95% of BBC viewers say multiculturalism has failed

This picture gives me strength.

- echoing the sentiment of Angela “utterly failed” Merkel, years ago.


Breitbart London’s James Delingpole was a guest on the show. During the discussion of the results, he said: “I think the thwacking great majority in that poll says it all. The multicultural experiment in Britain has failed totally and people have finally realised how much it has failed. Rotherham was just one example; we’re seeing cases all around the country. It has been a disaster. I think that this is going to be the turning point.”

Also on the show was the left-wing journalist Owen Jones, who extolled the virtues of interracial sex [no quote or implied 'vice' of preferring one's own?] and claimed: “fortunately the actually scientific polling [meow] suggests that’s quite a pessimistic answer. [silly proles, vote the way we tell you to!] Yes there are always tensions [we exacerbate] which we need to work on. [never do] We need to bring our communities together. [multiculti is the opposite of that] But Britain has one of the highest levels of interracial relationships in the whole world. [so fucking what, literally]

It’s like night and day.
Owen Jones wants white people as a race to die [aka genocide] because apparently only white people can be a social problem? This, Post-Rotherham? In spite of all the data showing otherwise? Tell me, what were the crime rates before mass immigration of non-whites into London, Owen? Lower, weren’t they. Pesky white people, with their understanding of maths. No such thing as a brown utopia, look at Africa; no such thing as a utopia at all.

Some people like surgical BDSM, doesn’t mean we should teach it in schools. Doesn’t mean it should inform social policy on sex, whatever happened to feminist cries of mutual consent? Or are we to be told by the State that “everybody belongs to everybody else” and if 4 Muslims consent to gang-rape 1 poor white child, it’s for the ‘democratic’ common purpose good of multicultural community relations? Bend over for the equalist enrichment, kids! [crass, but you get my point, no? this is what they imply is not just acceptable, but desirable]
The overwhelming majority of partnered-up people are homogamous, we are attracted to those who are like us, and whatever Slate might say on the matter, fancying people of your own race is natural and forever shall be. I nominate Israel to prove otherwise first.

However, growing evidence suggests that multiculturalism itself is responsible for increasing segregation in Britain. Last year the Daily Mail reported on the phenomenon of ‘White flight’ – that is, white British people moving out of London in vast numbers. Between 2001 and 2011 some 620,000 white British people left London, tipping the ethnic makeup of London into majority non-British heritage.

Shh, white flight doesn’t exist, because there could be no possible reason white people would have a problem with being outnumbered in their own country, that generations of ancestors built and died to protect from foreign invaders.

Last year a number of videos emerged on YouTube showing Sharia patrols in East London, as non-Muslims were told that they couldn’t drink in the streets as it was a Muslim area.

Please impose Sharia on the alcoholic slutty Hampstead Liberals. Please.

Amongst ethnic minority respondents (Black Caribbean, Black African, and Asian Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs), nine out of ten thought that multiculturalism was a good thing.

In other news, let’s poll the Pope on which religion he thinks is the best!

Today the UK has been put on a high terror alert as warnings of a “Mumbai-style terror attack” reverberated around Westminster. The 2008 Mumbai attacks were a series of co-ordinated shootings and bombings that took place over four consecutive days, killing 164 people and wounding a further 308.

If they emptied the airheads of Westminster for us, we might give them medals.
“We’re helping them, they wouldn’t hurt us.” ~ sitting duck.

These events are likely to have shifted public opinion against multiculturalism, although further polling evidence is required to ascertain how widespread the shift has been.

Polls a la Lord Ashcroft are often faked to create the impression of majority acquiescence to the narrative to legitimize itself. The simplest method is polling only certain sections of London. The public is long wise to this fraud.

Only one poll matters: May 2015’s General Election.

White Brit poor an alienated minority in their own schools


… If these trends continue, white British children will be in the minority across the whole of the country in 23 years’ time, bringing the rest of the UK in line with London, Birmingham, and some other inner cities where white British children are already in the minority. …

The figures are of concern because some claim that educational policies designed to support pupils of ethnic minority backgrounds are undermining the performance of white working class British children.

“The white working-class population is massively underperforming. We are neglecting the white working class, and do so at our peril.” Said Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education.

He also told the Sunday Times that the growth in ethnic pupils was making white working class children feel “increasingly alienated and marginalised”, and called upon policymakers to stop “neglecting” working class children.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Migration Watch UK, Alp Mehmet, said “These figures underline the way in which mass immigration is changing the whole nature of our society against the public’s wishes .”

… White working class pupils were also noted to be one of two ethnic groups who had the lowest self-confidence and the lowest aspirations.

State-enforced white guilt.

If you’re thinking: why should I care about schools, I have no children?
Think of it instead as: future voters.
What does this information mean?

Political powderkeg.

The pendulum swings slowly at first, from a stop, then rapidly, all at once.

We may see a similar effect in the real talk between MSM complaints: overcrowding and fewer school places for little Middle Class Mindy. Beyond the suicidal London Liberals, who are doomed beyond their sheltered enclaves, the normal white people are protective of their heritage and will stand up for it.

People are calling out the obvious, where did these people come from?


The answer, naturally, is Labour policy.
The same one that dropped standards for the immigrants and increased teacher’s wages, wondering why we began to sink lower internationally.

…The 2011 British census recorded a 3.7million population increase in England and Wales over the previous decade, around two thirds of it brought about by immigration and high birth rates among migrant mothers.

Even though figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that last year, just 698,512 babies were born, down from 729,674 the year before, our primary schools are still faced with a big problem and so in turn will the secondary schools.

Labour have pointed out that the number of five to seven-year-olds in large classes of over 30 children has spiralled by 200 percent since 2010 – to nearly 100,000 infants. They omit to mention, however, that they flung open our borders and bear a heavy responsibility for the mess we are now in.

Do you think the indigenous students are going to forget this? School ingrains us for life.

Do you not think there will be a simmering resentment, of over a decade of memories where left-wing teachers ignored them or openly insulted them (verbal abuse) in favour of immigrant children given every opportunity to succeed despite lower IQ, and personal translators? Without going into the physical bullying of white males by gangs, and sexual harassment of white females?

Idiocracy will make people uglier, too

Thought-provoking article. http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/08/22/beauty-bubble/

The result of this confluence of factors is simple:  The current amount of beauty is a bubble, it will pop, and the world will get uglier.  There are cynics who would say that with our government subsidized high carbohydrate diets and sluts with short hairdos and tattoos aplenty, the peak of our beauty bubble is already in our rearview mirror.  They may have a point.

Facts: beauty is rare (minority) and proportionately esteemed, beauty is based in fertility cues and lead to objectively better outcomes on all good measures, European fertility is infamously sub-replacement thanks to feminism. We acquired the term “good-looking” from the association between handsomeness and civilized behaviour.

As earlier;

But not so fast.  Blue-eyed blondes with heart shaped asses are not an infinite largesse bestowed upon us by a higher power.  We are all of woman borne, and if you understand heredity you understand that beautiful girls must, on average, have mothers that were also beautiful.  That is to say, to keep this current beauty spigot flowing the world needs beautiful women to have daughters.

Nature is self-correcting. The slappers, as we call them here, likely gained those looks by genetic randomness their improper behaviour doesn’t support, since the most beautiful women tend to be least promiscuous, as they can demand commitment from men and need not lure them in with sex as an easy bait. However, they are smart enough to use this value to lock down a good man while in low notch numbers. Sluts hate them for this, they get the big prize, so the sluts try to argue their experiences of being used up like a sex toy were positive.

I know it’s anecdotal, but I’ve seen most sluts are 4-6, tops. I am being kind with that estimate.

The article is correct, there will be far fewer beautiful people in the future, male and female. Good-looking men are cautious with contraception and are putting off conceiving too, perhaps indefinitely. There are no rewards for the old family model. On an infinite timeline? A recursion.

Thousands of winters of scarce, sparse prey and harsh terrain culled a significant percentage of men.

This would probably be a few recessions without welfare keeping the r-type brats in iPhones. More and more people, competing against fewer and fewer beautiful people (and notice the right-wing tends to be hotter than the left? no coincidence). The effect is threefold: 1. ugly women try to promote ugliness as a new standard. 2. most men go without and stay at home with porn. 3. beautiful people interbreed, creating an aristocracy, as they make more money, keeping child N small because they’re usually k-types. Or as point three is known now “growing income inequality”.

The ugly women went barren and beauty flourished.

Notice these strong, independent women aren’t going to sperm banks en masse? Seems men aren’t so replaceable. They can’t chase the Government if their welfare check stops. Children are a burden to them.

By decoupling sex and reproduction, it is selecting for those who really want kids.  Will beauty survive?  We’ll have to wait and see.

I believe it will, but it will take a long time to recover and lessons will be learnt e.g. feminism is for ugly women to drag down pretty ones, while faking the signs of the pretty and denying the very existence of pretty.

And what of designer babies? No one, and I mean, NO ONE, will choose ugly ones. We’ll soon find there’s a beauty standard to white, blue-eyed and physically fit. The Viking marauders chose to rape the best and stab the rest, what we see in modernity is the fruit of their eugenic process, and extremes of cold in Northern Europe are a great survival test for good genes.

Practical Deconstructions

Highly logical. I do something similar. If _a_, then _c_ because _b_. Assuming each link in the chain is correct, it cannot be refuted.


The point of the guide is to provide an onslaught of material efficiently packaged. Each one of these modules can be expanded out into multiple essays—books, even, but they’re sufficient for brutal effectiveness. Apply liberally. Some of them are more serious than others. Some are just plain ridiculous—don’t begrudge me my fun….

In other words, you can’t deconstruct on a ‘perfectly accurate level’ if they can’t comprehend what it is you’re deconstructing because they don’t fully comprehend their own ideology.

I’d compare it to a verbal sparring of ideological entrapment.
You win when you can say “Aha!”

Examples, my favourites;

-Seek admission: Marriage has always been heterosexual Point out: Homosexuals trying to participate in the institution of marriage Conclusion: This is cultural appropriation, and it is problematic.

-Seem admission: Genetics determines height, eye color, predisposition to diseases, and predisposition to mental illnesses (gosh, this might be a lot to ask for) Point out: Why think genetics is only implicated below the shoulders? Conclusion: Genetics determines intelligence.

-Seek admission: Animals can be bred for different attributes. That’s how we have different dog breeds, for example Point out: Humans are animals Conclusion: Humans can be bred for different attributes.

-Seek admission: Sexuality, like homosexuality, is inborn, and so it’s okay Point out: Pedophilia is sexuality Conclusion: Pedophilia is inborn, and so it’s okay.

-Seek admission: High suicide rate among homosexuals Point out: Other groups with far worse persecution and societal receipt of hatred don’t have high suicide rates Conclusion: Homosexuals really are weak and mentally fragile.

-Seek admission: Gender is totally fluid Point out: You cannot go from homosexual to heterosexual Conclusion: Either gender is not fluid, or you can go from homosexual to heterosexual.

-Seek admission: Gentrification is really bad because it disrupts culture Point out: Third world immigration disrupts culture Conclusion: Third world immigration is really bad.

-Seek admission: Gays are a persecuted minority with little power Point out: Gays are one of the highest income demographics on the planet Conclusion: Someone is fucking lying.

-Seek admission: Feminism as we know it arose out of western culture Point out: Immigration will gradually eliminate western culture Conclusion: Immigration will gradually eliminate feminism.

Paper: The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness


The more feminist policies and lifestyles introduced, the more unhappy the women.

Both men and women in the U.S. have faced some other challenging societal trends in the past 30 years as well. While the male-female wage gap converged over this period, income inequality rose sharply through the 1980s and has continued to rise, albeit more slowly, in recent decades. Moreover, the real wages of many men fell during much of this period. In particular, real wages for men with less than a college degree fell from 1979-1995 (Autor, Katz, & Kearney, 2008). Many households experienced only moderate growth in household income, with those in the bottom half of the income distribution experiencing real growth of less than 0.5% a year from 1973 to 2005 (Goldin and Katz, 2007) and much of this increase was due to the additional earnings of wives. Along with this rise in income inequality has come concerns about increasing income volatility, and a more general concern about households bearing more health and retirement risk (Hacker, 2007). While these trends have impacted both men and women, it is possible that the effect of these trends on happiness has differed by gender.

Even if women were made unambiguously better off throughout this period, a richer consideration of the psychology behind happiness might suggest that greater gender equality may lead to a fall in measured well-being. For example, if happiness is assessed relative to outcomes for one’s reference group, then greater equality may have led more women to compare their outcomes to those of the men around them. In turn, women might find their relative position lower than when their reference group included only women. This change in the reference group may make women worse off or it may simply represent a change in their reporting behavior. An alternative form of reference dependent preferences relates well-being to whether or not expectations are met. If the women’s movement raised women’s expectations faster than society was able to meet them, they would be more likely to be disappointed by their actual experienced lives. As women’s expectations move into alignment with their experiences this decline in happiness may reverse. A further alternative suggests that happiness may be driven by good news about lifetime utility (Kimball & Willis, 2006) . Under this view, the salience of the women’s movement fuelled elation in the 1970s that has dissipated in the ensuing years. …

Our contribution in this paper is to carefully document trends over several decades in subjective well-being by gender in the United States and other industrialized countries, collecting evidence across a wide array of datasets covering various demographic groups, time periods, countries, and measures of subjective well-being. …

However, the relative declines found for Europe and the US lie within a 95% confidence interval of 125 of the 147 we countries we examine.