypothesis.

A final example is the state of the Soviet Mechanised Corps. This is arguably the biggest single massive hole in Suvorov’s whole hypothesis. Over two-thirds of this entire Red Army force had only started forming in February-March  1941, only months earlier. This was the most critical force for any invasion of Europe. The divisions in this force had plenty of tanks, especially those in the Western Military Districts. But this was simply because the USSR had the biggest tank park in the world due to its pre-war production going back to the early 1930s. I have no doubt that Suvorov sticks to these raw tank numbers, most of these were T-26s and BT types only because this is what was mostly produced. However, over 80 percent of these divisions were barely mobile in June 1941! Most were still actually forming and, incredibly, only one mechanised corps in the entire Red Army had actually done any pre-war divisional sized manoeuvres by June 1941! All this is detailed in extreme detail in Volume IIIA for each division for anyone who really wants to know the facts. These divisions had barely mobile artillery, most had no trucks for their infantry, most had almost no mobile  workshop and repair facilities for their tanks, many had almost none at all yet, etc. The list goes on and on.

Many of these so called tank and mechanised divisions were far less mobile than the standard German infantry divisions they faced in June 1941. In fact we find that the average German infantry division that invaded the USSR in June 1941 had considerably more trucks and other types of vehicles than the average Soviet tank and mechanised division. Yet the German infantry divisions were apparently horse-drawn according to most western literature.  What people don’t realise is that the vast majority of Soviet tanks and mechanised  forces in 1941 were destroyed by German infantry divisions. In many cases the German infantry divisions, which almost all had a  motorised anti-tank and reconnaissance battalion, moved faster than the floundering and barely formed tank and mechanised divisions (in the 2nd defensive echelon),  and encircled them! These Soviet divisions never even got to see a German tank, as the German panzer divisions had already moved far eastwards. The biggest actual killer of Soviet tanks in 1941 was the much misaligned little 36mm PaK 36, called the ‘door knocker’ in post-war literature in the West, in German infantry divisions, and the result of breakdowns and abandonment by  the Red Army tankers because there was never any infrastructure(in the barely formed divisions to keep them going.

And yet, despite all this, Suvorov maintains that this force was going to attack and run over Western Europe in June 1941. It is really a joke!  I believe Suvorov is banking on people’s general ignorance and sensational revisionism to sell books! In reality, the Red Army in June 1941 would barely have reached the others side of Poland against the Wehrmacht in 1941 before it ran out of steam at the operational level. It would have then been promptly encircled by the many-times-more combat ready Wehrmacht and annihilated. The Soviets and Stalin were many things in the summer of 1941, but they were not that stupid.

I am all for revisionist history, but only if it is carefully researched and thought out. For example, despite the apparent crazy numbers that apparently make Hitler look nuts to attack the USSR, you have to take into account all the factors. Hitler always planned to “destroy the Bolshevik menace to Western Civilisation” from the very earliest days: he made this very clear. The German OKH new the Soviets were preparing to attack at some point, but would not be anywhere near ready by June 1941. This was also why Stalin was so diplomatically passive at this time: he did not want to prematurely trigger a military conflict until at least 1942. Even the Germans were surprised how fast France had fallen. They also knew the state of the Red Army as they had studied their recent operation.

Thus, despite their underestimating the Soviet raw numbers of tanks and aircraft, they actually accurately estimated the Red Army’s readiness, training, logistics and C&C. With these factors and many others I have not included, they laid their plans, and ultimately came much closer to defeating the USSR than most people realise. With a few different strategic-level and operational-level decisions, I believe the Axis forces might very well have defeated the USSR by mid-1942, or at least enforced some type of Vichy French type treaty. Stalin, of course, would have likely met his end.  In that sense, Hitler waiting until 1942 to attack a much stronger Red Army and VVS was definitely not a good idea.

Also, yes, I believe in the longer term that Stalin was definitely planning to conquer Western Europe. As I said, I do not have a problem with revisionist history as such, as long as it stands up to some close scrutiny.

Of potentially great significance. The four points of agreement:

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

2. The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula

4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the US-DPRK summit – the first in history – was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in the joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the US-DPRK summit.

Donald Trump is clearly the greatest President the USA has had since Andrew Jackson. There is no longer any question. He merits all of the praise he will receive as a result of this diplomatic breakthrough and then some; the press will not give him the credit he is due. (Yes, I know, we still need him to Build the Wall and Drain the Swamp. But rest assured he’s working on both. No one saw this coming either.)

And Kim Jong Un appears to be on the verge of becoming that historically remarkable figure worthy of lionization; the king who voluntarily lays down his crown for the good of his people. This is real George Washington “Father of His Country”, Cincinnatus-style stuff. When you consider how hard it is for petty politicians to give up the little power and influence they hold, it’s almost astonishing that a young dictator, born into unlimited power, is willing to voluntarily lay it aside. That is the act of a true statesman, even if he had the benefit of a little outside encouragement.

It’s interesting to see how the God-Emperor treats Kim with both respect and warmth, almost like an uncle with a favored nephew, especially in light of his Twitter-taunting earlier this year. The man is a master of the psychological stick-and-carrot.

We haven’t seen anything like this since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Even a cynical Gen Xer like me can’t help but feel a brief flicker of optimism about the human condition. If the North Koreans can free themselves from the horrors of Juche, then surely Christendom can free itself from the evil chains of Neo-Babelism.

Because Matteo Salvini most certainly meant what he said.

A ship carrying some 630 migrants rescued while trying to cross the Mediterranean is stranded at sea after being turned away by both Italy and Malta. The Aquarius, which has more than 120 children and seven pregnant women onboard, saved hundreds from drowning in international waters on Saturday, but neither Rome nor Valetta has so far allowed it to dock.

The two nations are currently locked in a standoff, with Italy’s new interior minister Matteo Salvini threatening to bar all rescue ships from docking in the country’s ports unless Malta takes on the Aquarius.

Salvini reportedly sent a letter to the Maltese authorities saying he would ‘be forced to close Italy’s ports’ if the 629 migrants saved by the French charity SOS Mediterranee weren’t allowed to land at Malta’s capital Valletta. Mr Salvini, the leader of the right-wing anti-migrant League party, later tweeted: ‘Starting today, Italy, too, begins to say NO to the trafficking of human beings, NO to the business of clandestine immigration’.

It would have sent a more effective message if the Italians had sunk both the original ship and the rescue boat in order to make it perfectly clear that no amount of sob stories and manufactured bathos was going to have any effect on their anti-invasion policy whatsoever, but turning away the charity vessel is significant improvement on past practices.

And why doesn’t the French vessel operated by the French charity simply make port in France? I understand there is a perfectly good Mediterranean port at Marseilles.

Basta. Salvare le vite è un dovere, trasformare l’Italia in un enorme campo profughi no. L’Italia ha smesso di chinare il capo e di ubbidire, stavolta C’è chi dice no.#chiudiamoiporti
– Interior Minister Matteo Salvini

“Enough. To save lives is a duty, to transform Italy into an enormous refugee camp, no. Italy has quit bowing its head and obeying, this time there are those who say no. #Weclosetheports”

Don’t be surprised if the first naval battle of the 21st century goes unexpectedly poorly for the US Navy:

A three-month internal review conducted by senior U.S. surface fleet leaders found some or significant concerns with the ship handling skills of nearly 85 percent of its junior officers, and that many struggled to react decisively to extricate their ship from danger when there was an immediate risk of collision, according to an internal message obtained by Defense News.

Led by the Surface Warfare Officer School, officer of the deck competency checks were conducted on a random selection of OOD-qualified first-tour division officers (the newest officers in the fleet) in underway bridge navigation simulators fleet-wide between January and March. Of the 164 officers who were evaluated, only 27 passed with “no concerns.” Another 108 completed with “some concerns,” and 29 had “significant concerns,” according to the message, which was released by the Navy’s top surface warfare officer Vice Adm. Richard Brown.

Brown, who leads Naval Surface Force Pacific, termed the results “sobering.”

The evaluations raise distressing questions about the level of ship handling training junior officers get both prior to their arrival at their first command and when they arrive. In a Tuesday interview with Defense News at the Pentagon, Brown said the checks would be used to inform new training in development for young officers and that changes were already underway that show the Navy is serious about self-assessment and improvement in the wake of the twin disasters that claimed the lives of 17 sailors last summer.

Among the shortfalls identified in the checks:

• Officers struggled with operating radars and the associated tools at hand, an issue that emerged in the wake of the Fitzgerald accident.
• Officers had a firm grasp of the international rules of the road for navigating ships at sea, but struggled to apply them practically during watch standing, especially in low-visibility situations.
• Most officers were able to keep clear of close encounters with other ships in the simulator but those that found themselves in extremis “were often ill-equipped to take immediate action to avoid collisions”

The big advantage of the US Navy in the past – the fact that it was comprised of relatively intelligent American men – no longer exists. The Chinese Navy hasn’t caught up technologically yet, but it already possesses a considerably more intelligent officer corps that will likely prove to be more competent as well.

The US was defeated in the Syrian war-by-proxy by a much smaller, much less well-equipped Russian force, in much the same way the IDF was defeated by Hezbollah in 2006. It is very unlikely that this defeat passed unnoticed by military strategists around the world, or that it will be the last one suffered by the US military.

Philip Giraldi points out that the primary source of the recent, inexplicable anti-Russian antipathy is the fact that the (((neocons))) finally lost control of its government after more than 80 years.

I have long believed that the core hatred of Russia comes from the neocons and is to a large extent tribal or, if you prefer, ethno-religious based. Why? Because if the neoconservatives were actually foreign policy realists there is no good reason to express any visceral dislike of Russia or its government. The allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. are clearly a sham, just as are the tales of the alleged Russian poisoning of the Skripals in Winchester England and, most recently, the claimed assassination of journalist Arkady Babchenko in Kiev which turned out to be a false flag. Even the most cursory examination of the past decade’s developments in Georgia and Ukraine reveal that Russia was reacting to legitimate major security threats engineered by the United States with a little help from Israel and others. Russia has not since the Cold War ended threatened the United States and its ability to re-acquire its former Eastern European satellites is a fantasy. So why the hatred?

In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal goal of his government to turn off the money tap.

With the looting stopped by Putin, the neocons and friends no longer had any reason to play nice, so they used their considerable resources in the media and within the halls of power in places like Washington, London and Paris to turn on Moscow. And they also might have perceived that there was a worse threat looming. The Putin government appeared to be resurrecting what the neocons might perceive as pogrom-plagued Holy Russia! Old churches razed by the Bolsheviks were being rebuilt and people were again going to mass and claiming belief in Jesus Christ. The former Red Square now hosts a Christmas market while the nearby tomb of Lenin is only open one morning in the week and attracts few visitors.

This should give considerable hope to Americans, as AIPAC’s influence over the three branches of the US government is considerably more tenuous than the Bolsheviks’ historical control of the Russian government was.

Fortunately, the responsibility of actually governing their own land is fundamentally transforming the Israeli perspective and making smart men like Netanyahu more aware of the intrinsic dangers of attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. That’s why he is openly encouraging the Diasporans to come home rather than act as a fifth column.

Giraldi is certainly correct in at least one regard. If the neocons were simply foreign-policy realists, we’d hear them talking incessantly about China, and to a lesser extent, India, not Russia.

And their grandsons promptly surrendered to the Pakistanis and the Windrush Generation. Winston’s Churchill’s brave words sound increasingly hollow three score and 18 years later.

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government – every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Not only have the British failed to fight in the fields and streets against a much bigger invasion than they faced from the Wehrmacht, they didn’t even fight at all! I am increasingly convinced that if the US soldiers who went overseas to fight against the Germans and Japanese had any idea what their sacrifices would eventually entail, both at home and abroad, they wouldn’t have been willing to go.

Of course, the post-1965 American performance has been even worse than their erstwhile “British brethren” in this regard. To this very day, most of you still don’t see any problem at all with tens of millions of fellow citizens born American in China, India, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, and Portugal. Many of you, I have witnessed, even claim to prefer them to actual Americans, so long as they mouth platitudes of which you approve. I, on the other hand, am firmly convinced that the planet-wide Migration War is going to make the death toll of WWII look like a mild pre-game stretch. Never will have large-scale human suffering been more avoidable or more well-deserved. Almost everyone, from the highest government Minister to the lowest mudshark, is culpable to some degree.

No one reading here will ever be able to claim they were not warned. Repeatedly.

Anyhow, I tend to doubt clinging to the specious ideological doctrine of equality is going to provide anyone with much solace when three-quarters of the world’s population reenacts the post-imperial partition of India on a grander, more vicious scale. Those who claim “it can’t happen here” forget that it already has… most of it AFTER the writing of the Declaration of Independence.

UPDATE: Apparently I was right. The British who actually fought in WWII do not believe their sacrifices were worth it.

Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her contribution epitomises her generation’s sense of service and sacrifice. Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally.

But was it worth it?

Her answer – and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s – is a resounding No. They despise what has become of the Britain they once fought to save. It’s not our country any more, they say, in sorrow and anger. Immigration tops the list of complaints.

They are right to despise what passes for modern Britain. It is a despicable and half-conquered nation. So is modern America. Which is why both nations are rapidly disappearing from history. The Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution will soon be no more relevant to the 8 billion people on the planet than the Laws of Hammurabi or the Codex Justinianus. That will be the ultimate legacy of three generations of cowards, who were too afraid of being called names to defend their land, their traditions, and their people.

History doesn’t give a flying fuck about your foreign wives, your alien friends, your nice immigrant neighbors, or your exotic co-workers. ALL OF THEM are collectively the problem. ALL OF THEM have collectively adulterated and degraded the nation, which is why almost ALL OF THEM will either be excluded or the destruction of the Western nations that is already well underway will be completed. There will be no exceptions made for “being a nice person” or “loving baseball and apple pie” or “being a Christian”, only for being useful to the winners. Those nations with the will to survive will do so, those without it will vanish into the history books.

Thus has it always been, thus will it always be. The pendulum always swings back, sooner or later.

Think about how much mercy was shown to the Hindus of Bangladesh, the Cherokee forced to walk The Trail of Tears, the Germans ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe, the Canaanites, and the whites of Zimbabwe. Those people had lived in those places for generations, in some cases, for centuries. How much mercy do you seriously believe will be shown to those who observably don’t even belong there in the first place?

Those who are still in denial about the inevitable consequences of mass immigration have the same mindset as the historical fools who denied that Adolf Hitler had any territorial ambitions outside the borders of Germany and asserted that Stalin was a man of peace. They should not be accorded even a modicum of intellectual respect, because they do not merit any.

It’s interesting that there was so little media coverage of a recent SNL skit implicitly portraying the assassination of President Trump. Can you even imagine the endless outrage if they had portrayed the implicit assassination of his predecessor? There would have been literal riots in several cities.

Saturday Night Live has parodied The Sopranos’ iconic last scene for its season finale, bringing back Alec Baldwin to play President Donald Trump.

The new episode’s cold open begins with Baldwin’s Trump picking a song from the jukebox at Holsten’s in Bloomfield, New Jersey – just as Tony Soprano did in the mafia drama’s 2007 series finale.

Journey’s Don’t Stop Believin’ blares through the diner as the bell above the door jingles, and in walks Rudy Giuliani, played by Kate McKinnon.

Baldwin’s Trump asks if he’s been on Fox News lately to which he answers ‘twenty times last night’, adding ‘I even confessed to crimes you didn’t do — what are they gonna do, arrest the President? I dare ya!’

In walks guest star Robert De Niro, portraying Muller. But Baldwin’s Trump is the only one who seems to notice him, as the rest of his coterie peppers him with inane legal advice. In a moment layered with multiple film references, the Mueller character gets up and walks slowly to the bathroom as the Journey song continues to blare. He pauses and turns to Baldwin’s Trump, pointing two fingers at his own eyes and then at Baldwin, the ‘I see you’ gesture De Niro’s character did in Meet The Parents.

The scene then cuts to black, just as the final scene of the Sopranos did to much controversy. Though fan theories on the Sopranos finale differ, many believe that Tony Soprano was killed by a hitman, who was seen walking into the diner’s bathroom shortly before the scene cuts to black.

By making it Mueller, SNL is giving itself plausible deniability. See, it’s just a metaphor for a legal and political takedown, right? But the combination of the hit scene with De Niro – remember, as Vito Corleone, he initially makes his mark by murdering Don Fanucci – is the real meaning underlying the skit.

Fortunately, it appears the God-Emperor is more than ready for this enemies.

It’s interesting to see how the mainstream media is belatedly discovering the fact that there is no longer any middle ground between Americans and the 100 million Not-Americans who invaded the dirt that turned out to lack the necessary magic. One has to wonder what they thought was going to happen in light of the post-1965 immigration changes. Were they really that ignorant of the consequences of every previous mass human migration?

More and more voices are raising concerns that the 2018 elections will ignite a terrible clash between supporters of President Trump and his increasingly agitated critics in a partisan battle that has been brewing for years.

Stanley Greenberg, former President Bill Clinton’s pollster, is warning of a “civil war.” Purdue University President Mitchell E. Daniels, former President Ronald Reagan’s political director and a two-term Indiana Republican governor, sees the nation dividing into feuding “tribes” that gravitate to tyrants who “bludgeon” opponents.

In two separate reports, the two opposites come to a similar conclusion that the nation and even families are terribly divided and that the media has played a big role in creating the split.

Daniels is well regarded as level-headed and has been dubbed the best university president in the nation. He has used his commencement addresses to push for openness and understanding, but this year he noted a shift to “tribalism,” where sides cluster in cliques.

“It’s no longer just a matter of Americans not knowing and understanding each other. We’ve seen these clusters deepen, and harden, until separation has led to anger, misunderstanding turned into hostility. At the individual level, it’s a formula for bitterness and negativity. For a self-governing people, it’s poison,” Daniels told his students this month.

Among the culprits he cited were biased media, the “anti-social media.” Said Daniels, “Our various modern media lead us to, and feed us from information sources that reinforce our existing biases. They put us in contact with other tribe members, but rarely those who see things differently. We’re starting to resemble ominously our primitive forebearers, trusting no one outside the tribe.”

And he called that “dangerous,” warning “almost all of history has belonged to the tyrants, the warlords, the autocrats, the totalitarians. And tribes always gravitate toward tyrants.”

He didn’t name names, mention President Trump or former President Barack Obama, on purpose. The reason: both sides and their mouthpieces are to blame. “It’s a general phenomenon,” he said in an interview in which he bemoaned “there is no overlap anymore.”

What I want every civic nationalist, every centrist, and every moderate to consider, and eventually, come to terms with is the fact that this is precisely the destiny they helped create. Every single identity-conflicted individual to whom I have ever spoken tries to carve out an exception for their wife, their children, their neighbords, their colleagues, their friends, and their immigrant grandparents. Every single one.

And that’s understandable. I have no problem understanding the temptation to do so, being an identity-conflicted first-generation immigrant myself. But this is a category error; the vast majority of the micro exceptions are totally irrelevant when it comes to the macro issue. Reality doesn’t care that you think it would be really terrible to be forced to choose between your nation and your neighbor, or between your family and your friend. War does not require your approval in order to take place.

Despite the largest invasion in recorded human history, most people in the United States have not been materially affected in a way they recognize. That is why they are oblivious to the obvious, and why they will most likely remain oblivious until it is far too late to do anything about the situation.

Donald Trump isn’t even trying to address the situation. The efforts of most politicians will only make things worse. Jordan Peterson’s Hail Mary assault on human nature will fail too. The desperate measures that are now required to salvage the nation and avert a war that will make the Civil War look like a casual warmup are on the level of those utilized for the Spanish Reconquista, and are not even close to being politically viable yet. Six years ago, I was warning you about this. Now the likes of Stanley Greenberg and Mitch Daniels are doing the same.

You have about 12-15 years to prepare for this now, possibly less, in my estimation.

Three Belgians, including two police officers, are fatally diversified in Liege:

Two police officers and a civilian have been shot dead by a man reportedly shouting Allahu Akbar, which led to a hostage situation at a high school in east Belgium.

The unnamed man opened fire in the centre of the city of Liege, at around 10.30am local time, after being stopped by officers for a routine document check. He killed two officers, a female bystander in a car, and injured a third officer. The man then reportedly took a female cleaner hostage inside the nearby secondary school, before being shot dead himself by an elite police unit.

Two other police officers were reported “seriously wounded”.  I wonder how long the police and the militaries of Europe are going to accept this situation. We’ve reached a point where Duterte-style death squads and military coups are beginning to look preferable to the fake democracy of the neo-liberal “open society” that is imposing death-by-diversity on everyone.

UPDATE: The killer was armed with a knife, attacked a pair of policewomen, took their guns, then killed them and the bystander, who was actually a 22-year-old man. Clearly the 2nd Amendment and white male patriarchy is to blame. The lesson: Diversity + Feminism = Dead White Women.

I’m just encouraged that politicians like Theresa May are calling the terrorist a coward. That will totally dissuade future attackers.