Fantastic news. It seems that under Trump, America has finally come to its senses in regards to Syria, and now realises, that getting rid of Assad, probably isn’t the best idea. In case you’re wondering as to why I think it’s a good thing to support keeping Assad in power, please read these two previouspost of mine.
The US diplomatic policy on Syria is no longer focused on making the war-torn country’s president Bashar al-Assad leave power, the US ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday, in a departure from the Obama administration’s initial and public stance on his fate.
This is the logical decision. I’m not saying that Assad is necessarily a saint himself, but the only alternative to him, was allowing the country to be overrun and conquered by ISIS, Al-Nusra, and other jihadist groups. Despite the propaganda in the western media, there is no evidence that any viable “moderate opposition” to Assad even exists.
The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Mr Assad must step down. “You pick and choose your battles and when we’re looking at this, it’s about changing up priorities and our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out,” US Ambassador Nikki Haley told reporters.
Isn’t it funny, how the West always talks about how much they respect “democracy”, yet when a leader they don’t approve of is democratically elected, he has to go? It’s even worse, when you also consider the fact that Russia is backing Assad. They’re willing to risk a confrontation with Russia, all to get rid of a leader they don’t approve of.
“Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes. Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No. What we are going to focus on is putting the pressure in there so that we can start to make a change in Syria.”
A good change would be to stop supporting the terrorists that are trying to destroy the country.
The Obama administration, in its later years, was focused on reaching a deal with Russia that would eventually see Assad go, though it also shifted its focus to the fight against Isil, who captured swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria in 2014.
As presidential nominee, Donald Trump said defeating Isil was a higher priority than persuading Mr Assad to step down.
There it is, stated outright, that getting rid of Assad, was a higher priority to them than stopping ISIS, before Trump took over. Does any normal person (even those who don’t approve of Assad) honestly believe that ISIS is the lesser of two evils? You can be sure as well that if Hillary had won the election, she would be continuing Obama’s policies right now, even going as far as setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, possibly shooting down Russian planes in the process, and therefore starting World War 3 with Russia.
But who cares about that, right? Sure, a third world war would be bad, but at least she doesn’t say mean words, make jokes about grabbing pussy, or enforce basic immigration laws, like that monster, Trump.
“We can’t necessarily focus on Assad the way that the previous administration did,” said Ms Haley. “Our priority is to really look at how do we get things done, who do we need to work with to really make a difference for the people in Syria.”
I approve of this.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Hawaii indefinitely extended an order blocking enforcement of Mr Trump’s revised ban on travel to the US from six predominantly Muslim countries.
US District Judge Derrick Watson turned an earlier temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the state of Hawaii challenging Mr Trump’s travel directive as unconstitutional religious discrimination.
And this piece of shit judge is an idiot. Besides the fact that the US constitution only applies to US citizens (so it doesn’t matter if the ban discriminates against the religion of prospective immigrants, because, the US constitution doesn’t apply to them), the law is entirely on Trump’s side. In fact, it can be read right here.
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. “
^I don’t think it could be any clearer than that. This judge is just playing politics and is only wasting time. It’s inevitable that after it’s appealed, that a higher court, such as the Supreme Court (assuming it has a judge that interprets the law fairly) will overturn it. In the mean time, because of this judge, while we’re waiting for this to happen, potential terrorists, who would have been banned, will get into the country, and anybody who is killed by them, their blood will be on his hands.
Anyway, no point focusing on that. I’m just glad to know that America is finally going to do the right thing in regards to Syria. Not only will this be good in the sense of fostering a better relationship between Russia and America, but if the war is brought to its end, it takes away the justification for the current ongoing migrant crisis in Europe. I don’t expect migration to stop of course (because the war was only a convenient excuse to justify it), but when it keeps on happening after the war is over, and when migrants already in Europe aren’t getting sent back, it might wake up more people as to what is actually going on.
I remember a few months ago, shortly after Trump’s election victory, a girl on my Facebook “Friends” list, posted some pathetic self-flagellating article about white privilege. The gist of the article she posted, was this. The writer (a black woman) was lecturing white liberals who were upset that Trump won, that they had no right to talk about how upset they were, because they all had white privilege, and so only minorities had the right to talk about how upset they felt. My “friend” (a white liberal herself), didn’t dispute this. Instead, she agreed with it and posted it to virtue signal and to pontificate to the rest of us, probably with the expectation of a bunch of comments praising her for being so enlightened, and plenty of “likes”.
Instead of this happening, myself and one other guy questioned why she was posting such a condescending article and asked her why she thought it was alright for this person to generalise and attack people (people who ideologically agree with her no less), on the basis of their skin colour? We also questioned the validity of the existence of white privilege, and asked her to explain how it exists. Rather than respond to our questions in her own words, she just posted some really long articles that talked about white privilege, and tried to let the articles do the talking for her, rather than talking herself, and using the article as a source to confirm her own points. Very quickly, she stopped responding, both to me, and to the other guy who was questioning her. About a week or so later, she quietly unfriended me, possibly because I had offended her by daring to question her. I don’t think I was particularly offensive or aggressive btw. In fact, I can post the whole debate we had, right here, minus the links to the articles she posted (which I never bothered to save).
So here was my first comment:
“But what about the Hispanics, Black people, and members of other minority groups that chose to vote for Trump? How can it be assumed that it was racism that won out, in that regard? If anything, I think it’s attitudes like that of this author that helped cause the Trump victory. Instead of having civil and open dialogues with Trump supporters (of all demographics), trying to understand why they supported him, and listening to their concerns, there’s been nothing but insults, bullying, and shaming tactics against them and all this did was push them further towards him. Even now, instead of looking at the victory and trying to really understand why he won, there is still nothing but insults and tarring every person who voted for him with the same brush. Yes, I’m well aware of the KKK and Neo-Nazi support he received, but acting as if all his support was from people like that, isn’t constructive at all.”
She then replied:
“The value in the article is about evaluating privilege and bringing awareness to systemic racism in America. However you can clearly see in the election statistics that Trump won due to voter turnout in rural counties with overwhelmingly white populations.”
Along with the above comment, she posted a bunch of links to articles talking about how white privilege is totally a real thing, and not just some racist conspiracy theory designed to demonise white people as a whole.
So I replied:
“Of course, I’m well aware that the majority of Trump’s voters were white, but the point I’m making by bringing up the non-white Trump voters is that they do in fact exist. The media keeps focusing on the “whitelash” as I’ve heard it referred to, while ignoring the minorities who supported him at a roughly similar percentage as they supported Romney in 2012. I think instead of automatically jumping to conclusions about racism, it might make more sense to actually engage with the voters (including these minorities who clearly didn’t have a problem with any of his “racist” remarks) and listen to their reasons for voting for him. For example, beyond the minorities who voted for Trump, many white people who had voted for Obama in previous elections, voted for Trump in this one. While I know that there obviously are many genuine racists who voted for him, it would be unfair to assume that racism was the primary motivator when taking those minorities and former Obama supporters into account.
As for the “privilege” argument, I don’t buy into that stuff for a second. All “privilege” is, is an excuse to disregard the viewpoints and opinions of, and tear down members of certain demographics, just because of the group they were born into. Privilege theory is just a redirection of Marx’s theories from economics (ie, the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’) to identity politics (the oppressed and oppressors), further causing division and resentment between groups. If white people are such a privileged group for example, then why is it that they’re the only group that aren’t allowed to vote as a bloc for their group interests without being considered racist for doing so, when it’s perfectly acceptable for a politician to go after “the black or Hispanic vote”? Why is it that other groups can make insulting, derogatory and sweeping generalisations about white people as a whole (like this author is doing with her white liberal allies), when if a white person did the same thing about any other group, they would be crucified?
And as for “systematic racism”, this is a legit question, because obviously you would have a much better insight into the American situation than I would, but how exactly is there still systematic racism? Where does it come from, and how does it work? I don’t understand how in a country where the majority of white people are terrified of the social stigma of being considered a racist, and where in the past 50 years at least, there has been a lot of time, effort, and money spent on racial integration, affirmative action, “no child left behind” in schools etc, how it exists, who is behind it, and examples of it in action.
I’m not trying to be a smartass or anything as I genuinely am interested in learning things that I may been ignorant of, because I do acknowledge that I’m only a distant observer, and you’re right there living it, but at the same time, I’ve read so many articles from, and seen so many videos on youtube from people who seem more interested in hating, blaming, and shaming white people as a whole, rather than just opposing racism, that I’m always very skeptical when I read articles like this one.”
I don’t think anything I said was particularly unreasonable here. I even acknowledged the fact that she, being an American, would obviously know more about the American situation than I would, and I legitimately asked her for evidence of systematic racism in action in her country.
“[Name redacted], I think there is too much for me to cover regarding your post. There are smarter people than me who better articulate why privilege is very real and what is happening in this country right now and the historical context so I will point you to some reading. Posted below.”
And again, she posted a few long winded articles, rather than actually making the arguments in her own words. Just for the record, I have no issue with posting links in a debate, but I think they should be posted as support material for an argument being put forward, not as the argument itself.
I then replied with this:
“I don’t buy into the reality of white privilege for a second [Name redacted]. What they refer to as “privilege” is simply an excuse to attack and belittle white people as a whole simply for being born white in a predominately white country. It would be like saying “Asian privilege” to a Chinese person in China, “Black Privilege” to a black person in Nigeria, Arab privilege to an Arab person in Saudi Arabia etc. It’s just an anti-white slur, based on Frankfurt school theories from the 1960s. Do the white people who are suffering severe racial discrimination in Zimbabwe and South Africa right now also benefit from white privilege?
For that matter, if white privilege and structural racism really does exist in America then why is that it’s Asians and Jews (many of the latter don’t consider themselves white and instead consider Jewishness a racial category) who are the most highly educated and wealthy demographics on average, moreso than white people? In theory, in a white privileged, structural racism based society, wouldn’t those groups be held back as well?
I think the problem is the use of what I’ve heard referred to as the “apex fallacy”. People see that most of the most powerful people in a country are white (which just makes sense based on the fact that most people in general are white in the West so demographics alone would cause this) and therefore assume that all white people have the same benefits as that small group of powerful people. It would be like me citing people like Obama, Loretta Lynch, Jesse Jackson, and various top black figures in entertainment and sport, and claiming that their success was representative of the experience of all black people, something which would obviously be quite rightfully dismissed as inaccurate.
As for the list on white privilege, it’s about as offensive and unfair as this meme.
I’m just getting tired of the moaning and accusations against white people as a whole, as if we all need to feel bad for being born white in a mostly white country. If there are real problems then by all means, they should be explained so that they can be worked on. But attacking us as a whole solves nothing, and only causes would be allies to lose sympathy after a while.”
And she never responded to this, and I heard nothing from her again until the notification a week or so later, telling me that she had unfriended me.
Anyway, I kind of went off on a tangent there. I was just reminded of this little debate we had, when I read this article below. I wonder if my former “friend” would still believe that it’s white people who are the privileged ones in America, after reading this.
Outrage has grown at Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, as the school faces layoffs and increased class sizes due to a law limiting funds for schools with a higher white student body.
If a school has too many white kids, it gets less funding from the taxpayer (most of whom are white, btw).
The Los Angeles Unified School District provides more funding for schools where the white population is below 30 percent.
But if a school has a very low white population, it gets more funding. Yet, we’re supposed to believe that white people are the privileged ones. In a country that is predominately white, was built by white people, and has mostly white taxpayers, it’s the racial minorities who get more financial support. How does this make sense?
In a letter to parents, the district noted the highly regarded middle school had been above the percentage for the past couple years.
The racial formula was a condition imposed by court decisions dealing with desegregation in the 1970s.
And yet when it suits them, they’ll always claim that race doesn’t matter, and that we’re all exactly the same, apart from the colour of our skin.
Parents, however, remain frustrated with what the cuts might mean for their children.
And really, why shouldn’t they be? Their children’s education will potentially suffer, just because of the colour of their skin. Meanwhile, the taxes they’re paying, will be redistributed to schools with a higher proportion of black and hispanic students instead. This is not fair, plain and simple.
“When your class sizes are getting larger and you’re taking resources away from students, I mean ss parents, you do want your kid to go out to college,” one parent, Rosemary Estrada, said.
In an attempt to lessen the budget cuts, the district changed the school’s spending formula to one based on the number of students.
“Thankfully we’re going to keep our librarian. We’re going to keep our nurse, but we may lose a few teachers, but not as many as we once thought,” said Sheila Edmiston, one student’s parent.
Several jobs will still be lost and class sizes could grow. For many parents, the race-based reason of “too many white students” has made the cuts more difficult to swallow.
Meanwhile, if you want to understand why schools with a higher proportion of black and hispanic students, typically fare much worse than those with a higher proportion of white students, here’s a good possibility as to why.
It has nothing to do with white privilege or systematic racism. It’s entirely because of problems within the minority communities themselves. The reason we aren’t seeing an equal outcome, isn’t because they aren’t being treated equally. It’s because they aren’t behaving equally. I’m not saying every single individual student of a minority background, behaves like those in the videos above, nor am I suggesting that every single white student is a perfect angel, who would never behave like this. However, for the most part, this sort of behaviour seems to occur mainly within the black and hispanic student populations.
When I read this article, it reminded me a lot of the situation that I discussed recently, regarding a literacy test for prospective teachers being scrapped, because too many blacks and hispanics couldn’t pass it. There is this insane obsession with achieving equality. The problem is, as the Aristotle quote at the beginning of this article says, you can’t make unequal things equal, at least not at the higher level. For example, lets say I have four apples, and you have two, and there are no other apples around. We can’t make it so that each of us can have an equal number of apples, and at the same time, allow me to keep my four. All we can do is take an apple from me, and give it to you, and make us equal that way. Therefore, rather than simply raising the person with less up, they drag the person with more down.
When the Soviet Union first came into existence, there had been a lot of poor peasants, and a few rich aristocrats. They couldn’t bring the peasants up to the level of wealth of the aristocrats, so what they did, was take away the wealth of the aristocrats, so everybody was equally poor. It’s the same kind of logic happening in the American education system now. They’ve tried for decades now to achieve equality in racial education standards, and they’ve gotten nowhere. With equal funding, they can’t seem to bring the black and hispanic students, up to the level of the white (and Asian) students, so their plan instead is to cripple the white students’ education, and drag them down to the level of the black and hispanic students. Then, when every racial group is equally uneducated, they’ll finally achieve “equality” and all live happily ever after.
OMG, I’m actually laughing so hard right now. As I’m sure people have seen, the media has been flooded with stories about an apparent increase in hate crimes, ever since Trump became president. Just check out some of the headlines below that show up in Google searches for the term “increase hate crimes Trump”.
Most of these alleged hate crimes usually end up getting debunked very quickly and appearing on fakehatecrimes.org, a few days later. The media never gives as much attention to the debunking of course, as that doesn’t fit the narrative. Therefore, even after they do get debunked, most people still continue to believe that there is some massive epidemic of Neo-Nazi, white supremacists, committing acts of evil against minorities, in the name of Trump.
Anyway, one group that has claimed to be getting targeted a lot as of late, has been the Jews. First of all, there was the story about one of their graveyards getting vandalised. Then there was the stories about how there were dozens of bomb threats being sent to Jewish institutions. The media went into a frenzy over these “antisemitic hate crimes” and started screeching for something to be done to protect the poor innocent Jews, from all the hate they were experiencing (for absolutely no reason of course). Well, the graveyard vandalism, turned out to not be vandalism at all. But sure, the bomb threats were still real, right?
The typical “anti-semitic” hate crime, follows a very predictable trajectory. Usually, a crudely drawn swastika and hate filled message (often poorly spelled for extra effect) are found on the wall of a Jewish business or home. The media goes crazy and starts demanding something be done and there is a big moral panic over the “alarming increase in racial hatred”. A few days pass by and people start asking questions. Suddenly, holes start turning up in the original story, and this causes suspicion. Then the Jew who faked the hate crime is exposed
Israeli police say a 19-year-old man with American and Israeli citizenship is suspected of making threats against Jewish institutions worldwide.
Everyone with any understanding of these situations, predicted this would be the case. Lets just look at it logically. There were dozens of bomb threats being called in against these Jewish institutions, and there was never any actual bomb, not even once. A real antisemite wouldn’t waste time with dozens of hoaxes, because they’d know damn well that the only people who would benefit from it, are the Jews themselves, because of the victimhood points it would give them, and the fact that it could potentially have been used as an excuse to crack down on antisemites.
Police arrested the suspect in the south of Israel on Thursday morning over threats against Jewish communities in the US, New Zealand and Australia.
He was detained by Israeli cyber-fraud police, after an inquiry with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
Last month an ex-US journalist was arrested for several of the threats.
Yeah, that was some black guy who probably had real mental health problems (not the fake kind the media talk about every single time there’s a Muslim attack), who was more than likely just doing a copy-cat crime, after seeing all the attention the previous bomb threats got.
In fact, that was almost certainly the point in the first place. Make bomb threats against their own people, give these fake threats massive coverage in the media, and hope for some attention seeking lunatic to copy them, then blame it all on Trump and white supremacy. Too bad it was a black guy who copied it instead.
But Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said on Thursday the latest suspect’s motives are unclear.
^See above. I think I figured out the motive very easily. This is pretty common behaviour for Jews. They seem to have a natural inclination towards paranoia, and are constantly expecting the next persecution to occur, at any time. If they aren’t being persecuted, they invent persecution against themselves instead, either to justify their paranoia, and demand some kind of compensation from the rest of society, or to use it as a weapon against their enemies (Trump in this case).
In one of the threats made against a Jewish Community Center (JCC) on 18 January, a caller is heard saying: “In a short time, a large number of Jews are going to be slaughtered.
“There’s going to be a bloodbath that’s going to take place in a short time.”
I wish I could find the video again. I remember listening to it at the time, and it was blatantly obvious it was a Jew making the threat. The voice was a bit distorted, but even so, you could easily make out the stereotypical, nasally, New York Jew accent.
Imagine this voice, but distorted and making threats.
Doron Krakow, president of the JCC Association of North America, said he was “troubled” to hear the suspect is Jewish, adding that he is “hopeful” that the threats have come to an end.
We’ll just have to see. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other Jews who were involved as well.
Investigators say the Israeli teen used camouflage technologies to disguise the origin of the dozens of calls.
“He didn’t use regular phone lines. He used different computer systems so he couldn’t be backtracked,” Mr Rosenfeld said.
Very clever. Just not clever enough, it seems.
In the US, more than 120 hoax bomb threats have been made against Jewish schools, synagogues and cultural centres since earlier January, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
And the media was having a frenzy, blaming Trump and Trump supporters for it.
There have also been at least three vandalism attacks made against US cemeteries in recent months.
At least one of which we know was caused by mother nature. I wouldn’t be surprised if the other two were vandalised for real though… but by Jews.
The teen is also suspected of making threats against Delta Air Lines, forcing a plane to make an emergency landing in 2015 in order to be searched for explosives.
Israeli’s minister of public safety Gilad Erdan congratulated the police for the arrest.
“We hope that this investigation will help shed light on some of the recent threats against Jewish institutions, which have caused great concern both among Jewish communities and the Israeli government,” he said in a statement.
There is a court order in place preventing the media from reporting the man’s name.
But not his ethnicity ^_^
He will be held under arrest until 30 March, the court ruled.
According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the army had refused to draft him on personal grounds, after determining that he was unfit for service.
Probably mentally unfit from the sounds of it.
A reported spike in anti-Jewish incidents led to criticism of the Trump administration, with some saying they did not react quickly or forcefully enough to the hate threats.
Which was the whole point. Fake hate crimes against themselves, then use it as an excuse to criticise Trump. It was so predictable. As soon as I heard about bomb threats being sent to Jewish institutions, I knew a Jew was behind it, just from previous cases.
Last month, the White House denounced the threats and rejected “anti-Semitic and hateful threats in the strongest terms”.
But that damn antisemite, Trump, didn’t denounce them quickly enough. Sure, didn’t you hear that Trump is apparently a Holocaust Denier , just because he didn’t specifically mention the Jews by name, in his speech commemorating the suffering of Holocaust victims? He still acknowledged that it happened of course, but just talked about all “the people” who had suffered, rather than “the Jews”. What a horrible monster he is.
It pledged to provide “support to groups affected by these incidents to enhance public safety”.
And of course, in order to provide this support, they need more funds from tax-payers, and draconian hate speech laws implemented against people who dare criticise the Jews in any way. If they don’t get this money, and these laws, we might see more fake hate crimes being committed.
A man has been arrested in the north Belgian port city of Antwerp on suspicion of driving at a crowd.
I feel bad, but I couldn’t help but laugh at the way this is phrased. It’s only a “suspicion” that he drove into a crowd. They can’t be sure, this needs to be investigated first.
The vehicle, with French number plates, was driven “at high speed” on De Meir, Antwerp’s main shopping street. There were no reports of injuries.
Good news at least. I’m glad nobody was hurt this time. Of course the one downside is that nobody will take any notice of this then, because nobody was hurt. It’s only when people are hurt or killed, that these attacks get any attention.
The suspect, a man of north African origin, was taken away, Antwerp police chief Serge Muyters said.
What a surprise.
Belgium’s Prime Minister Charles Michel praised the city’s authorities for doing an “outstanding job”.
The attack comes a day after a car was driven at high-speed along London’s Westminster Bridge, resulting in the deaths of four people – including the driver – and injuring 40.
It was also the day Belgium marked the first anniversary of the twin bomb attacks in Brussels, that killed 32 people.
“All isolated incidents. Nothing to see here. There’s absolutely no pattern to see here.”
Mr Muyters said the car was spotted at around 11:00 local time (10:00 GMT).
“The vehicle was driving at high speed on De Meir. Our army colleagues spotted it and tried to bring the vehicle to a halt,” he said.
“But the driver broke free and drove through the red light towards the port quays.”
He said the police were contacted and immediately sent a rapid response team, intercepting the vehicle and driver.
Nothing to really say here, so I’ll just end with this “Black Pigeon Speaks” video response to the London attack yesterday.
So who would have thought it? There’s been yet another terrorist attack in a European city (London this time). You know what the most shocking thing of all is about this? It’s the fact that people still act shocked when this sort of thing happens. I don’t understand how people can really be shocked by these incidents anymore. We’ve seen this pattern play out over and over again. All over Europe, in countries in which there are large Muslim minorities, we’re seeing a drastic increase in violent attacks (whether it be terrorism, rapes, or just other forms of violence) being committed against the native populations. In fact, the current Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, literally came out and said that terrorism is just ‘part and parcel’ of living in a major city.
It’s completely insane how people just aren’t able to see what’s going on. We’re literally in a war for our very survival against a force that is invading our lands, outbreeding us, and is quickly ramping up the violence against us. There’s never going to be a point were they suddenly decide to integrate peacefully, and adopt our cultural values. They’ve been coming to Europe for the past 50 years or so, with some of them now being third generation settlers, and they’ve still shown absolutely no indication that they’re any closer to integrating. If anything, the more their numbers increase, the less they seem to integrate.
The problem is, most people on our side don’t realise yet that we’re in a war, and aren’t willing to say that enough is enough. Eventually, something has got to give. We can’t keep living under these conditions. What was once something very rare, started happening every few months, then it was every few weeks. Pretty soon, there’ll be attacks like this happening every few days, then every day, then every hour. Eventually, we’ll be forced to submit to Islamic rule, just to stop the attacks from happening. That is, unless people wake up and resist. There are literally only three options left now. Submit. Die. Or fight.
The current President of Turkey (and wannabe Sultan of a new version of the Ottoman Empire) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a man with a personality profile that would be considered too over the top and unbelievable as the basis for a James Bond villain…
… has come out and told ethnic Turks who are living in Europe to have five children rather than three (the amount usually encouraged within Turkey itself), so that they can “stake a claim for their rights” or some such bullshit in Europe.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has called on Turkish citizens living in Europe to have five children – two more than his usual calls to Turks in the homeland – in a bid to multiply their presence in the continent so that they will be the “future of Europe.”
Can it really get more obvious than that? He’s literally encouraging his own citizens to try and outbreed and eventually conquer the native Europeans in their own ancestral homelands. This is nothing new of course. Anyone who has any understanding of history that took place before the 1930s (so not many people really) will be well aware that Europe’s entire historical relationship with the Turks has been one of them attempting to conquer us, and us resisting these attempts.
They may very well have eventually succeeded in conquering the entire continent, if not for their defeat in the 1683 Battle of Vienna. After that defeat, the tide really started turning against them. They gradually started getting pushed out of Europe and North Africa in the 200 years or so following this, until by the outbreak of WW1, this is what was left of their empire.
However, people seem to have this belief that just because Europeans have no interest in colonialism and conquest anymore, that nobody else does either. The reality is that ever since Islam first came along 1400 years ago, it’s entire existence has been one of conquest and subjugation. The only problem for the once mighty Turks is that for the past few centuries, they’ve been too weak to take Europe on anymore. This doesn’t mean that they lost the will to conquer. They’ve just been waiting for the right opportunity to get started again, and now that Europe is so crippled with political correctness, white guilt, and below replacement level birth rates, they see that the opportunity has presented itself at last.
“I am calling out to my citizens, by brothers and sisters in Europe,” Erdoğan said at a rally in the Central Anatolian province of Eskişehir on March 17. “Have not just three but five children.”
“The place in which you are living and working is now your homeland and new motherland. Stake a claim to it. Open more businesses, enroll your children in better schools, make your family live in better neighborhoods, drive the best cars, live in the most beautiful houses,” he said. “That’s because you are the future of Europe. It will be the best answer to the vulgarism, antagonism, and injustice made against you.”
In case you’re wondering what he means by “vulgarism, antagonism, and injustice”, what he means is the expectation that European people have of them to stop acting like a bunch of primitive, violent, barbarian, savages, and actually contribute to society instead. How evil of us.
Erdoğan’s message comes amid ongoing political tension after Turkish ministers’ attempts to stage rallies with members of the Turkish community living in Europe were denied by some countries and after the European Court of Justice ruled to allow employers to ban workers from wearing visible religious symbols, including the headscarf.
And why exactly should Turkish citizens in Europe be allowed to stage political rallies for Turkey, on European streets? Would Turkey allow European people the same freedom in Turkey? He’s acting like a spoiled child whose mother told him he can’t have anymore sweets. In fairness, I blame the treacherous cunt, Angela Merkel, for giving into every one of his whims so far.
As for the headscarf thing, if an employer has a dress code, why should certain people be exempt because of their religion (the ban applies to all religions, not just Islam btw). If Islam is so important to them, then why not just stay in the backwards, Islamic hellhole they came from instead?
Slamming the decision known as the “headscarf ban,” Erdoğan said: “They are banning the headscarf. We are fed up. Where is the freedom of religion, freedom of conscience? Ban the kippa if you can. Can they [ban the kippa]?”
If you don’t like it then leave. Islam has no historical claim to the success or development of Europe. In fact, the entire history of Europe has been about keeping Islam out. The fact that you’re allowed to practice your religion in Europe at all, after more than a millennium of trying to conquer us and force it upon us, is a testament to how overly generous we really are. If the majority of people today had a proper understanding of our relationship with Turks, and indeed, Islam in general, we might be doing a lot more than just “banning headscarves”
He also claimed that the real reason behind the rising antagonism toward Turks in Europe was “the discomfort they feel as Turkey has become an independent country with its economy and situation in the world.”
“The Turkey they dream is a dependent country which they can order around,” he said. “They have no discomfort with the Turk who is a worker in the factory, but they cannot bear any Turk who becomes an owner, engineer or manager of this factory.”
No, the reason for any rising antagonism towards Turks in Europe is because they’ve failed to integrate into their host societies. In fact, Erdogan himself has outright told them not to. Native Europeans are getting sick and tired of having to deal with such a worthless and useless people. If they love Turkey so much, and would prefer to live under Turkish customs, rather than the customs of their host nations, then why not just do the obvious thing and return to Turkey? Well, the answer is quite simple. They’re engaged in a long term strategy of subverting and eventually conquering Europe, so they can remake it in Turkey’s image. They’ll never integrate. They’ll just play the long game until they have the numbers to force Europe to integrate with them. There are only two options here. Either they conquer Europe, or Europe forces them out. There is no peaceful third option.
The rest of the article isn’t really relevant, so I won’t be responding to it. Meanwhile, while Erdogan is calling for Turks to outbreed the European people, another Turkish minister is suggesting that there could be a “religious war” in Europe soon.
Europe will soon be the site of “religion wars,” Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said on March 16, in Ankara’s first comment on the general elections in the Netherlands that saw the victory of Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s Liberal VVD.
“Now the election is over in the Netherlands … “When you look at the many parties you see there is no difference between the social democrats and fascist [Geert] Wilders. All have the same mentality. Where will you go? Where are you taking Europe? You have begun to collapse Europe. You are dragging Europe into the abyss. Holy wars will soon begin in Europe,” Çavuşoğlu said on March 16, in Ankara’s first comment on the general election in the Netherlands that saw the victory of Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s Liberal VVD.
“They killed each other 100 years ago because they were of different faiths,” he added, without elaborating.
“But they learned a lesson from this and then set up the European Union and the Council of Europe,” he added.
I would agree that Europe is beginning to collapse and is being dragged into the abyss. However, I don’t agree with his assessment as to why. This guy seems to think that the native Europeans are the ones with the problem, because after decades of pathetic deference, we’re finally saying enough is enough, and are standing up for our own interests. I, on the other hand, think the problem was that we were too generous and accommodating to these people. We should never have been so reckless in letting millions of them to immigrate to Europe like we did. The fact is, there would be no possibility of any “holy wars” breaking out in Europe, if we hadn’t allowed millions of these people in, in the first place.
Anyway, if you take these two articles together, they really paint a grim picture of the future. You’ve one article predicting a war of cultures, and in the other, you have the leading figure of the invading culture, encouraging his people to increase their numbers… most likely in preparation for this inevitable war. I’ll finish this post off with a video from “Black Pigeon Speaks”, in which he gives his thoughts on the situation facing us.
I’m a day or two late posting this, but we just passed the 100th anniversary of Tsar Nicholas II’s abdication of the Russian throne. I think this is a pretty important event to remember, because this was the incident that directly preceded the rise of the scourge that is Communism, and was arguably the beginning of a series of events that led us to where we are in the world today. RT has posted a video to commemorate the event.
The comments section makes for some very interesting reading.
So yeah, noticing a bit of a theme with the comments there? An awful lot of people seem to blame “the Jews” for Communism. This sort of thing has long been considered an “antisemitic canard“, and is usually brushed off by people who hear it as nothing more than a “Nazi conspiracy theory”. Here’s the thing though, it isn’t technically inaccurate at all. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that Jews were disproportionately responsible for Communism.
Keep in mind that even in a country like Russia, which would have had a pretty large Jewish population in comparison to other countries at that time, their population percentage was probably about 5% at best. Even that is probably a generous estimate. To be so over-represented among the leading figures in the Bolshevik party, couldn’t possibly have happened by chance.
Even, if we look at reports from that time period, it more or less confirms that it was pretty common knowledge at the time that the majority of leading Bolsheviks were Jews.
The thing is though, it doesn’t just stop with Russia. Lets also take a look at Germany for example. In my post about the Berkeley riots, I briefly made reference to the attempted Communist Revolution in Germany in 1918-1919. Take a look at the names of the leaders of the Communists.
Someone else noticed a certain pattern here as well.
Again, notice how just like in the successful Communist revolution in Russia, the unsuccessful Communist revolution in Germany was overwhelmingly led by Jews, a people who made up a very tiny percentage of both countries’ populations at the time?
Oh, but it doesn’t just stop there. It isn’t even limited to Europe. Lets take a look at China next. Yes, the leader of the Chinese Communists, was the Chinese national, Mao Zedong, but there were plenty of Jewsin positions of power in that movement as well.
And those are just a few examples. Again, for such a tiny minority, does it not seem strange to see so many of their names coming up, even moreso in regard to a country like China? Russia and Germany are one thing. At least those countries had a relatively long history of Jewish settlement, and had fairly large Jewish populations. China is something else entirely though. It makes no sense to suggest that this could just have been a coincidence.
Oh and I’m still not done yet. How about the situation in South Africa, you know, that once successful country that is gradually heading towards failed state status? Everyone is always told about how great Nelson Mandela was and if you didn’t know better, you would think he was nothing more than a peaceful protester who spent decades in prison for political reasons. In reality, he was a Communist terrorist who was willing to use violence to further his goals, and that was why he was imprisoned.
You may say that this doesn’t matter, because Apartheid was an evil system, that needed to be abolished by any means necessary. That’s a perfectly reasonable opinion to have (though personally, I reckon Apartheid South Africa was a paradise in comparison to its modern replacement). However when you consider the fact that the only Jew majority state on the planet, Israel, is an Apartheid state itself, and the Palestinians are treated far worse than the black South Africans ever were (black people flocked to South Africa during Apartheid, but nobody flocks to the Palestinian territories), it just really shows the hypocrisy that exists. I don’t believe that someone like Joe Slovo was opposed to Apartheid because he believed in “muh human rights”. I believe he was opposed to it for the same reason the Communist Jews in Russia and Germany were opposed to the systems in those countries… because he wanted to take power for himself and his own kind, and the disenfranchised blacks were a useful battering ram against the existing system, in much the same way that the working class was in Russia in 1917.
And on that note, I’d like to focus a bit more attention on this concept of using certain demographics of society as “battering rams” against the targeted culture. In the years preceding the outbreak of the First World War, it was generally believed by most Marxist intellectuals that if a great war ever broke out in Europe, that the working class all across the continent would eventually refuse to fight and would turn against the capitalists and aristocracy of their nations, in favour of pursuing their class interests instead. As we saw, that was exactly what did eventually happen In Russia, but in the rest of Europe, the people didn’t rise up at all.
So the leading Marxist intellectuals at the time had to go back to the drawing board. They needed to figure out where their theories went wrong and what should be done differently in order to lead to the global Communist revolution that they wanted. Eventually in the early 1920s, two of these leading Marxists, Antonio Gramsci of Italy (a Gentile), and Georg Lukács of Hungary (a Jew) both independently came to the conclusion that the reason why Communism failed to take off in Europe, despite the horrors of the war, was because of the strength of Christianity and Western Culture, and the loyalty that the ordinary people had to these things. People were more loyal to their culture than to do their social class. Therefore, Christianity and Western Culture needed to be undermined and eventually destroyed in order to facilitate the gradual transition towards Communism.
This concept of undermining Western Civilisation was adopted by an organisation that became known as the “Frankfurt School” and led to development of the philosophy known as “Critical Theory“. The basic concept behind critical theory was literally to analyse every single norm in society and to criticise it, in the hopes of eventually changing it. The idea behind criticising these norms, was to pathologise them, so that we would eventually be conditioned to lose faith in them, and therefore weaken our loyalty to the culture that spawned them.
By the way, if you were to look at this list of “notable theorists” who were a part of the Frankfurt School…
… with the possible exceptions of Habermas, Schmidt, and Honneth (whom I can’t find confirmation on either way), every single one of these men were Jews.
Anyway, the Frankfurt School was active in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 their members fled, mainly to America, where they became affiliated with Colombia University. After WW2, some returned to Europe, but others, including Herbert Marcuse, remained in America.
By the late 1960s, the first half of the baby boomer generation (people who were born in the few years following the end of the War and had therefore never experienced any of the hardship associated with either the war itself or the Great Depression that preceded it) were at the age were they would be attending college. Meanwhile, the remaining members of the Frankfurt School (particularly Marcuse), had at this point spent the past 30 years or so, gaining power and influence in the American academic system, and now had plenty of followers to do their bidding. Do you remember how I mentioned before how Communists uses certain demographics as battering rams to achieve their aims, and originally, the working class had been the battering ram of choice? Well, after the working class had failed to live up to expectations, and after realising that the enemy was Western culture, a new battering ram had to be found.
In previous times, the struggle had always been the “working class against the capitalists and aristocrats that exploited them”. Now, the capitalists and aristocrats had been replaced with the architects of Western Culture… straight, white, Christian, men. The working class was replaced with anyone who didn’t fit into those categories. It’s no coincidence that the black civil rights movement, second wave feminism, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement, and the 60’s counterculture in general, all happened at roughly the same time, and all had their origins on American college campuses. It was all based on Frankfurt School Critical Theory being taught in American Academia and it was actually all about attacking the dominant straight, white, Christian demography of America, under the guise of “progressivism” and “human rights”. The baby boomer college students were the perfect useful idiots to promote it, because they had never experienced any real hardship themselves and were naive enough to buy into it.
Indeed, just to briefly focus on the the Civil Rights Movement specifically, Martin Luther King Jr. was educated in a suspected Communist institute. The real brains behind his speeches and the organisation of his events as well was the Jew, Stanley Levison. This doesn’t necessarily prove that the civil rights movement was entirely a Jewish movement to attack white America in order to bring in Communism, but once again, it’s a very strange coincidence isn’t it? Even the NAACP, an organisation which exists to promote the interests of black people, was actually founded by William English Walling (white man with Jewish wife), Mary White Ovington (white woman), and Henry Moskowitz (Jew), rather than black people. In a country where Jews make up roughly 2% of the population (probably even less at that point in time), this again is a pretty strange coincidence.
I’ve already discussed before how, Jews are widely over-represented in the feminist movement, and are also widely over-represented in the push for multiculturalism in Western societies.
Multiculturalism for everywhere… except Israel of course.
The logic behind these two moves is divide and conquer. By promoting the very worst aspects of feminism, they turn men and women against each other. Women are encouraged to think of Western culture as inherently misogynistic and sexist, and therefore become a battering ram against men. People from different cultural backgrounds (which often times actually ARE misogynistic and sexist) are imported by the millions (whether there is any need or justification for their presence or not) and they are encouraged to think of Western culture as being “racist” and full of “white privilege”. They in turn become a battering ram against the white majority. This instills a sense of guilt and shame in the white majority, and a sense of anger and entitlement in the non-white minorities.
Identity politics in general is played up based on everything you can think of: race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexuality, disability, etc., to the point were there is no unity, and people are left with little faith in the institutions of society. Even today, rather than reporting honestly on anything, the mainstream media (dominatedby Jews) fans the flames of organisations like Black Lives Matter, constantly brings up debunked feminist myths such as the “wage gap“, or tries to blame every Muslim terrorist attack on either “mental illness” or as a response to white racism, rather than on an ideology that is completely incompatible with the Western Culture that they wish to destroy. And that is the key point. Everything they currently promote: multiculturalism, globalism, identity politics, etc., is done so as part of a century long plan to destroy Western Civilisation the world over, and replace it with a form of Communism.
I kind of went off on a bit of a tangent in this post. I just saw that video and found the comments pretty interesting and wanted to discuss what they were saying in more detail. I never expected to go this far with it. Nevertheless, I hope I’ve provided an interesting read, and explained properly why the idea of “Jews being responsible for Communism” is not a conspiracy theory at all. It’s simply a historical reality.