2016 began, for me, in the Philippines, where I now am. It had a less than auspicious beginning: I remember my shock at hearing about the death of David Bowie. But, while the toll of celebrities continued, this was not the most surprising thing about the year by any means.
That something was afoot became clear early on, in May, when Rodrigo Duterte, a fast talking populist, was elected as president of the Philippines. Most people in the West hardly noticed this, but it was a straw in the wind. It is true that Duterte’s route to power was laid open by the Philippines electoral system, which is single-stage, and the fact that the centrist vote was split between two popular candidates, Mar Roxas and Grace Poe. Duterte exploited this division expertly and won, on around 38% of the vote.
Was this the authoritarian right on the march, or a natural expression of discontent with perceived misgovernment, corruption and crime? The Philippines is not particularly criminal, when compared to other countries, but it is certain that Filipinos feel threatened. Even pharmacies have armed security guards and traffic police carry pump-action shotguns. One wonders what type of moving traffic offence they imagine they might have to deal with. The fact, however, is more prosaic: Filipinos feel reassured when there is plenty of security around and they like to see the guns. Strong men and a desire for security: these elected Duterte and would have effects elsewhere.
2016 EU referendum
A month later, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. 2016 was certainly shaping up. As the days passed after the history June 23 vote, the reasons began to clarify. This was a reaction, principally, against immigration. It was a vote for ‘British values’ and a condemnation of multiculturalism.
This has always been a problematic issue in the UK, but it had been deliberately suppressed because, prior to the EU’s open market, most immigration had been from former colonies. The largest single group was of Muslims from the Indian subcontinent. Dissatisfaction — which was mounting — against this was suppressed because it was falsely claimed to be ‘racist’. So in the end, the blame fell on Polish workers — other EU citizens.
The Poles and other European citizens who arrived after 1991 caught the backlash to a completely different, older, migration, from a culture hostile and complete alien to European values: Muslim migrants from former British colonies. These have resolutely refused to integrate into UK society. Instead they have built ghettoes where no native Briton dare enter; enclaves of Islam in Europe.
The objection to Muslim immigration is not that they have differently coloured skin, but that they refuse to adopt the secular values of the society to which they have come and, instead, attempt to replicate the conditions in the lands they came from. These conditions, where women are lower class citizens, where they are the literal property of men, where wife-beating and slavery is condoned, where child abuse is normal and where violence is endemic, are antipathetic to our values. Islam cannot exist peacefully in a secular Europe.
Poles and other eastern Europeans are Christians; their cultures bear no resemblance to the Dark Age nightmare of Islam. Yet they paid the price for the failed experiment of ‘multiculturalism’.
Indeed, and shocking as it may seem, we now know that a majority of ‘Asian’ — the standard euphemism for Muslim — immigrants, living in the UK, voted to leave the European Union so that they could restrict the numbers of European workers in favour of greater influx of Muslims. Because they are now such a large constituency, this was enough to have swayed the narrow vote towards leave. So the UK will leave the EU to enable even more Muslims, who are totally opposed to European culture and intend to replace it with their own, to enter. Yahoo.
There is no doubt about the danger, as a drive through any Muslim area — in a locked car, at speed — in the UK will prove. These areas have been turned into Islamic hell-holes and they will spread, like the cancer they are; and the intention of the Muslim community is to enable this.
The likelihood is that Brexit will not happen, at least not in the manner that ‘Leavers’ imagined; but the damage has been done. European citizens, skilled, committed, talented workers contributing to the UK economy, who share our values, now know they are not welcome. They can take but cold comfort from knowing that the anger was directed not at them but at another, larger, hostile community of immigrants, who have been protected for decades by the failed policy of ‘multiculturalism’ while they do their best to impose the worst of their culture on us.
Things seemed pretty bleak as 2016 wore on; the migrant crisis across Europe accelerated and the arrogance of European elected leaders knew no bounds. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, in particular, who has done more than any other single politician to destroy Europe, carried on apace in her determination to suppress any dissent to her corrosive policy: of accommodating a flood of economic migrants from backward Muslim areas, whose people have no understanding of Europe, but who hate it anyway. The smug self-satisfaction of a bigoted woman achieving what she desired — the emasculation of white men — was sickening.
Then, in October, the most unexpected thing happened: Donald Trump began to look like a contender.
Prior to spring of 2016, Trump had been a loose cannon, a political naïf who seemed sure to be mauled, chewed up and spat out by the slick political machines he was fighting. But he had a stroke of genius and appointed Steve Bannon as CEO of his election campaign.
Bannon is smart, tough and committed. A former naval officer, he has been a Hollywood producer and an entrepreneur. Most germane, however, was that he was the publisher of Breitbart News, a conservative online news source that intended to break the liberal stranglehold of the mainstream media, which has spread over into the online sources. Indeed, some of these sources, notably Twitter, openly sided with the regressive left in its attempt to silence all dissent.
Bannon focussed Trump and defined his message. While the candidate continued a wildfire and often baffling barrage of tweets on a daily basis, the campaign became much more adroit. Realising that they could not win states like California, which were sure to vote Democrat by a huge margin, the campaign focussed on marginals in the so-called ‘rust belt’. By nominating Mike Pence, a hard-line fundamentalist Christian, as running mate, Trump put the Evangelical vote largely in his pocket. The target became the working people who had voted for Obama in 2008.
The US’ peculiar system of Presidential election, the Electoral College, tends to devalue votes in the larger states and boost the value of those in the smaller ones. Trump made his greatest effort in exactly those states, like Michigan, where voter dissatisfaction with the liberal elite was highest and where there was a perception that Obama had failed to deliver relief from unemployment and falling wages. These were also the states whose Electoral College votes carried most weight.
Hillary Clinton is a paperweight party apparatchik that the Democrats had finagled into their nomination after using ‘super-delegates’ to torpedo Bernie Sanders. Yet her hubris was such that she hardly visited the crucial swings states that were so valuable in Electoral College votes. She could not bring herself to, because she had bought, wholesale, into the modern female/black supremacist notion that white men were despicable and beneath her, especially unreconstructed white men who had no use for Political Correctness.
Clinton could not bring herself, with her white, patrician, female supremacist sense of entitlement, to even address the concerns of the millions of white Americans whose lives had been ruined by Democrat-voting college boys — and girls — in far off cities. So arrogant was she — and with her Obama — that she could not even apologise for the colossal disaster that his presidency had been, for just such people as these. She would as soon have consigned them to the scrap heap as the cars they once made.
But voters do have a voice and they do not appreciate being told to ‘vote for me or I’ll call you a bigot’. In Trump these voters found a candidate they could get behind, and not just the men, but the women too. Women all over the swing states abandoned the Democrats and voted for Trump — probably because they, most clearly of all, recognised Clinton for what she is — a power-hungry opportunist who would betray anyone it suited her to.
By focussing on the very states that Clinton would not deign to campaign in, but which were the ‘low-hanging fruit’ in terms of College votes, Trump, with Bannon’s capable assistance, won. The effectiveness of the strategy is measured in the margin of his victory — nearly 80 Electoral College votes.
It didn’t matter what the ‘popular vote’ was, because that is not how the game is played. We now know that Clinton’s margin in California accounted for her ‘popular victory’. In the basket of the other 49 states, Trump won both the popular vote and the Electoral College. The system worked exactly as it should, by preventing one, large, powerful state from deciding the presidency. That Bannon and Trump had foreseen this and exploited it was just good strategy: the Democrats were outsmarted, outflanked and outclassed.
A sigh of relief
All over the world, a huge sigh of relief was heard. Clinton had been the architect of the unnecessary and illegal invasion of Libya and a supporter, with Obama, of the Muslim Brotherhood-backed ‘Arab Spring.’ Together they had slaughtered hundreds of thousands across the middle East and they are responsible for the migrant crisis now threatening Europe. Clinton in the White House promised more and more of the same.
Europe, today, faces an existential threat, but to at least some extent, that threat has reduced. Clinton, a proven warmonger and devotee of ‘regime change’ will not now have the most powerful job in the world; she will be unable to effect even more destruction.
Few of us, outside the US, care very much what Trump does inside it. What we want is an end to US interventions and its attempt to force American democracy on peoples who are culturally unable to accept it. Whatever Assad and Gadaffi’s faults, they preserved stable regimes where people prospered under the rule of law. All Obama and Clinton brought was death and destruction, and Europe now pays the price for their self-righteous, entitled hubris.
The other bright light of 2016 is undoubtedly the appearance, in the full flood of publicity, of Milo Yiannopoulous. For those who do not know, Yiannopoulous is a Greek Jewish English journalist. He is flamboyantly gay, a self-professed ‘bottom’ and has a preference for black men, presumably with large cocks. He has also identified exactly the enemies we must face and defeat: the female-supremacist, race-supremacist and ‘LGBTQI’ social justice warriors who have infested Western campuses.
SJWs — spoiled, immature prigs
Nobody ‘triggers’ these spoiled, immature prigs better than Milo and they hate him for it. Despite their incandescent rage, he carries on his Dangerous Faggot speaking tour of the US. There is no doubt that Milo is doing more to reclaim the political incentive for gay men than two generations of ‘accommodationist’ gays have managed. Finally a gay man who is happy to be gay, submissive and effeminate. It’s a breath of fresh air for them, but also for all of us. Milo speaks as a man who has had enough of the female/black supremacist hegemony. He speaks for us all.
There is a singular satisfaction in seeing the enemies of free speech sent scurrying back to their comfort blankets and safe zones by a confident man who just will not shut up. And this is made all the more delicious because Milo is of a racial minority, is gay and prefers black lovers. This makes him immune to jibes of ‘homophobe’ or ‘bigot’. That he has a proper education, is ferociously intelligent and articulate, just makes it all the more delicious.
2016 was made even sweeter when it was announced that Simon and Schuster had paid Milo $250,000 for his book, Dangerous. Long before it hit the shelves it went to number one on Amazon’s bestseller list. All over the West, whining SJWs are screaming in their quiet rooms, tearing up their comfort blankets and kicking the living crap out of their bunnies and puppies. Well done Milo; and thank you, Simon and Schuster; some small part of my faith in the publishing business has been restored.
A bad year?
2016 was, in many ways, a bad year; but maybe it was a watershed. The crisis in Europe continues to escalate, but there are signs now that the regressive multiculturalist left will be pushed back at last. Undoing fifty years of damage will be a tough task and before we can even begin, the tide of non-European migrants must be halted and reversed. This will be difficult but not impossible. Then we must begin to repatriate those non-European migrants who do not fully accept our values. Unfortunately, because we are so late in waking up to the threat, we may have to repatriate their descendants too. Meantime we must begin a huge reprogramming drive, close all mosques and Islamic faith schools and ensure proper tuition in secular values for those who wish to remain. These are onerous tasks but our alternative is bloody civil war, within the decade.
All over the Internet and social media, the pernicious SJWs are in full retreat as common-sense people challenge them. Ordinary white people — the majority in the West — are rejecting the glib nonsense of Politically Correct shaming and virtue signalling. We are not bigots for pointing out that one’s sex is fixed and that there are only two genders; nor are we bigots for pointing out that Islam is a horrific death cult that detests and abuses women; no more are we for pointing out that no Western European has been a slave-owner for over a century and a half, or that the US has had a black President, disaster though he was, that there is no gender pay gap, that LGBT people are well protected under our laws, or that people from ethnic minorities and poor backgrounds are offered easier access to education than the rest of us.
We live in mature democracies where people are rewarded for their efforts, not for their genders or skin colours, and where ideas may be freely criticised — and should be. This depends on free speech, and it is past time that the regressive left’s constant attempts to prevent it be made subject to legal sanction. Media companies like Facebook and Twitter (they are not, despite their protestations, ‘technology companies’) should be fined eye-watering amounts for censorship. Offending other people is a right we have as part of free speech and if you are offended, grow a set.
It is very much to be hoped that Trump’s election will prove the catalyst that leads to the destruction of the regressive left and enables Europe to survive. The fight will be hard and we shall have to seize the chance with both hands, but I am looking forward to 2017.