Mary

Musician

[Vlad @VladTheInflator]

Why are they trying to kill European culture?

1. European culture = foundation of modern liberty

Western Europe birthed ideas like individual rights, free markets, constitutional government, scientific method, abolition of slavery.

Those traditions empowered citizens to resist kings, empires, and elites.

A confident, cohesive European/Western culture is harder to control, because it carries an anti-authoritarian streak.

2. Global elites prefer managed populations

The WEF and similar bodies push a model where nations hand power to supranational institutions (UN, IMF, central banks, corporate boards).

Independent nations with strong cultural identity (e.g. European nations with pride in history) are obstacles to that.

Undermining cultural confidence makes those nations more pliable.

3. Weaponizing guilt

By painting Europe’s legacy as uniquely evil (slavery, colonialism), elites sap cultural pride.

Guilt narratives make Europeans and their descendants less willing to defend their traditions — easier to push mass immigration, global governance, ESG/DEI mandates.

Meanwhile, non-Western powers aren’t burdened with this guilt narrative (China, Gulf states), so they expand influence without apology.

4. Divide and neutralize

Internal division (race, gender, class resentment) keeps Western nations turned inward.

When people fight each other, they don’t challenge the real power structures — financial oligarchies, global corporates, unelected bureaucracies.

A fractured culture is no longer a threat to centralized control.

5. The ultimate threat: a self-confident West

A Europe or America proud of its cultural legacy (rule of law, free inquiry, limited government, family, community) would resist technocratic globalism.

So instead, elites encourage cultural amnesia: tear down statues, rewrite history, glorify victimhood, push “equity” over merit.

The result: the population feels unmoored, guilty, and ready to accept new global values set from above.

European culture is treated as a threat precisely because it carries the DNA of resistance to central control.

Destroying its confidence (via guilt, division, cultural erosion) makes way for a managed, globalized order where elites face less pushback.

[The Rabbit Hole @TheRabbitHole]

Wokeness caused a lot of damage to race relations

[The Babylon Bee @TheBabylonBee]

Palestinians Finally Granted Own Country https://t.co/wT58mjCPdH

[Mary @VodunChile]

@Rusia_HD I’m German and I love Russia! Of course I would go! ❤️

[Will Tanner @Will_Tanner_1]

Never forget that the Europeans found unfathomable horrors as they colonized Africa, and took the pains necessary to stop those horrors out

For that great service, they were damned by Liberal opinion, which thought it was mean that they paternalistically prevented cannibalism and the like, and enforced that at bayonet point

Thus, decolonization eventually resulted, and so the primordial horrors they had fought so hard to end have been creeping back bit by bit, all in the name of pretending equality exists

Such a tragedy, and a waste

[Robert Sepehr @robertsepehr]

@TheRealAssasn Black Africans have never established a civilization on their own. No social structures that include kings or Pharaohs, no written language. Kush (Nubia/Sudan), Egypt, Moors, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Mali (Mansa Musa), where all White kingdoms. Ancient DNA admixture makes it clear.

[Mary @VodunChile]

@elonmusk @WSJ I‘m 72 years and grew up in a combat zone (at home). My whole life are ongoing „Events of abuse & trauma, literally! Was never diagnosed until 2005 after a „no knock raid“ at home that triggered all of the past trauma, ( like if you shake a champagne bottle and take of the rim.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

He was right

[Krzysztof Szczawinski 🇵🇱 @Kristof_Poland]

Altiero Spinelli – The Man Who Designed the EU in Prison.

Not a metaphor. Literally. The blueprint for the European Union — its founding logic, its institutional architecture, its explicit goal of dissolving national sovereignty permanently — was written in 1941, on a tiny island off the coast of Naples, where Mussolini had imprisoned him.
The Ventotene Manifesto. Still cited. Still operative. Still running.

1. Spinelli had been a communist since seventeen – and was eventually expelled from the Communist Party for left-wing deviation. Too radical for the communists. Which tells you something about the man. In his prison years he reached the conclusion that the nation-state was the root cause of war, fascism, and every political catastrophe of the century. It had to go. Not reformed. Not constrained. Abolished – permanently, irreversibly, through the construction of a supranational federal authority with supreme power over member states.

2. The Ventotene Manifesto was written in 1941 on paper smuggled into the prison in cigarette packets. Its argument was simple and total: nation-states must be replaced by a federal European government. The economic integration would come first – because economic interdependence would make political separation prohibitively costly. Then the institutions. Then the law. Then the currency. Each step irreversible by design. The nation-state dissolved not by force but by process – incrementally, bureaucratically, until the point of no return had been passed without anyone noticing when.

3. This is the architecture of the European Union. Not a conspiracy theory – the founding document. Spinelli served as a member of the European Parliament and drafted the 1984 Spinelli Report – the direct precursor to the Maastricht Treaty. Today the European Parliament sits in the Spinelli Building in Brussels. The Spinelli Group inside it advances his program explicitly, in his name, without apology. The man who wrote the blueprint in a prison cell in 1941 is the acknowledged intellectual father of the institution that governs 450 million people. This is not hidden. It is simply not taught.

4. The mechanism was specifically intended to be irreversible. Each treaty expands competence and makes contraction impossible. The Commission is unelected and insulated from democratic pressure to reverse course. Spinelli understood, from his Marxist formation, that the correct way to make a revolutionary change permanent is to make the cost of reversing it higher than the cost of accepting it. Brexit took fifty years of membership to become possible – and was still nearly impossible to execute.

5. Poland is the most precise illustration. A nation that disappeared from the map for a century and fought back through language, family, and refusal to be absorbed – now a member of an institution designed to make national sovereignty obsolete. The Brussels directive that overrides the Polish parliament is Spinelli’s program, running as designed. The Poland that survived partition by Prussia, Russia, and Austria is now navigating a project designed to produce the same outcome through consent rather than conquest. Spinelli would have considered this progress.

6. He died in 1986, before Maastricht, before the euro, before the completed project. Like Gramsci, he did not need to see it. The manifesto written on cigarette-packet paper on a prison island became the founding document of the most powerful supranational institution in history – one that 450 million people live inside without knowing who designed it, when, where, or why.

7. Now you know. The question worth asking is not whether the EU is good or bad. It is whether you would have consented to Spinelli’s program if asked directly – whether you wanted the nation-state abolished permanently by incremental bureaucratic process, designed from the start to be irreversible. Nobody was asked. That too was part of the design.

[Dr. Ricardo Duchesne @dr_duchesne]

Without Whites, animals would be in constant suffering and quick extinction. Africans, Moslems, Chinese, Indians, Amerindians have no sympathy for animals.

This is why animal rights movement is 100% White. Stop immigration invasion if you care about animals!

Here's chronology of animal rights ideas/policies:

530 BCE: Pythagoras was the first in a line of several Greek and Roman philosophers to teach that animals had souls, and to advocate for vegetarianism.

1635: First known animal protection legislation passes, in Ireland, "An Act against plowing by the tayle, and pulling the wool off living sheep."

1641: The Massachusetts colony's Body of Liberties includes regulations against "Tirranny or Crueltie" toward animals.

1754: Jean-Jacques Rousseau treats animals as "sensitive beings" and argues against mistreatment

1776-1798: The Anglophone world sees publication of Humphry Primatt's The Duty of Mercy and the Sin of Cruelty to Base Animals; Thomas Young’s An Essay on Humanity to Animals, and John Oswald’s The Cry of Nature; an appeal to mercy and justice, on behalf of the persecuted animals.

1780: Jeremy Bentham in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation argues for better treatment of animals on the basis of their ability to feel pleasure and pain, famously writing, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

1800: Immanuel Kant argues that "Cruelty to animals is contrary to man's duty to himself because it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy."

1822: British Parliament passes "Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle."

1824: The first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is founded in England by Richard Martin, Arthur Broome, and William Wilberforce.

1835: The first Cruelty to Animal Act is passed in Britain.

1837-38: First German animal-protection society in Stuttgart), and first German state anti-cruelty law in Kingdom of Saxony.

1840: Arthur Schopenhauer argues that animals have moral standing and that denying them rights is "Western crudity and barbarity"; "universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."

1850: France's loi Grammont is the first national statute punishing public cruelty to domestic animals.

1857: Sweden's Criminal Law includes animal cruelty provisions that do not treat the animal only as property.

1866: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is founded by New Yorker Henry Bergh.

1871: Almost all German states have cruelty rules; the Reich Penal Code punishes public mistreatment.

1875: The National Anti-Vivisection Society is established in Britain by Frances Power Cobbe.

1877: Spain's first anti-cruelty provision (initially focused on dogs).

1892: English social reformer Henry Stephens Salt publishes Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress.

1906: J. Howard Moore publishes The Universal Kinship, advocating for the ethical treatment of all sentient beings, based on Darwinian principle of shared evolutionary kinship and a universal application of the Golden Rule.

1940s: Germany introduces the law Reich Animal Protection Act.

1950: Denmark Animal Protection Law.

1955: The Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL), the first organization to lobby for humane slaughter legislation in the US, was founded.

1959: France's Michelet decree extends punishment to private maltreatment.

1961: Netherlands Animal Protection Act.

1964: British Parliament Committee concluded that animals should be afforded “sufficient freedom of movement to be able without difficulty to turn around, groom itself, get up, lie down, [and] stretch its limbs.”

1976: France's rural-code reform: animals as êtres sensibles (sentient beings).

1975: Peter Singer publishes Animal Liberation.

1978: Swiss Animal Welfare Act approved by 80% of voters.

1984: Tom Regan publishes The Case for Animal Rights, a highly influential philosophical argument that animals had rights.

[Mary @VodunChile]

https://t.co/TwvxmRnR7Q

[Simon Elmer @SimonElmer2022]

Why are more and more White girls attracted to African men, and particularly to immigrants? On friday night I was in a pub in Soho, and across the road there was a launch for a record shop. I went for a fag and had a good look at the people attending. There were about 50-60 both inside and outside the shop. Three quarters of them were males, and with one or two exceptions they were all Africans. Of the dozen or so females, every single one was White. They were the kind of girls Africans like: blonde, slim, dressed like hookers, pornographic, and doting on the sullen, monosyllabic men-children with their jeans hanging below their buttocks, wearing jewellery that would make Liberace blush. For my generation, this is inexplicable, so I thought about the cause.

I live on a council estate in South London, and have known many African men, and they all say the same thing: White girls put up with their ‘shit’ (as they put it) more than African girls do. I imagine this is partly down to the fact that over half the African families in Britain are raised by single mothers, since African males do not hang around to support and raise their children but go off to impregnate a dozen other girls. The girls in the family, therefore, are raised by the kind of violent, big-mouthed African women we have to put up with in Britain, and copy their model. Equally, when African boys grow into African men-children, they want a girl as little like their mothers as possible.

This breeds enormous jealousy and hatred of White girls in African girls. They see that every African man who attains any degree of success, whether that’s in music, drug dealing or politics, immediately surrounds himself with White women. This applies as much to the ‘hoes’ — as African men charmingly refer to women — with which someone like Kanye West (who displays his White wife almost naked as if she were in a slave market) as it does to David Lammy (whose wife, despite his performed outrage at Briton’s role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is also White). But if you want an example of the visceral hatred of White women this produces in African women, have a look at statements by a Black supremacist like Dawn Butler, the African MP for Brent.

I’ve known a number of White women who had a child with an African when they were young, and without exception the African man-child abandoned them to raise their child alone. Despite this, the women still retain an illogical allegiance to Africans, and particularly African men. For not only do African men abandon these ‘baby mamas’ — as they charmingly refer to the women, Black and White, that they impregnate and abandon — but in the time they are with them — which often lasts many years after they have left, using the council homes the woman was given for being a single mother to stay at when needed — African men treat White women like shit.

That’s what the African males I spoke with meant when they spoke of White girls putting up with their ‘shit’: not just their infidelity, irresponsibility, financial dependence on them, criminal activities and generally behaving like the adolescents they remain into physical adulthood, but the domestic abuse of women in general, and of White women in particular. X is awash with smartphone footage of African men punching and otherwise brutalising their White ‘hoes’. For just as White women, for African men, are the trophies of their dream of conquest, so White women bear the brunt of their anger when reality fails to live up to their illusions.

So why, then, given the general uselessness of African men, their stupidity, their emotional stuntedness, their lack of financial success, their propensity for crime, their brutish mistreatment of women, their childishness and their general all-round crap behaviour, were these White girls so attracted to the Africans I saw on Friday night?

Well, one reason is that every TV show, film, advertisement and billboard today, always and without exception, shows, as the model of sexual attraction, coupledom or, most farcically, family life, an African male with a White female and, in the case of presenting a family, with mixed-race children. The advertising industry spent £46.7 billion last year, with the UK Government spending another £449 million. They didn’t do that to give us a consumer choice: they did it to tell us what to be. Identity is the ultimate consumer choice, and White girls, who are the demographic most susceptible to advertising, are being told to pair up with African men.

But powerful as advertising and other forms of propaganda are in controlling our desires and the behaviour that realises them, there are other reasons, I think, why White girls are choosing Africans.

The first is, for thirty years now, White boys and men have been told from the moment they are born that they are shit, that being White is something to be ashamed of, that our history is a series of crimes. They have been relentlessly indoctrinated in schools, the media and entertainment industry to hate themselves, and, crucially, that the sexuality of White males is criminal.

Years ago, this idea was first formulated by radical feminists with such anti-men statements as ‘all men are rapists’. But as we see today, when the same radical feminists that parroted this stuff are silent about the unprecedented rise in the rape of White women by African and South Asian immigrants, what they mean is that all White men are racists. The truth, however, is the exact opposite. For under the policy of replacement migration, this extreme statement of radical feminism has come true when describing African and South Asian men. For White women in Britain and Europe, every African and South Asian man is now not merely a potential rapist but a likely one.

Notwithstanding protestations to the contrary from the acolytes of woke, who include a high proportion of White girls but still a tiny proportion of the White female population of Britain, I think White girls know this better than I or any other White man. White women, and particularly White girls, spend a lot of time thinking about men, our behaviour, our desires, what impact this has on them and how they can take best advantage of it.

One of the effects of the 30-years of propaganda against White boys, which continues into their adulthood, is that White men in Britain have become enormously effeminised. I live in London, which I would guess (and hope) is the most effeminate place in Britain, but coming back to England after three years abroad, I’ve been struck by just how effeminate the men of my own race have become. I can’t now, with any certainty, identify a straight man from a gay man. The sibilant tones of gay speech patterns adopted from Californian queer slang have become the norm for middle-class straight White men. And in term of their masculinity, there is very little difference. From what I can see, a straight White man is as likely to risk a kicking or stabbing defending a White woman, even his girlfriend or wife, as a gay man is — which is to say, extremely unlikely.

Another consequence of the effeminisation of White men, particularly White middle-class men, is that White women of child-bearing age are no longer having sex. This also has to do with the evident delight that young women take these days in humiliating young men on social media. That’s another issue; but contrary to the fantasies of woke, men and women are biologically different, and at no time more so than when the body of a young woman is preparing itself, month after month, to have a child. Indoctrinated as this generation is by the nonsense of woke, it’s easy to forget that young females, in particular, are as driven to have sex as young males, and for the woman this means having a child.

Somewhere in the psyche or perhaps libido of White women, the imaginary African immigrant has substituted for the absent child of a generation of White women who are not having children. Until the immigrant rapes her, that is, although I’m not certain even that would dissuade them. Watching footage of White liberal women in Cueta or the shores of Dover hugging African migrants who would rape them in a second suggests there’s a very strong sexual drive behind their apparent insanity.

There’s nothing more irrational than a woman who wants to but can’t have a child, and the crashing birth rates of White women in Britain tells us that they are not — not having children but also, looking around me, not having sex. Between being raped by a gang of African immigrants and no sex, White women, at least in their imagination, have chosen the former. So far, it’s almost exclusively White working class girls who have been raped, in their hundreds of thousands, by gangs of Muslim men; but over the next few years, under Andy Burnham’s new policy of sending tens of thousands of immigrant men into middle England, White middle-class women are going to find out what it’s like living in a country without men to defend them from these animals.

And the White girls know this. History has shown over and over again that when the men of a country are conquered by the men of another, the women of the conquered country will make allegiances with the conquering men. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the French women who betrayed their country by having sex or entering into relationships with the men of the occupying German forces during World War Two, and they paid for it after liberation; but a similar thing happened in England when English women whose husbands were away fighting to save their country from invasion started similar relationships with the US soldiers stationed over here. For the majority of women facing a threat to their safety, individual safety trumps notions of national safety, loyalty or patriotism, which are all male ideas.

We see the same dynamic at a much smaller scale every weekend in any pub, like the one I was in. Young women stand back, watch and observe the young men to see who is the alpha male before making their move. In advanced societies that means the wealthiest male or simply the one that the other men defer to for other reasons, either professional or through the force of his personality. But Britain is not an advanced society anymore. We are a society that has been invaded by millions of men from primitive and backward countries who are raping our women every minute of every day; and our police, law courts, military and state are doing nothing to stop it. On the contrary, they are arresting and imprisoning any White man who dares to defend himself or our women against the invaders.

I don’t blame women for this betrayal. It’s their task, in evolutionary terms, to protect their children, which means protecting themselves; just as it is the task of men to protect women and children. And we’ve failed to do so. I do blame White men for this failure.

White women have seen this, and they’re scared. When White liberal women scream at the top of their voices like frightened children that they have nothing to fear from immigrants, it’s because they hope that, by repeating this obvious lie often enough, it will come true.

And in response to that fear they have made a choice: that it’s better to be the ‘hoe’ of an African rapist than to be an unprotected White girl surrounded by African and Muslim rapists free to rape them whenever they want without protection from either the UK state or White men. It’s the same principal that African pimps use to control and live off White prostitures to whom they offer ‘protection’ from other African rapists and murderers in return for the money the White girls make from selling themselves for sex and, of course, the freedom to rape them whenever they wish to.

White girls today dress like whores, behave like whores, post footage of themselves online behaving like whores, accept being called ‘hoes’ by African men, because the conquest of Britain and the submission of White men to the terms of this conquest have left them exposed, without any other defence, to the lusts and violence of millions of African and Muslim men.

The ongoing grooming, rape and trafficking of upwards of 250,000 British girls by a nationwide network of Muslim rape gangs is not confined either to Muslims, to underage girls, or to the kebab shops, parks and other places they rape our children in. Every White girl in Britain — and indeed across Europe — is undergoing a process of mass grooming, rape and pimping, not in secret but in full daylight, on our streets, in our schools, in our media, online. With the full collaboration of our government, state, law courts, police forces, media, educational, cultural and medical institutions, the White girls of Britain are being turned into sex slaves for our conquerors. And they know it.

[Simon Elmer @SimonElmer2022]

As the response to the suicide of Jason Arday has shown, African people are essentially pack animals. That’s not only because, in historical terms, they were the last race to enter into the modern world, but also because the vast majority of them still live in environments in which their safety depends on staying in packs, whether that’s the savannas of Africa or the streets of Baltimore.

Humans evolved to the top of the food chain by hunting in packs, which, along with the weapons they fashioned, allowed them to hunt and defend themselves against far larger and stronger animals. Even today, up to 57% of sub-Saharan Africans still live in rural areas; but the hunters they are threatened by now are less likely to be wild animals and far more likely to be other African tribes. Sub-Saharan Africa has over 3,000 different tribes across 49 countries, which means an average of 60 tribes per country. These have far greater influence on the allegiances of these tribes than ‘national’ identities that were created by Europeans in the late 19th Century.

Some of these tribes are very primitive indeed. The Hadza, for example, are a hunter-gatherer tribe whose ancestors have been living near Lake Eyasi in Northern Tanzania for over 50,000 years and which only made contact with the modern world in the late-19th Century. They communicate through a basic language of tongue clicks, have never developed writing, art, religion or agriculture, and their technology — bows and arrows for hunting and friction to start fires — remains in the Stone Age. The DNA of the Hadza is dominated by Haplogroup B-M60, which originated 100,000 years ago and is found in tribes across sub-Saharan Africa, with the highest frequences in the Hadza (72%) of Tanzania (where the average IQ is 74.95); the Baka tribe (63%) of Gabon and Cameroon (where the average IQ, respectively, is 62.97 and 67.76); the Nuer tribe (52-60%) of Southern Sudan (average IQ of 59.76); as well as in the Congo, Central Africa, Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon, Gabon, South Africa, Eritrea, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. This should concern us, because these are all countries from which millions of African males are being imported to Britain and across Europe.

If you think that such cripplingly low IQs are the exception and not the rule, you would be wrong. The average IQ across sub-Saharan Africa is 68. Out of 49 countries, 10 have average IQs below 60, indicating feeble-mindedness. 18 countries have average IQs between 60 and 69, indicative of what in the West is categorised as an intellectual disability. 15 are between 70 and 79, indicative of cognitive impairment, difficulty with learning and abstract thinking. The remaining countries have produced no data. Not one country has an average IQ above 80.

And if you think this disparity is entirely reducible to the radically different environmental conditions between sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world, let alone the Western world, once again you would be wrong. The gap continues even among Africans in Western countries, where even generations of improved health, medical, environmental and educational conditions have failed to raise their average IQ to anything approaching that of Europeans. In Europe, the USA and around the Western world, White people have an average IQ of about 100, while Africans in Western countries have an average IQ of about 85, only slightly above the highest average IQ in Africa. Even this is indicative of difficulty in learning skills or graduating from a secondary school or only doing so with low grades. Crucially, if we’re to understand the real cause of low intelligence in Africans, studies show that these racial differences show up before the age of 5 and, most importantly, they last a lifetime.

With such low IQs and the barriers this presents to developing social skills such as organisation, comprehension, communication and concentration on tasks, the safety of the pack becomes even more crucial to the survival of the individual. In contrast to European social structures, which have traditionally been built around the family, the community and the nation, the pack is led by and under the protection of its tribal chief, who in sub-Saharan Africa retains significant control and power, overseeing distribution of land to tribal members, resolving disputes and acting as advocates to national governments.

One of the results of this genetically-determined social structure is the pack mentality. This is different from the herd mentality, since humans are not herbivores but carnivores, and to survive they have to kill. That includes conquering and defending land from rival tribes. And contrary to the belief that men with some of the lowest average IQs in the world — from, for example, Ghana (average IQ of 58.16), Somalia (67.60), Yemen (68.49) or Nigeria (69.48) — magically gain 30-plus IQ points and transform into Europeans the instant they land in Britain, Africans bring their pack mentality with them.

We see this around us every day when we try to interact with Africans. The disadvantages faced by low-IQ tribal peoples who live and think in packs continue when they move to Western countries and take on unskilled or even low-skilled jobs that still require a European mentality to carry out properly. That includes integrity, honesty, responsibility, courtesy, diligence, intellectual curiosity, a willingness to learn and better yourself, and all the other characteristics that we, as Europeans, try to instil in our children, but which are alien to the pack mentality of Africans. For the African, the only way to better yourself is through crime, the violence that requires, and the material rewards it brings right up to the moment, usually in their teenage years, when they are arrested and put in jail.

We see this on the streets of Britain every day. It is rare to see African men, particularly young men, moving about in any smaller social grouping than a gang, which replicates the hunter packs of African tribes. Rarely, for instance, will you see two African men talking in a pub. The same applies to African women, who, if slightly less violent than their male counterparts, make up for it in their behaviour. The British nomenclature for this is ‘anti-social’, but it is more accurately described as the behaviour of pack animals.

Just as indicative of this pack mentality, when an African is forced to leave their home alone — for example, to a job, where they are forced to interact with Britons — they resort to the virtual pack that has been afforded them by modern technology. In the case of males this is the ubiquitous headphones that every African carries around their necks at all times. This allows them to dilute their consciousness of their environment into the primitive beats of their tribal music, which, as often as not, is played so loud that it is inflicted on the rest of us on public transport and every other public place in which we are forced to come into contact with them.

With African women it is the equally ubiquitous smartphone. The first thing an African woman does when she sits down on a bus or train is call a member of her tribe, to whom she speaks throughout the journey in a voice loud enough to be heard by everyone within a fifty-foot radius. And as Britons have been taught by endless repetition, anyone who asks her to speak quietly will be met with a tirade of verbal abuse and even physical violence: for living as she does under the constant threat of attack from rival African tribes, the female of the tribe will as readily attack anyone who threatens her tribal links as the male.

But whether it’s canned music or the endless smartphone conversation, the effect of both is to distract the African from their own thoughts — or, more accurately, from the vacuum where their thoughts should be. When was the last time you saw an African, on a bench, a train, a bus, a cafe, in any public place, who was alone with their thoughts? Like any pack animal separated from its tribe, the lone African feels threatened, isolated, frightened, and, since they have to operate in an alien environment in which they have not evolved and to which they cannot adapt, they take refuge in the distractions of new technologies. Like an idiot child, endless distraction from focus is the focal point of the African mentality.

There’s a by-now well-known documentary called Empire of Dust (2011), which follows the frustrations of a Chinese construction company trying to build a road in the African Republic of the Congo using African workers. The foreman, who reflects throughout the film on the untrustworthiness, laziness, lack of motivation, disregard for the future and drunkenness of the workers, observes that the Africans have well-developed physiques to make up for their underdeveloped brains. Not being indoctrinated by woke as his European counterpart would be, he explains this in terms we should listen to if we want to overcome such indoctrination. Whereas every other race has adapted their environment to their needs, Africans, he said, have adapted themselves to their environment, which in the case of Africa is a harsh and dangerous land populated by primitive tribes of low-IQ humans.

One of the results of this is that sub-Saharan Africa has some of the most violent countries in the world. Zimbabwe (6.76 murders per 100,000 in 2022) has nearly six times the homicide rate of the UK (1.148 per 100,000). Nigeria has nineteen times our homicide rate (21.741 per 100,000 in 2019), the 20th highest rate in the world. And as no-one who lives in London with its annual carnival of stabbing in Notting Hill will be surprised to hear, Jamaica’s homicide rate is a barely credible 46.5 times that of the UK (49.299 per 100,000), the highest in the world. The same differences apply to crime in general, with Zimbabwe at 60.7 per 100,000 (the 25th highest in the world), Nigeria 66.6 (the 11th highest), and Jamaica 67.4 (the 9th highest).

And just as with their pack mentality, Africans who have emigrated to Britain have brough these crime levels with them. In March, 2024, African prisoners made up 12% of prisoners in Britain, three times their 4% share of the population. Africans in the UK are 2.2 times as likely to be arrested as Britons, 2.4 times for African men over British men. In the year to March 2023, an astonishing 3.8 percent of African men (43,677 individuals) in Britain were arrested. This means that, out of every 105 African men in Britain, 4 were arrested in just one year. With the huge numbers of Africans let into the country every year since, these numbers can only have got worse.

But we can see the pack mentality of Africans in more than the crime statistics the UK Government has stopped publishing because they shone too bright a light on the African propensity for crime. X is awash, at the moment, with smartphone footage of British men and women either being attacked by Africans or fighting back against them. As has been widely pointed out, the Africans are invariably in packs, in which they attack individual White people, man or woman, boy or girl. One very rarely sees a single African attacking a single Briton. One could call this cowardice, and it is; but more accurately it derives from the environmental conditions in which the genetic code of Africans developed over millions of years, and which, as the Chinese foreman observed, has not adapted to the modern world.

What has been less noticed is that, on the rare occasion when the situation is reversed, and a group of British men have attacked a single African man, usually because he has been, for example, masturbating in front of British children, or sexually harassing or assaulting a British woman, or stealing food from a British shop, or snatching a handbag or phone from a British passerby, or riding his bicycle on its back wheel into British people — or any one of the hundreds of other primitive, anti-social, adolescent, pack mentality behaviours inflicted on us by Africans — any African man who passes by on the street or in the park, on the bus or train or wherever else, invariably comes to the rescue of his fellow African.

This is not always the case, and especially not among the more primitive youths who make up the African gangs in Britain, who are as likely to watch and film the fight on their smartphones or even to join in the beating. But among older Africans, males and females, they are likely to defend their fellow African. We see the same behaviour in, for example, a pack of hyenas who come to the rescue of an individual hyena that has been attacked by a lion. They do so because, if they do not, any one of them can be picked off and killed by the far stronger predator. And like the Africans in Britain, they only attack the animals on which they prey when there are far more of them.

In contrast to this pack mentality, British people — or, more accurately, White people in general — have lost this pack mentality. The benefit of this is that our average IQs are an astonishing 32 points higher than the average sub-Saharan African, and a still hugely significant 15 points higher than the African immigrants to Western countries. This means we don’t live in tribes in environmental conditions to which we have to adapt. Instead, we have developed art, religion, philosophy, science, culture, societies, law, technology, civilisation — everything that Africans, after 5,000 years of civilisation, have failed to create.

But there is a downside to this individuality. Under the policy of replacement migration designed to destroy our culture, civilisation and race, Britons, like all Europeans, indeed like the White race in all Western countries, no longer live in civilised societies. We live, instead, among pack animals who prey on us with a pack mentality. It is quite clear by now that our women and children have been sacrificed to the lusts of the packs of African men we have paid to bring here. Equally, our men are being immiserated and expropriated of everything our communities and nations built over thousands of years. And we are ill equipped to defend ourselves against the laughing hyenas who surround us on every side.

What one also sees is that, on the rare occasions when British men stand up for themselves and discover some of the survival instinct that has been bred, indoctrinated and legislated out of us since the Second World War and physically defend our women and children, or even ourselves, from the African packs — as quickly as a passing African steps in to defend their fellow pack animal, a British man will step in to break up the fight. In contrast, a pack of Africans will happily and gleefully beat an unconscious British man to a bleeding pulp, leaping high into the air in order to land on his head with force sufficient to kill him. Just like a pack of hyenas around a lone lion.

Even worse than these British peacemakers are British women who invariably pull their husbands or boyfriends off a man who, as often as not, the man is defending her from. As we all know, the most degenerate form of this behaviour is in the British liberal women who exhibit far more sympathy for, and indeed sexual attraction to, Africans who, without the British men to defend them, would rape and murder them and think as little of it as the hyena does of the female gazelle he and his fellow hyenas hunts down and kills.

Why is this important? Well, at the last count, which is already out of date, there are around 675,000 Nigerians, 250,000 Somalis, 200,000 Ghanaians, 200,000 Zimbabweans, 50,000 Sudanese and thousands of other sub-Saharan Africans living, at our expense, in Britain, the vast majority of whom have come here since 2021. In addition, there are also 1.2 million Caribbeans who have been here for longer, but who retain the pack mentality of their African genetics and tribal cultures.

As we see in the daily fights on our streets and park between gangs of Jamaicans, Somalis, Zimbabweans and Nigerians armed with machetes and other weapons from their African tribal lands, and who are themselves divided by tribe and religion and other primitive divisions that should be of no concern to us but now are, the tribal mentality and the violence it brings is being imported into and spread across Britain. In other words, it is we, the British, who are having to adapt now to this primitive and violent environment, rather than they, the Africans, who do not know how to adapt to Western civilisation and have no intention of doing so. Indeed, they have been brought here not for the skills they do not have, the intelligence they lack or the education wasted on them, but for their propensity for violence, rape and murder, in which Africans, no matter what country they live in, lead the world. They have been brought here, in other words, to destroy Britain and its native population.

We would be wrong, therefore, in thinking that the generation or two that Caribbeans have lived in Britain has magically rid them of their pack mentality. This week, thousands of Africans in Britain have taken to social media or attended a farcical vigil in Trafalgar Square to accuse us, the native people of Britain, Europeans, White people in general, of killing their hero, Jason Arday. The fact that, like Chris Kaba or, in the USA, George Floyd and Rodney King, he was a criminal — a more sophisticated criminal, certainly, whose crimes were fraud rather than armed robbery and attempted murder, but still a criminal — hasn’t deterred the Africans in Britain from rushing to his defence.

Like the African passersby who defend their fellow African no matter whom they may have stabbed, stolen from or sexually assaulted, Africans, whether senior academics, lawyers and politicians or the endlessly offended talking heads in our media, have all, without exception, defended their fellow hyena. This has not been done on the basis of any reason that we, as Europeans, recognise, such as accountability for his crimes, or his responsibility for the children he defrauded of their money and education, or our rationality in considering the evidence for both, or equality of opportunity and justice regardless of race, or any of the other principles of European civilisation. The defence of yet another African criminal who has been turned into a hero and martyr by his fellow Africans has been launched on the primitive instincts of pack animals. Truth, for the pack animal, doesn’t exist: there is only ‘my truth’, that which defends the pack and kills its prey.

The more pack animals that we appoint, under Equity, Diversity and Inclusion criteria, to positions of influence and authority over us, as Jason Arday had over the students and journalists he threatened with the police for questioning his fraud, the more we will turn Britain, Europe and the West into countries ruled by the pack mentality of Africans. And as this pack mentality takes over Britain, more Britons will join with it. Indeed, far from African immigrants being integrated into and becoming civilised by British culture and society, we are becoming Africanised. The fact that there were almost as many Britons in Trafalgar Square as there were Africans, that it was a Briton who angrily proclaimed that White people should not speak or have any opinion because we are White, and that they joining in the defence of yet another African criminal for his crimes, is the appalling realisation of this programme of social cretinisation and racial degeneration for which Jason Arday was the poster boy.

Like the statues in Trafalgar Square, we are still, for the moment but only just, individual lions. But in Britain we have lost our pride, and the hyena packs are growing every day. Be in no doubt, when they outnumber us sufficiently, they will tear us to pieces. The vigil in Trafalgar Square is the proof and promise of that.

Empire of Dust: https://t.co/n1rC29xvG5

[🛑 mocking the PEOPLE @alextopol]

The reset point

[Mary @VodunChile]

https://t.co/ypXSpNeoeK

[Christine P. @ChristinePP27]

🟥 À PARTAGER AU MAXIMUM • Tout le monde devrait être au courant. Ce n'est pas une vague de chaleur. Ce n'est pas une éruption solaire.
Ce qui brûle votre peau en ce moment, c'est l'ACTIVATION DE LA COUCHE DE NANOPARTICULES MÉTALLIQUES, PULVÉRISÉE DEPUIS DES DÉCENNIES DANS LE CIEL.
Voici la vérité sur les raisons pour lesquelles la chaleur est si insupportable.

* * Le ciel n'est pas vide. Il est plein de métal. * *
Depuis des décennies, les avions pulvérisent des aérosols contenant des nanoparticules d'aluminium, de baryum, de strontium, d'iodure d'argent et d'oxyde de graphène. On les appelle "bandes chimiques", "géo-ingénierie" ou "intervention climatique". La réalité est que notre atmosphère a été transformée en une antenne plasma conductrice géante.

Ces particules ne tombent pas au sol immédiatement. Elles sont conçues pour rester à flot dans la basse atmosphère pendant des semaines, voire des mois, formant une couche métallique de poussière qui flotte à des kilomètres au-dessus de nous.
Normalement, il diffuse. Mais lorsqu'un événement à haute énergie se produit, cette couche s'enflamme.

* * Ce n'est pas #Napkitörés. C'est une explosion de nanoparticules. * *
Quand les gens disent "le soleil se sent plus fort", ils se trompent. Le soleil n'a pas changé. Ce qui a changé, c'est la réaction de l'atmosphère.

Les particules métalliques sont électriquement conductrices. Lorsqu'elles sont touchées par des fréquences spécifiques provenant de systèmes à commande de phase au sol (5G, HAARP, équipement radar), elles deviennent excitées et commencent à vibrer.
Cette résonance produit deux effets immédiats :

1. * * Chauffage local * * - les particules produisent de la chaleur dans l'air comme un micro-ondes solide, donnant de l'énergie thermique artificielle à la lumière normale du soleil.
2. * * Réfraction et focalisation * * - la couche remplie agit comme une lentille, pliant et concentrant les rayons du soleil en rayons plus nets et plus intenses qui frappent le sol avec une force accrue.

C'est pourquoi la chaleur est vive et électrique, pas une couverture chaude. Non seulement vous ressentez le rayonnement infrarouge du soleil - l'énergie thermique du métal, déclenchée par les micro-ondes, brille dans le ciel.
* * La connexion réseau : ils contrôlent l'épidémie. * *

Ces fréquences de déclenchement font partie du réseau de modification des conditions météorologiques. Les radiateurs ionosphériques pompent des gigawatts d'énergie dans la haute atmosphère, tandis que les tours 5G utilisent la technologie de formation de faisceaux pour traiter les couches inférieures, créant des ondes stationnaires qui excitent la couverture aérosol.
Quand ils veulent une "vague de chaleur", ils concentrent simplement leurs coups de langue sur une zone ciblée. Le résultat est la chaleur apocalyptique que nous avons tous ressentie. C'est une arme à énergie dirigée qui utilise le ciel lui-même comme carburant.

• Pourquoi te sens-tu très fatigué ?
Ce ne sont pas les symptômes d'un épuisement normal par la chaleur. Ce sont les conséquences de l'exposition aux micro-ondes et de l'intoxication aux métaux :
- La sensation de brûlure provient des nanoparticules déposées sur votre peau, qui se comportent comme des plaques chauffantes microscopiques lorsque le rayonnement vous atteint.

- Des maux de tête, des nausées, des acouphènes et des étourdissements surviennent parce que les fréquences pénètrent dans le crâne et interagissent avec le graphène et d'autres substances déjà présentes dans le corps.
L'air semble lourd et électrique parce que le frottement métallique génère des ions positifs, élimine les négatifs et laisse derrière lui un air toxique et déprimant.

C'est une arme, pas une saison.
Ils vont l'appeler le "dôme de chaleur" causé par le changement climatique et dire de rester hydraté. Cela dissimule le fait que le ciel a été transformé en une arme.

Le même réseau qui met du graphène dans les aliments et les injections active maintenant le graphène dans l'air pour nous brûler. Ce n'est pas la nature.
Ce n'est pas un acte de Dieu. Il s'agit d'une attaque énergétique atmosphérique délibérée et artificielle.

Vous ne sentez pas le soleil. Vous sentez une explosion d'énergie dirigée dans la poudre métallique pulvérisée sur nos têtes.
Auteur : OSSZA MEG