BBCWatch #239938

More bollocks from the BBC: an article entitled

Dutch race hate row engulfs presenter Sylvana Simons

Gasp! Swoon!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38089469

What actually happened is that some token black TV presenter, pushed onto Dutch TV screens in the usual manner by the (((usual suspects))) to condition and normalise the population into accepting mass third world immigration, went on a rant against a much-loved Dutch tradition, Black Peter.

Black Peter is a festive character celebrated in the Netherlands for hundreds of years, but Simons and the libmedia are now attempting to ban it because it is….wait for it….”racist”.

Naturally, some Dutch people did not take kindly to a Surinamese immigrant trying to outlaw much-loved national landmarks, and she has been taking some heat online. The really worrying part of that article is midway through:

“The video that circulated online also featured a song entitled “Oh Sylvana” including the lines “why don’t you pack your bags… why don’t you go and emigrate”. But the song-writers insist it was a party anthem about a Russian woman and nothing to do with Sylvana Simons.

The self-proclaimed creator of the video has now handed himself in to police”

Er, pardon me? The creator of an online video, the very epitome of free speech, has “handed himself in to police”? For what crime? Thoughtcrime? And the BBC simply comments on this thoughtcrime as if it is an entirely normal occurrence in the once-free West; which, if the BBC and their ilk have their way, it will be.

Geert Wilders, the heroic Dutch anti-Islam politician who is currently undergoing a disgraceful political showtrial at the hands of the corrupt establishment, has spoken out in support of Black Peter and Dutch culture.

The Dutch elections are in March next year. Let us hope that, as with Brexit and Trump (and hopefully Norbert Hofer in Austria: watch this space) enough Dutch people will have realised that everything the political/media/finance establishment elite does and says is a lie designed to take their country away from them. If they don’t realise it now, they may never get another chance: there are only 17 million Dutch citizens, and at the rate at which Moroccans, Turks, Surinamese, Syrians, and various other turd world dregs are pouring into their once beautiful country, Dutch people will soon find themselves a minority in their own land.

Which is precisely what the elites want.

Good luck, Geert.

Advertisements

The first 30 seconds says it all

I have a confession to make. I watched an episode of “Strictly Come Dancing” at the weekend.

This is the British version of “Dancing with the Stars”. Precisely why it isn’t called “Dancing with the Stars” as it is in every other country that runs the franchise is something of a mystery. There was a dancing show on TV in the 20th Century called “Come Dancing”, but where the “Strictly” part comes from, nobody knows. Perhaps it has something to do with the movie “Strictly Ballroom”.

Whatever the case may be, “Strictly” is extremely popular in Britain. Not popular in the way that some shows were back in the 1970s and 80s, with 20 million people regularly tuning in – fortunately, the advent of the internet has greatly diluted the amount of control the media (((elites))), as seen in my previous post, have over us – but enough to make a cultural footprint.

It is produced by the BBC, which as we began to establish in the previous post is the master hub of libmedia hivemind cultural Marxism. Everything that we know and despise – denigration of straight white men; attacks and mockery of patriotism and tradition, promotion of mass third world immigration, homosexuality, feminism; support for globalisation, open borders and extinction of national sovereignty; demands for increased welfare handouts, regardless of the growth of national debt; you know the drill by know – is represented by Auntie, as the BBC slightly sinisterly monikers itself.

For this reason, I decided to delve into the belly of the beast with expectations of the above. What horrors would the (((elites))) push when they had million of eyes (albeit most of them female and/or homosexual) pointed toward their machinery of degeneracy.

Within 30 seconds, they had made their mark.

The show was filmed this week in Blackpool, northern England. I have never visited the place myself, but I understand that it has been spared the influx of Pakistani Muslims that has blighted other parts of Lancashire, and remains recognisably English. Nevertheless, the opening seconds portrayed “ordinary residents” welcoming the show to Blackpool: in order: a female police officer; a seemingly half-caste (“mixed-race” if you wish to be PC, which I don’t) man; a male drag queen; two homosexual men; an East Asian NOWAG type; and two children, one of whom was South Asian.

WTF?

It was literally unrecognisable. This is the Britain that the globohomo elite wants: a deracinated, rootless serf mass, entertained by glitzy TV pap.

Perhaps this had something to do with one of the (foreigh, natch) dancers getting his teeth knocked out by a bunch of locals after the show.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38047558

Until recently, I was pessimistic. I thought that my country, and western civilisation as a whole, was destined to become the degenerate melee that the producers of Strictly and everything else in the mainstream media want it to become.

But given the events of the past few years, culminating in the Glorious Trumpening, the fightback seems to be on.

There have been other societies in seemingly worse state than us. The Soviet Union, for instance, which in the 1930s was being destroyed by relatives of the same (((elites))) doing such damage to us. Sure, the mass media was less pervasive back then, but there was also no internet with which to spread the message of resistance.

What’s more, the Cheka or NKVD (later to become the KGB), the predominantly Jewish-led Communist secret police, was able to physically torture and murder its enemies – and anyone it suspected of being its enemy – with utter impunity. It hasn’t got that far in today’s West. They can attack us, possibly cause us economic hardship (although, as Roosh optimistically pointed out in a piece at returnofkings,com this week, the power of the SJW mob to get people fired appears to have peaked) but they can’t simply round us up and murder us.

Strictly Come Dancing and most of the rest of the mass media is superficially attractive, full of smiling, good-looking, well-lit people making noises about vague concepts such as “love”, to the accompaniment of uplifting music. Yet a cursory examination beneath the skin, from the underlying degenerate message being transmitted, to the actual production process itself which is rife with casting couch rape, paedophilia and and so on, shows a markedly different reality.

This reality is one about which growing numbers of ordinary people in the West are becoming aware, and are rejecting. This is a movement, and we are growing.

The Grand Tour

Just finished watching episode 1 of The Grand Tour, the new Jeremy Clarkson motoring show on Amazon Prime. I signed up especially for it, and it wasn’t a mistake – the show had all the magic of Top Gear, boosted by a bigger budget.

If you aren’t aware of the Clarkson/Top Gear saga, Jeremy Clarkson is a well-known media figure in Britain; and indeed around the world, thanks to global syndication of his hugely popular motoring show, Top Gear.

I say motoring show; in fact, it is much more than that, centering around Clarkson and his two fellow middle-aged white co-presenters, Richard Hammond and James May, discussing cars and exchanging banter with each other on set; inviting celebrities to drive a car around the track and then exchanging banter with them; travelling all over to perform silly races and other daft vehicle-related stunts and then – or indeed, simultaneously – exchanging banter with each other; you get the picture.

The show had stratospheric ratings, and earned the BBC – the network on which it aired – a vast amount of money as it was bought by countless foreign TV networks. So surely its creator and star would have been a hero at the BBC, right?

Wrong.

Clarkson spent virtually his entire 13-year run with the show under attack from his superiors at the BBC. They didn’t care about his vast ratings and foreign earnings. Partly because the BBC is funded by a mandatory tax on anyone in the UK who owns a TV, so its executives large salaries are guaranteed regardless of the performance of its shows. But more importantly than that, it was because Clarkson did not and does not conform to the BBC’s left-wing Social Justice Agenda.

The BBC’s left-leaning political bias is well known and well documented, most particularly on the subjects of immigration and race, where it serves as a central pillar of the ongoing effort to replace the British people with a vast swarm of third-world serfs, to be paid minimum-wage by their media-political-financial-corporate overlords.

Anyone who dares dissent from the ongoing invasion – most latterly by complaining that the so-called migrant “children” permitted entry into Britain from the Calais Jungle camp on the basis of their supposed age, were in fact grown men with crows’ feet – risks the wrath of the BBC’s amply-funded, multiple-platform cannons of political correctness.

Given that Clarkson and his two co-stars are all white, straight, middle-aged men who occasionally used politically incorrect (but invariably funny) humour as part of the show, they were always on a hiding to nothing: the BBC couldn’t allow normal men to see and identify with people like them, without going through the prism of political correctness first.

And so there was a manufactured controversy every year or so, over some innocent comedic remark that Clarkson made. When mocking Mexicans, he claimed that their diet consisted of “refried sick”; he heavily criticised the Ferrari F430 Speciale by suggesting its name be changed to “Speciale Needs” (British slang for retards); he claimed, obviously in jest, that striking public sector workers “should be shot”; and worst of all, he was captured on camera almost saying the word “nigger”, when he recited the nursery rhyme: “Eeny meeny miney mo, catch a nigger by the toe”. In fact, he dipped his voice when saying “nigger”, so the word was inaudible. But still, it was enough for the BBC to head up the lynch mob. A lynch mob consisting of no normal people, just the well-paid politically correct commissars of that organisation.

In the end, Clarkson was eventually fired for a “fracas” involving a show producer’s failure to provide food for the presenters after a long day of filming. The incident was not caught on camera, but there was apparently a bit of handbags, as they say; some pushing or shoving, but no injury of any severity. The fact that the producer involved later went to hospital despite all witnesses stating that he was not injured in the slightest, suggests a level of skulduggery and pre-planning.

One incident in particular, however, gives us a brief glimpse behind the curtain to show the manner in which a (((certain group))) exercises vice-like control over what is seen on our television screens.

Didier Drogba is an African footballer from the Ivory Coast, and was a star player at Clarkson’s favourite football team, Chelsea. (((Danny Cohen))) is a media executive from Skypia, who was at the time the Controller of BBC One, Clarkson’s channel. (Cohen left the BBC soon after Clarkson’s sacking, having completed his task).

Clarkson owns a black dog, which he had named “Didier Dogba” in comic tribute to his team’s player. I include a link explaining what happened next (apologies for the HuffPo link, but if even a far-left site reports it there can be no doubting its veracity)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-clarkson-bbc-relationship_uk_56ed3bffe4b0fbd4fe080056

Yes, the controller of BBC One hauled Clarkson into his office and wasted his time to threaten him over naming his black dog after a black footballer.

This lunacy was part of the ongoing Skype assault from all sides, intended to harass, bully, threaten and intimidate Clarkson – the only significant figure on the BBC who was not a politically correct, pro-immigration cultural Marxist – into leaving.

In the end, it didn’t work: Clarkson didn’t leave, and had to be fired over some trumped-up, likely pre-planned nothing.

The only reason this dog/Cohen incident is in the public eye is because Clarkson himself raised it in his column for The Sun newspaper. Cohen no doubt hissed with anger upon reading it; his type prefer to stay unseen, manipulating, threatening, pressurising and pulling strings from behind the scenes in order to mould mass media to the messages they want to put out. And we know what those are.

How many more instances must there have been in the corridors of media power, in which the Skypocracy and their shabbas goyim conspired to destroy another ordinary, plain-speaking white man such as Clarkson; or more likely, prevent him from ever gaining a platform in the first place.

Thank goodness for the internet. And thank goodness for Donald Trump.

NB The show Top Gear was brought back without any of the three original presenters (Hammond and May commendably refused the BBC’s offer to stay, and left with Clarkson for Amazon Prime). Its new presenting team included multiple ethnic minorities and women. It was a critical and ratings failure, and its lead presenter quit before the end of the season.

Sometimes there are happy endings. Just like Trump and Brexit. We are winning.

 

 

Heard the one about the Google, the Skype, and the Bindi?

BBCWatch latest: “Some MPs ready to vote against triggering Brexit”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37944473

“Former Labour minister David Lammy and shadow transport minister Daniel Zeichner have said they would oppose Article 50. Opposition whip Thangam Debbonaire said she would also vote against it, if a vote were held imminently.”

David Lammy lammy

(((Daniel Zeichner))), whose father “fled Austria in the 1930s” etc etc. And check the hooter for Christ’s (ahem) sake zeichner

Thangam Debbonaire, whose father was both Tamil and unable to spell

thangam

So, we have a Google, a Skype, and a Bindi, all put into power via the corrupt and co-opted selection process of the establishment political parties, conspiring to undermine the will of the British people. And the BBC, of course, covering it positively.

And here, the BBC complaining about Facebook’s role in Trump’s victory (yes, seriously!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37936225

“That’s where the idea of a filter bubble comes into play – those inclined to vote for Mr Trump will only see stories that reflect their view of the world and the same will apply to those of a liberal mindset.”

“The News Feed algorithm serves you up whatever it thinks you and your friends want to believe and it certainly does not do any fact-checking.”

“For a Trump campaign that saw much of the mainstream media as hostile and biased, both Facebook and Twitter offered a powerful way of getting its message direct to voters unchallenged by any pesky journalists.”

And the killer line: “there are few signs that the company is ready to face up to this heavy responsibility or engage in some serious soul-searching.”

Putting aside the obvious fact that (((Zuckerberg))) is a renowned shitlib, notorious for shutting down free speech on Facebook such as that regarding crimes – particularly rapes – committed by illegals under its Orwellian “Community Standards”, would the BBC be talking about Facebook’s “heavy responsibility” or “soul searching” if its news feed had led to a Hillary victory?

Would it fuck.

To boil it down, the BBC is demanding that libmedia bile be forced down everyone’s throat on Facebook and other social media. Kind of like things used to be in the good old, bad old days of controlled legacy media (TV, radio, newspapers) when “pesky journalists” – and their handlers – controlled all access to information.

Lastly, the BBC bleats that “a black child is 12 times less likely to become PM”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37949332

They mean Prime Minister of Britain, of course. It’s rather more likely than the possibility of a white child becoming President of South Africa, or Pakistan. But don’t hold your breath for a BBC expose about horrific racism inherent in the political structure of those countries. Or indeed any non-white ones.

 

What do they want?

tl;dr – they (elites) want open borders oneworldgov which can never be voted out of office, in order to create a vast market of serf labour which they can use to enrich themselves by paying peanuts wages and selling distracting tat.

————————————————————————–

Why?

The big question.

Why are they doing what they are doing?

I’ll assume that, if you’ve got to this point, you’ve accepted the existence of a media-political-financial “establishment”, “elite”, “(((elite)))”, “Cathedral”, whatever you want to call it, which has pretty much called the shots in the West this past half century.

The political wing has pushed, the media wing has glorified, and the financial wing has funded: mass third world immigration; integration of ethnic communities; globalisation and elimination of trade barriers

Needless to say, the same wings have blocked, demonised, and defunded anyone who has opposed these issues.

But why?

These things do not help the majority of people in the West. Most people do not want large numbers of third world immigrants. Their culture is entirely different, most particularly with Muslims, as is well documented; but also with blacks, whose greater propensity for violence and lower average IQ is a clear truth ferociously shielded by the elite (see Mearsheimer and Walt, Dr James Watson, et al.)

Globalisation doesn’t help most people in the West, either. This can be seen by the rust belt in America, and the shuttered shipyards and mines in Britain, whose production has moved to China or Mexico where workers can be paid a tiny fraction of the good salaries on which American and British men could comfortably raise families in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

They do, however, help the people at the very top.

Mass immigration increases the labour supply. As basic students of economics will know, an increase in the supply of something leads to a decrease in its price. The price of labour is wages. Therefore, wages will fall. Not the wages of the people at the top of society, of course; the elite themselves, the banking CEOs, high-priced lawyers, cuckservative politicos, etc. Their positions will not be threatened by shipping in a boatload of Bantus, the vast majority of whom would be genetically incapable of mastering the mental machinations required in said fields.

The wages under threat are those of manual labourers: auto workers, shipbuilders; tradesmen. The kind of jobs that most people do. Or used to do.

The owners of these operations, and the cronies whom they fund, are funded by, and generally swish champagne flutes of elite money around with (see aforementioned bankers, politicos, lawyers, media) are therefore delighted with mass immigration. They can pay workers less, and break unions.

What’s more, the Bantus/Afghans/whoever will be happy to do these jobs for a fraction of the salary westerners used to get, because it’s still a lot more than they would earn back home.

I touched on this in the earlier Saudi post. The Saudis have exploited this to pay low wages to third worlders, but on a temporary basis, and ensuring a large proportion of the dividend is used to benefit ordinary Saudi citizens. We suckers in the West have allowed our elites to give away citizenship, one of our most valuable possessions, to these immigrants (with the media wing and its shrieks of “raaaaaacist” one of the prime weapons in our acquiescence), and give ordinary people nothing in return. Quite the contrary.

That’s the immigration. What about globalisation?

Similar reasons: to enrich the elite.

If they can increase their market, they will sell more, and make more money. Even better, if they can base their facilities anywhere in the world, they can reduce costs even more, and make more profit. To do this, they need to ensue that there are no tariffs and other trade barriers. Hence NAFTA, the EU, and the like, which were sold to people on the basis that “free trade increases overall wealth”.

Well, maybe it does. But it increases far more the proportion of the wealth which goes to the elites. They don’t give a flying fuck about workers in Scranton or Sheffield who have been thrown out of a job because their factory has moved to somewhere the owners can scrimp on safety and pay the workers a plate of beans a day. They care similarly little that these workers are now reduced to minimum wage serfjobs in Dollar General or Poundland, or that they can’t afford to move their families out of their area which is rapidly being turned to shit by an influx of Somali, Afghan or Mexican immigrants, with the attendant social problems (place your bets on what happens first: their kids are raped, hooked on heroin, or beaten for insulting allah).

They’re not thinking about any of that, as the money rolls in.

Many of (((them))) are indeed Eskimo. Ahem. (Jewish, for newbies). Whether the entire process is completely kosher-fuelled is an ongoing debate. Many of them are not. Some might describe the latter as traitors. Some might say they simply don’t care: they don’t feel any kinship with the working classes, regardless of whether they share a background with them. They would be just as happy ruling over a working class of white Anglo serfs named John Smith as they would a working (or indeed non-working) class of mystery meat mud named Juan Salim Mohammed.

Indeed, the latter might be better for them. A homogenous working class, with people of similar background and values, is more likely to unify against them. A Tower of Babel of hostile ethnic enclaves, ever divided, will not. As long as they can be kept distracted by various pieces of tat, televised and otherwise, sold to them by you-know-who, they will not be able to unify to a degree that will allow serious opposition to the open borders globalisation project.

This can be seen in the Trump election stats. A large majority of whites voted for him. The vast majority of muds did not. (Particularly amusing stat: only 4% of black women voted Trump. “Sha’niqu’a gon’ be mad as sheeeeeeeit”)

That is why it was so important for him to be elected now. After another decade of relentless third world immigration, the numbers may have made it impossible for America to be anything but a melee of serfs, serving Zuckerberg et al. Which is exactly what they want.

Now we have a chance to reassert ourselves. Trump, Brexit, and with any luck a Freedom Party victory in Austria in December. 2016 is the year we begin to take back our civilisation.

 

 

The media attacks, the web ripostes

The response to President Trump’s victory has been predictable, on the streets of America’s pozzed, depraved and overrun metropolitan areas, as well as in its allied libmedia. The BBC, lynchpin of Lib, posted approvingly about “protests” by “young people” over Trump’s “divisiveness”.

Unsurprisingly, they haven’t been covering the detail of these “protests”, which contain scenes like this:

Shock Video: Black Mob Viciously Beats White Trump Voter

As the article says, if it had been the other way round, with white Trump voters viciously assaulting a black Hillary voter and dragging him along the road as he tries to retrieve his vehicle, it would have been number one news story across the media. Obama would have held a near-tearful press conference; images of slavery and lynchings of black would have been evoked; Loretta Lynch would have sent in Federal investigators to investigate civil rights violations; and of course, they would all have demanded Donald Trump decry the actions of his supporters, blaming him for them regardless of what he did.

What has actually happened? Nothing.

If you got all your information from TV, radio and newspapers, first of all I pity you, and secondly there is no way that you could have known about this horrific, racist crime.

This is how things were until the birth of the internet, 20 years ago. It explains how they – some might say (((they))) – the establishment elite, starting 50 or 60 years ago, were able to transform stable and prosperous Western nations in which populations were homogenous and well-paying jobs were abundant, into vast airport departure lounges (h/t John Derbyshire) full of hostile ethnic enclaves, but deprived of employment opportunities above serf-level for anyone without multiple advanced degrees and personal connections.

It is how the “Civil Rights” movement was portrayed in universally glowing terms, and its leader, Martin Luther King, beatified; when in fact it was an assault upon the right of freedom of association, and MLK was a prostitute-beating plagiarist.

It is how mass third world immigration was allowed to happen on the sly. Senator Ted Kennedy, a quisling of the establishment elites, when passing the Immigration Act in the 1960s said that it would have minimal effect. In reality, literally tens of millions of third world immigrants have been allowed in.

Similarly in Britain, Margaret Thatcher said in the late 1970s that Britain felt “overrun” by immigrants, with the expectation that she would stop them. She was put into power throughout the 80s partly on the basis of this, but she did not act to stem the tide, while the media ignored it. Worse was to come with Tony Blair’s New Labour, a perfect distillation of precisely what the (((elite))) wanted: acceleration of third world immigration, despite the fact that this was not in any of Blair’s manifestos or speeches; combined with war against the (((elite)))’s enemies overseas. Invade the world, invite the world.

It is only really in the last 10 years or so, with the explosion of fast internet, and internet on phones (as opposed to the groaning whirrs and two minute per page loading times of 16k modems on huge desktop PCs in the 20th Century) that these issues have become discussed and disseminated among large numbers of people.

Thank goodness they have. Without access to information freed from establishment media gatekeepers, videos like the above would remain hidden. The corruption, lies, and goals of the establishment would remain plausibly deniable. And Donald Trump could never have been elected to counter it all.

Thoughts on the desert kingdom

Having spent a fair amount of time working in Saudi Arabia, I’ve been struck by its relevance to various themes on the Alt Right, Manosphere, libmedia hypocrisy, etc.

First of all, I can tell you, it’s a crazy place. They really do shut down the entire country for prayers five times a day. Restaurants really do have an apartheid-style “Single Men” section, completely separate, even including different entrances, from the “Family” area. There really is a highly visible religious police force, which struts around shopping malls and other public places enforcing all of the above, and ensuring that women are properly covered, and checking the IDs of men and women who are together. If they aren’t married or blood relatives, it’s off to the cells and the lash (and I ain’t talking booze, which is, of course, banned).

90% of the Saudi women walk round in full ninja outfits – all in black, with the little slit to see through – and as a foreign man, you are highly unlikely ever to so much as speak with one, let alone do anything more. The same is true of regular unmarried young Saudis without connections, which may explain why so many of them head north to fight for Daesh and bag themselves a couple of sex slaves.

Fortunately for the sanity of single Western men, there are plenty of young foreign females in the country, predominantly nurses of the cute young Filipina variety. Some of them are treated like prisoners, but generally those working for bigger hospitals are allowed out at weekends.

A Tinder date here, A Tagged match there, and before you know it they’re round at my compound. Yes, compound; not, not exclusively mine. Foreigners with better jobs are given accommodation in large, rather luxurious compounds, which are surrounded by vast walls and armed guards since one of the was attacked, with many casualties, in the early 2000s.

In these places, the normal rules of Saudi life do not apply. Women and men can mix openly, wearing whatever they like (in a pleasing twist, women are often banned from wearing the Islamic hijab headscarf), there are no prayer closures, and plenty of homebrew and parties of varying quality.

But what does all this have to do with Pepe, Roosh and the drive-bys?

Well, as an aside, it’s another brick in the vast wall of hypocrisy that is Crooked Hillary Clinton. She and her very, very good friend Huma are bosom buddies with the Saudis, taking their oil millions and turning a blind eye to the fact that women are essentially chattel, prevented by law from driving, and unable to work, go to school, leave the country or do pretty much anything without the written consent of their husband or father. Or, in the case they have neither, another male relative, right down to an infant son.

However, what is really interesting is the immigration policy.

It’s said that Saudi’s wealth comes from oil. That is only partly true. Another major source is their exploitation of migrant labour.

I mentioned previously the vast – and vastly appreciated – preponderence of Filipina nurses. The idea of Saudi women working in this manner would be unthinkable – “a Saudi woman is a pot of gold”, I was told on more than one occasion.

Saudi men don’t do a great deal more. Hence the huge number of migrants of various nationalities: Pakistani drivers, Indian clerks, Bangladeshi streetsweepers, Filipino mechanics, and many more.

There is intense racial stratification in the country. White people are treated much better than Asians. On my very first day, as I was standing in the arrivals hall of the airport waiting for my company driver to show up, I was surrounded by a huge gaggle of Bengalis. A security guard came over and began roughly shooing them out of the way, but left me completely alone. The same was true of the religious police, who often made Asians in shopping malls move away from Saudi women, but ignored my proximity to their pots of gold.

Shitlibs, as Heartiste enjoyably terms those still attached to the libmedia hivemind matrix, will be tearing up by now: well, don’t expect your politicians to do anything about it (see Crooked Hillary). But, in harsh realpolitik terms, the Saudis are beating us hands down.

Foreign workers are used to benefit the Saudi economy for as long as they are required, be that 3 weeks or 30 years; they are then thanked and put on a plane home. No government welfare benefits of any kind are provided to unemployed foreigners. Once you are found to be in the country illegally, you will be deported within days, with no possible appeal. The only cause of delay may be if you are liable to pay a fine, in which case you will be held in immigration detention until it is paid, or until you have served a certain period of time.

In 2013, the authorities instigated a huge round-up of work visa overstayers and people who had come in fraudulently for the Islamic Haj (Saudi does not issue tourist visas) and deported over a million of them. For a country of 25 million people, this was a big operation.

It doesn’t matter how long you have lived in Saudi Arabia, or even if you were born there. You will not be granted Saudi citizenship – and the fairly generous benefits therein – unless your father is a Saudi citizen. End of story.

Compare this to the West.

Any featherless biped who walks, swims, sails or flies across our borders without a visa merely has to utter the word “asylum” and his or her presence is guaranteed in the country for years to come, if not forever.

Illegals and “asylum-seekers” are rarely detained, and simply permitted to go free into our societies. They are provided with housing, heath care and welfare benefits. If and when their case ever comes to court, they are provided with a legal aid lawyer. If they lose the case, they can appeal several times, all of which drags on for many years. When they lose the “final” appeal, they are not taken into custody, and can simply vanish. They are provided with interpreters for all dealings with the authorities. If they have children, the children are provided with free education; in reality, this allows them to claim they have a “stable family life”, which invariably precludes their deportation.

Having stayed in the country for a certain amount of time, in Europe at least, they are entitled to citizenship. If they can have an anchor baby, it gets birthright citizenship, which gives their legal aid lawyer another reason to plead for them to stay.

And the costs of all of this? They, of course, are borne by the taxpayer.

This is just the illegals. There was a bravely-documented recent case in the British media, of a “French” citizen (actually from Cameroon) who showed up in Britain perfectly legally with his entire vast brood, and racked up a bill approaching a million quid in welfare for himself, his wife and his seven children: house, health, education, money for clothes, food, TVs, Playstations, phones, transport…..and of course an education grant for himself. You see, he didn’t have a job, or even a skill: he was in “training” to become a psychiatric nurse. Salary £20,000, of which he might eventually pay £5000 in tax. So, an outlay of over a million, for a return of a few thousand.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3782656/PLATELL-S-PEOPLE-Shameless-family-proves-right-vote-Brexit.html

Compare this to Saudi Arabia. If they need a psychiatric nurse, they will recruit a qualified one from abroad, fly him in – probably on a single visa without his family – pay him the agreed salary – much less than £20,000 if he is from Cameroon – and when he is no longer required, fly him back home again. The Saudi system extracts greater value from the employee, and at perhaps 1% of the total cost to the British “system”. No wonder we are billions in debt.

On the subject of citizenship, children of Saudi women with non-Saudi fathers are not granted Saudi citizenship, even if born in Saudi. This creates the awkward situation of a kid reaching the age of 18 and being told he is persona non grata in the only place he has ever called home. Tough break. But a connoisseur of the Manosphere would see the logic behind it.

RooshV is the well-known activist and founder of the prominent site http://www.returnofkings.com. I knew Roosh was onto something when he became the subject of a drive-by media two-minutes-hate for his plan to organise worldwide meetups between like-minded, “redpilled” men. “Redpill” is a reference from the movie “The Matrix”, which refers to those who have decided to look beyond the pretty lies of the libmedia hivemind.

Roosh has written of the problems inherent to a society which fails to place any sexual restrictions whatsoever on its women. When they are able, and indeed encouraged to go out slutting it up, or “riding the cock carousel”, as he delicately puts it, the result is a generation of entitled snowflakes who think they are Carrie Bradshaw from Sex and the City, waiting for a tall, good-looking, multi-millionaire Alpha Male to sweep them off their feet. A Donald Trump, in fact, not that many of them would admit it.

Most men aren’t up to those standards.

In times of greater sexual restraint, women would be paired off with men of similar status, looks, and sexual market value. Now, however, they don’t want to settle for anything less than Leo, so they spend their prime childbearing years on an invariable futile quest round the nightspots of Manhattan for just that. When they fail, they become bitter. Do men prefer chewed-up 30somethings with a three-figure cock count and the wrinkles beginning to show, or doe-eyed 20 year old ingenues to whom they can teach exciting new tricks in the bedroom?

The answer is clear. And so the vast majority of non-Alpha men are left with ageing, bitter sluts. They don’t like each other; they don’t excite each other; they are both settling. Hence unhappiness, divorce, fatherless children, and further societal problems thus caused.

Saudi Arabia, I think, goes too far in the opposite direction. The fact that women in Saudi are so completely restricted is causing problems of a different kind, with men becoming so frustrated that they turn to Islamic extremism in the search for sex slaves; or alternatively to drugs and buggery out of frustrated boredom.

However, there is undoubtedly something to be said for finding a middle path between encouraging teenage girls to engage in empowering bukkake sessions on the one hand, and forcing them to walk round dressed as postboxes watched over by wild-eyed religious lunatics on the other.

It may be that Russia has found that middle path, with freedom tempered by growing cultural conservatism. That might explain why the libmedia hivemind is so ferociously opposed to Putin, while strangely tolerant of the far more despotic Chinese Communists. Can’t have white people figuring out another way to do things, can we?

As for the Saudis, for all their current oil price woes, I think that their closed system of exploiting foreign labour and focusing the national wealth on the established citizenry will ensure stability for their society for longer than the open borders/handout free-for-all in Europe and, until Donald Trump’s election, in the USA. If I had to place a bet on which of Saudi Arabia and Germany were more likely to exist in their current form in fifty years, my money would be on Fahad, not Fritz.

Indeed, by then, Fahad may be the more common name in both localities.