Saturday, March 16, 2019


Echo & The Bunnymen with Monkeys. Album Crocodiles (1980).

English postpunkband from Liverpool, formed in 1978. Consisted originally of Ian McCulloch (vocals), Will Sergeant (guitarist), Les Pattinson (bass) and a drum machine. This was their debut album.

John Watts with One Voice. Album One More Twist (1982).

Post the Fisher-Z breakup, in 1981, Watts had this solo gig. He brought out out his first album, One More Twist, the year after. AFAIK only one hit was drawn from it, One Voice. Not too long after there followed another album, The Iceberg Model, but I guess the fizz was gone by then.

This number would be okay if one could tune out the lyrics. Sounds too much like it's written for snotholes skipping school for zhe climate, and I am sooooooooo tired of that.

Goede nacht.



At stake is nothing more than the future of the West. Islam is a cancer, that, after discovering that it could not conquer us by arms, decided to do it by immigration and demographics (with enthusiastic help not only from leftists and greens, but from the gullible, intellectually lazy 'traditional' parties too).

So when Australian Senator Fraser Anning wrote the following letter after the terror attack against the Christchurch mosques:

He was not right a hundred per cent, he was right two hundred per cent.

Senator Anning wrote his letter on March 15, 2019. To the date fifteen years ago that Paki muslims in Scotland abducted Kriss Donald of Glasgow, tortured him, stabbed him multiple times, castrated him, doused him with gasoline, and set him on fire:

For no other reason than that they were pissed off by a gang of Glasgow chavs with no connection whatsoever to Kriss. Kriss was picked out at random because he was white, male, and presumably Christian.

In a normal world Kriss Donald would very likely be alive today and have a spouse and kids. However, because our insane, spineless and immoral political class allowed, and facilitated, the unchecked and massive immigration from people who bear us ill will and have as ultimate goal to subjugate us, Kriss was brutally murdered by those muslim subhumans.


As a prime example of the feckless, immoral political class who is responsbible for flooding our countries with those who hate us, we must certainly count the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern:

Take a good, hard look at this contemptible, wretched creature, from Labour of course, who is - who would have thunk it - also an ardent LGBTQWERTY activist. As a matter of fact, this deluded feminazi was the first NZ PM ever to participate in a gay parade. Normals know that the very idea of gay marriage, gay adoption, transgenderism and all the other leftist dadas are absolutely VERBOTEN in islam - yet here she is, pretending she can live happily near those who would kill gays if they could. Not to mention relegate women to third class citizens (at best).

Anyway, if Senator Anning writes:

"Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, they are usually the perpetrators."

Then this is the truth, nothing but the NAKED, UNDENIABLE TRUTH. And those who say otherwise, and are now going after Anning FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH, deserve a solid punch in the face and/or a kick in the groin. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE over the Kizlyar church shooting??? Or over thePalm Sunday Church bombings??? And yet these two acts of terror pale into infinitesimal insignificance by comparison to islam's gruesome, ghastly, TOTAL tally!

I hear that there is a lot of 'outrage' over Senator Anning's remarks. In view of the mortal danger that islam poses not only to the West, but to every other peaceful culture, this 'outrage' is both immoral and ignorant. What happened in Christchurch is a tragedy, but ultimately it's a tragedy of islam's own making.

Tarrant's attack was an act of terror in the same way that the bombing of Dresden was a terror bombardment. Both unfortunate events happened INSIDE A WAR, and wars are very nasty things.

Dresden would not have been bombed, and 100,000 plus civilians would not have lost their lives, if Nazi Germany had been a peaceful nation. It was most definitely not.

The mosques in Christchurch would not have been attacked, and 45 plus civilians would not have lost their lives, if islam had been a peaceful religion. It is most definitely not.

Not in a million years would Tarrant - btw, I have no use for that nutter, who seems to be something of a Green Nazi - have attacked a Buddhist place, because Buddhism poses no threat.

Now, I hear that Australia has a new hero in the person of Will Connolly, a fifteen year old kid who planted an egg on Senator Anning's head.

When reviewing the video of that, I was immensely pleased to see that the Senator reacted as he should: by punching the brainwashed brat. Twice:

And had I been present, I would have slapped the little stinker too, for good measure.


Friday, March 15, 2019


As the map a little bit further clearly shows, "The West" is only called "The West" because we have been pushed to "The West" - by the followers of an illiterate, immoral and traitorous monster called Muhammad.

Islam has been at war with us for fourteen centuries. It has been, and is, at war with other cultures too, but because of the sheer numbers involved and the conflict's very longevity, the repeated clashes with The West, for a long time identifiable simply as 'Christendom', can safely be said to constitute the chief battleground.

As The West's technological prowess grew, and islam's stagnated - a direct result of its inherent obnoxiousness - it became ever more difficult for muslim armies to achieve military victories. E.g. a thousand years ago the muslim state that has historically been most at the forefront of the confrontation with Christian nations, Turkey, in its earlier incarnations of the Seljuk empire, built its own naval component.

By the second half of the nineteenth century Turkey, by now as the Ottoman Empire, had to buy its vessels from the hated adversary.

And so, at long last, islam rightly calculated that it could never win anymore from the West with blood and steel, with open warfare...

And it set upon another strategy... a stealthy one. But also a far more effective one.

And this is why, in the second decade of the 21st century, islam can be found virtually everywhere throughout Western nations and their offspring in the Pacific, from Minneapolis to Christchurch.

In all these countries - our countries - it is conspiring to achieve final power and subjugate us through deceit and demographics... and with tremendous succes.

Over at American Thinker, Raymond Ibrahim explains that although islam's methods have changed, its ultimate goal has not:

"At the height of Western dominance over Islam in the early twentieth century, the European historian Hilaire Belloc (b. 1870) made a remarkably prescient observation that may have seemed exaggerated at the time:

~ Millions of modern people of the white civilization -- that is, the civilization of Europe and America -- have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted that it is decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past” (from Belloc’s The Great Heresies, emphasis added).

Anyone who doubts that Islam has been “the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had,” should familiarize themselves with that civilization’s long militant history vis-à-vis the West.

According to Islamic history, in 628, Muhammed, the Arabic founder of Islam, called on the Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius -- the symbolic head of Christendom -- to recant Christianity and embrace Islam. The emperor refused, jihad was declared, and the Arabs invaded Christian Syria, defeating the imperial army at the pivotal Battle of Yarmuk in 636 (see my MA thesis on this battle, which one prominent historian described as the world’s “most consequential”).

This victory enabled the Muslims to swarm in all directions, so that, less than a century later, they had conquered the greater, older, and richer part of Christendom, including Syria, Egypt, and North Africa.

Their drive into Europe from the east was repeatedly frustrated by the Walls of Constantinople; after the spectacularly failed siege of 717-718, many centuries would pass before any Muslim power thought to capture the imperial city. The Arabs did manage to invade Europe proper and conquered Spain but were stopped at the Battle of Tours in 732 and eventually driven back south of the Pyrenees.

For more than two centuries thereafter, Europe continued to be pummeled by land and sea -- untold thousands of Christians were enslaved and every Mediterranean island sacked -- in the ongoing Muslim quest for booty and slaves, as what historians have dubbed “the Dark Ages” descended on the continent.

The vicissitudes of war ebbed and flowed -- the Eastern Roman Empire (“Byzantium”) made a major comeback against Islam in the tenth century -- though the border largely remained the same. This changed when the Turks, under the leadership of the Seljuk tribe, became the new standard bearers of jihad. They nearly annihilated eastern Anatolia, along with Armenia and Georgia, in the eleventh century and, after the Battle of Manzikert, 1071, overran Asia Minor.

By now, however, Western Europe’s military might had so matured that when the Pope called on the knights of Christendom to come to the aid of the Christian East, the First Crusade was born. Western Christians, led by the Franks, marched into the beast’s lair, defeated their adversaries in several encounters and managed to establish a firm presence in the Levant, including in Jerusalem, which they recaptured in 1099 -- only to lose it less than one hundred years later, in 1187, after the fateful Battle of Hattin. By 1297, the Crusader presence was eliminated from the Middle East.

But if it failed in the East, the Crusade succeeded in the West. A handful of years after the Muslim invasion and conquest of Spain around 711, fugitive Christians holed in the northern mountains of Asturia began the Reconquista; by 1085 it had proven effective enough to prompt two new Muslim invasions from Africa to counter it. Again, the ebb and flow of war dominated the landscape, but by 1212, at Las Navas de Tolosa, Spain’s indigenous Christians gave Islam its death-stroke, so that by 1252 it was confined to Granada at the southernmost tip of Iberia.

Around that same time, a violent but relatively short-lived Mongolian storm overwhelmed much of the east; both Christians (notably Russians) and Muslims were pummeled. A new Turkish dynasty arose from the Seljuk ashes; the Ottomans -- whose identity revolved around the concept of jihad more their predecessors -- renewed Islam’s perennial war on Christendom. They managed to enter Eastern Europe, defeated a combined army of Crusaders at Nicopolis in 1396, took much of the Balkans, and crowned their achievement by fulfilling Muhammad’s desire of conquering Constantinople -- and enslaving and raping thousands of its inhabitants in ways that ISIS tries to mimic -- in 1453.

But mourning was soon tempered by joy: to the west, Spain finally conquered Granada in 1492, thereby snuffing out Islam as a political power; to the east, the most overlooked chapter of Muslim-Christian conflict was also coming to an end. The Russians, who had lived under distinctly Islamic rule for nearly two centuries, finally cast off the “Tatar Yoke” in 1480.

Even so, the Ottomans continued to be the scourge of Christendom; they continued making inroads into Europe -- reaching but failing to capture Vienna in 1529 -- and sponsored the seaborne jihad originating from North Africa. While the Muslims largely failed to capture new European lands, Barbary pirates and Crimean slavers captured and sold approximately five million Europeans.

In 1683, over 200,000 Ottoman jihadis attempted to take Vienna again. Even though their failure marked the Ottoman Empire’s slow decline, Muslim slavers of the so-called Barbary States of North Africa continued to wreak havoc all along the coasts of Europe -- reaching even Iceland. The United States of America’s first war -- which it fought before it could even elect its first president -- was against these Islamic slavers. When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Barbary’s ambassador why his countrymen were enslaving American sailors, the “ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that… it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners...”

Finally the Colonial Era came with Europe’s triumph over the Barbary States in the early 1800s. By 1900, most of the Muslim world was under European control; by 1924, the more than 600-year-old Ottoman caliphate was abolished -- not by Europeans but Muslim Turks, as the latter sought to emulate the successful ways of the former. Islam was viewed as a spent force and virtually forgotten, until recent times when it reemerged again.

Such has been the true and most “general” history between the Islamic and Western worlds."

"... The above map (© Sword and Scimitar) should give an idea of how far-reaching and multitentacled the perennial jihad was. The darkest shading represents Western/Christian nations that were permanently conquered by Islam; the lighter or gray shading represents those Western/Christian nations that were temporarily conquered by Islam (sometimes for many centuries, as in Spain, Russia, and the Balkans); stripes represent areas that were raided, often repeatedly, though not necessarily annexed by Islam; the crossed swords mark the sites of the eight most landmark battles between Islam and the West.

From a macrocosmic perspective, the consequences of the historic jihad are even more profound than first appears. After writing, “For almost a thousand years, from the first Moorish landing in Spain [711] to the second Turkish siege of Vienna [1683], Europe was under constant threat from Islam,” Bernard Lewis elaborates:

All but the easternmost provinces of the Islamic realm had been taken from Christian rulers… North Africa, Egypt, Syria, even Persian-ruled Iraq, had been Christian countries, in which Christianity was older and more deeply rooted than in most of Europe. Their loss was sorely felt and heightened the fear that a similar fate was in store for Europe.

The “loss” of North Africa and the Middle East “was sorely felt” by premodern Europeans because they thought more along religious and civilizational lines than nationalist ones. And before Islam burst onto the scene, most of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East were part of the same religio-civilizational bloc. As such, Islam did not merely invade and eventually get repulsed from Europe; rather, “Muslim armies conquered three-quarters [or 75 percent] of the Christian world,” to quote historian Thomas Madden.

Thus what is now called “the West” is actually the westernmost remnant of what was a much more extensive civilizational block that Islam permanently severed, thereby altering the course of “Western” history. And once Muslims overran Africa and the Middle East, most of its Christian subjects, to evade fiscal and social oppression and join the winning team, converted to Islam, thereby perpetuating the cycle, as they became the new standard bearers of jihad against their former coreligionists north and west of the Mediterranean.

Such are the rarely noted ironies of history.

Returning to Hilaire Belloc, one can also see how an accurate understanding of true history -- as opposed to an indoctrination in mainstream pseudo-histories -- leads to an accurate prognosis of the future. For Belloc was not only correct about the past but the future as well:

It [Islam] is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past… The whole spiritual strength of Islam is still present in the masses of Syria and Anatolia, of the East Asian mountains, of Arabia, Egypt and North Africa. The final fruit of this tenacity, the second period of Islamic power, may be delayed -- but I doubt whether it can be permanently postponed (emphasis added)."

Note: The historical portion of this article follows the outline of my recent book, Sword and Scimitar, which, in 352 pages copiously documents -- including from little known or previously untranslated primary sources -- the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here.

You can buy Ibrahim's book here.


Thursday, March 14, 2019


I don't know how it is with you, but ever day a little bit more, I feel this mounting anguish, this bubbling desire to crack leftist skulls. I don't know what happened to them, but it's almost as if they want to deliberately shed any semblance of reason and turn the whole planet into that funny farm from One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, only with themselves as wards. Take the US House of Representatives, since a couple of months in the hands of the dems again. Anyone already hear a sensible proposition from the new majority?

Uh huh. About what I thought. But we all know of the exploits of Omar, Tlaib, Abrams and AOC.

Alas, even so, as always, Europe, at least Western Europe, keeps taking the lead. Via The Guardian, meet the BirthStrikers, the enlightened, progressive womyn who vow to have no children until climate change stops:

"As soon as Blythe Pepino got together with her partner Joshua two years ago, she felt “this overwhelming urge to create a family with him”, she says. “I think it was the fifth day after having met him, I said: ‘I’ve got to meet your parents.’ He was like: ‘You’re mad.’”

Then, late last year, she attended a lecture held by the direct action group Extinction Rebellion, which set out starkly the catastrophic reality of the changing climate. That galvanised Pepino, an activist and musician (she is the former singer of Vaults, now Mesadorm), to do research of her own and, eventually, to have a series of sad conversations with Joshua.

“I realised that even though I wanted to have a family at that point, I couldn’t really bring myself to do it,” she says. “I had to say to him: ‘I don’t know if I can do this, considering what we know – if there isn’t a political will to fix this, we really don’t stand much of a chance.’”

Pepino, who turns 33 today, found that other women – especially those in climate-conscious circles – were struggling with the same question, but were “too afraid to talk about it” for fear of judgment or ridicule. The US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave voice to their concerns last month, pointing to the increasingly dire scientific consensus and widespread government inaction: “It does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it OK still to have children?”

And so Pepino decided to publicly announce her decision – strategically making the personal political – by setting up BirthStrike, a voluntary organisation for women and men who have decided not to have children in response to the coming “climate breakdown and civilisation collapse”. In doing so, she hopes to channel the grief she feels about her decision “into something more active and regenerative and hopeful”. In just two weeks, 140 people, mostly women in the UK, have declared their “decision not to bear children due to the severity of the ecological crisis”, says Pepino. “But we have also had people get in touch to say: ‘Thank you for speaking out about something that I didn’t feel I could even talk to my family about,’” she adds. Many of these BirthStrikers are involved with Extinction Rebellion, which on Saturday threw buckets of red paint outside Downing Street to symbolise “the death of our children” from climate change...

There are simply no words for this idiocy. Don't even start to try to explain to these wretched creatures concepts like concentrations, solar minima, positive and negative feedbacks. Do not pain what passes for their brains by having them try to remember that it's been ten years since Climate Gate. And definitely don't test their knowledge of history by asking them what the Vikings were cultivating in the Eastern and Western Settlements in Greenland in the Middle Ages, or why Greenland came to be called Greenland in the first place...

And so, as a sizeable proportion of European native women in child bearing age finds out another reason to NOT procreate, our fertility rate crashes to rock bottom. Via Breitbart:

"Total births in the European Union’s 28 member states in 2017 has fallen from the year before, while first-time mothers are now almost 30.

Figures released by Eurostat on Tuesday revealed that there were 5.075 million babies born in the union in 2017, compared with 5.148 million in 2016 with the total fertility rate standing at 1.59 births per woman — down from 1.60 on the year before and well below the 2.1 births per woman needed to maintain a population.

In terms of individual countries, France had the highest fertility rate at 1.90 births per woman, followed by Sweden (1.78), Ireland (1.77), Denmark (1.75), and the United Kingdom (1.74).

Countries where the mean age for a first-time mother is less than 27 tend to be concentrated in eastern Europe, including Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, while the oldest first-time mothers tend to be concentrated in the south (Italy, Spain, and Greece), and Luxembourg, and the Republic of Ireland..."

The figures belie the reality, of course, because Eurostat makes no distinction between the females in Europe's muslim communities and those among the "native Europeans". In my country e.g., this means that Moroccan and Turkish women with Belgian ID - and there are a lot of them ever since the progressives forced the Quick Citizenship Bill through some 15 years ago - are simply included in the stats. Since around 20 per cent of Belgians is already of foreign extraction, and on average a good deal younger than the autochtons, the fertility statistics are seriously skewed. The typical Turkish spouse in an immigrant family in the Belgian province of Limburg, a veritable Erdogan bulwark, will have 4 children by the time she is 30... and in doing so handily conceals the terrible truth, namely that fertility among her neurotic, spoiled rotten, indiginous Flemish counterparts hovers around...

... one child per woman.

That's right, your average authochton Flemish woman will give birth to just one child in her lifetime, typically when she's around thirty.

We are committing suicide, and we are financing those who will bury us.

It's a nightmare.



It is short, precise, and not complicated.

Hat tip Theo Spark.


Sunday, March 10, 2019


No, I don't have this from The Onion, but from HLN:


"Why don't we print money? We did that to save the banks. We must also do that to save the climate." says Member of the European Parliament Bart Staes (Groen!) in De Zondag"

... [there follows an exerpt where Mr Staes tells us what he should do if they would ask him to be Climate Minister in the next government. I'll spare you that]

... Apart from that printing extra money isn't a taboo. "The urgency is there: the warming up of the climate must be reduced to one degree and a half by 2030. The Rekenkamer [federal accountancy bureau; MFBB] says we need 1.115 billion EUR yearly. That is possible. We do not have to screw up the budget for that. Why don't we create a European Climate Bank? Such a bank can with that money finance investments AND provide citizens and companies with rent free loans."

Mr Staes may be onto something. Why, printing extra money worked tremendously well in the Weimar Republic:

... in Zimbabwe under Mugabe, where everybody became a trillionaire overnight:

... and most recently in Venezuela, of which in 2006 the economic policies were highly praised by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:

Longtime DowneastBlog readers may remember a post I put up in 2007 re the same nutter. Indeed, in early May 2007 the same Bart Staes called for a drastic reduction in global cattle because cow farts contain too much methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas:

So it took Mr Staes all of 12 years to come up with a plan - printing money for a European Climate Bank - to solve the persisting problem of cow farts. Because cow farts contain methane (CH4).

I'm no meteorologist, and no chemist either, and definitely not a cowfartist, but I am capable of simple math. Which I did.

Methane is, like CO2, a greenhouse gas, but a much stronger one. Over a time span of a century, a methane emission will have 28 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass.

And it is true that the globally averaged concentration of methane in the Earth's atmosphere increased by about 150 percent from an estimated 722 ± 25 ppb (parts per billion) in 1750 to 1803.2 ± 1.2 ppb in 2011 (a claim in the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report). According to NOAA (the US's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the atmospheric methane concentration continued to rise since 2011 to an average global concentration of 1850.5 ppb in July 2018.

So currently the methane concentration stands at about 1.85 parts per million.

And the CO2 concentration at around 400 parts per million.

Our moral betters claim that the rise of temperature as a result of greenhouse gases, predominantly the dreaded CO2, is about 0.7 degrees Centigrade since the early seventies, when there were an estimated 367 ppm.

This would imply that all of the tremendous bruhaha, what with rising oceans, heat waves etc would be the result NOT of 400ppm CO2, because there WAS already CO2 - an estimated 300 ppm around the time the Industrial Revolution started... but because of 400ppm minus 367ppm.

Or... 33 ppm.

I am going out on a (serious) limb here, because of the many dynamics involved, and I feel I shouldn't really use snapshot statistics, but even so, think about it. Warmists correlate an increase of 33 parts per million of CO2 with a rise of 0.7 degrees Centigrade.

400ppm CO2 means that for every 2,500 molecules of air (78 per cent N2, 21 per cent O2, 1 per cent Argon gas) there is ONE, just one, molecule CO2. Do the math. That's 400ppm.

But the increase of 0.7 degrees Centigrade would be due to only 33 molecules CO2 (400 minus 367, remember). They shouldn't come whining that in the early seventies the momentum was already well underway because of the 367ppm minus the 300 pre-Industrial Revolution, because in the early seventies they were hollering about Global Cooling! So, the 33 extra ppm of CO2 would, according to Warmist Reasoning (an oxymoron if ever there was one) be responsible for the staggering temperature increase of 0 point 7 degrees in half a century.

33 is give and take 400 divided by 12. Or, just ONE molecule CO2 in 2,500 x 12 = 30,000 molecules of air would be responsible for global warming!!! Hey, basically I'm just repeating Al Gore here, I assume he can handle a calculator (But not AOC, she can't multiply. Only thing she can do, is divide).

OK, so 1 molecule of CO2 in the pleasant company of 30,000 molecules of air is the boogeyman. For the sake of the argument, we will even assume, though sure as hell it ain't true, that that CO2 molecule is always of human origin.

Well, now that I have (hopefully) brought you up to speed as regards CO2 concentration, let's compare that with CH4.

Mr Staes wants to slaughter the world's cows, depriving billions of people of food, because of currently 1.85 PARTS PER MILLION OF METHANE.

That's 216 times less than 400 ppm. We have just seen that 400ppm CO2 equals to 2,500 molecules of air vs 1 molecule of CO2.

This means that Bart Staes can't sleep at night because of 216 x 2,500 = 540,000, or 1 MOLECULE OF CH4 VS 540,000 MOLECULES OF AIR!!!!!!!!

But wait, it gets better.

Mr Staes projects a cow holocaust to solve his problem. Only thing is, the methane from cattle (enteric fermentation aka farts and animal waste) accounts for only 16 per cent plus 5 per cent or 21 per cent of the total methane production (anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic). Graph by NASA's Goddard Institute:

In other words, the methane from cattle REPRESENTS ONLY ROUGHLY A FIFTH IN THE PREVIOUS EQUATION! Or, for every molecule of CH4 that's emanated from a cow's ass, there's 540,000 times 5 = 2.7 MILLION MOLECULES OF AIR!!!

And yet the cows have to disappear according to our genius. Hey, rice paddies are responsible for 12 per cent of total methane emitted, why not destroy all the rice paddies too???

A complete godforsaken IDIOT like Staes sits on his fat warm ass in the European Parliament however - paid lavishly - and that means that, in contrast to your humble blogger, he's got power. If people like him obtain EXECUTIVE power - and that is not impossible, polls give the Flemish Greens around 15 per cent of the vote in Flanders, they may be able to carry through their plans.

And what are those plans? Kill the cows and print money. Result: mass starvation and hyperinflation. Progress!

Now, the question is, are we just going to sit still and take all that cow shit? How much more insanity will we tolerate?