Whenever there is a brutal, tyrannical, regime in power, it isn’t unusual for those living under it, to try to resist or speak out against its oppression of them. However, for obvious reasons, this is often done in secrecy, for fear of the consequences that can result in doing so openly. Arguably the most oppressive regime that has ever existed, was the Soviet Union during the Stalin era. Like any other oppressive regime, there were many people living under it, who resented it, and tried to fight back in their own way, even if it was just something as simple as keeping more than their allocated share of grain from the farms they worked on, rather than handing it all over to Soviet authorities, and only being handed a small amount back, barely enough to survive on.
The Soviet authorities needed to find ways to catch people who were resisting their oppression, and one of the main methods they used, was the use of informants to rat others out. The most despicable thing of all that they did to recruit potential informants, was to brainwash children into spying upon and ratting out their own parents, for committing crimes against the state. The parent would then most likely end up doing slave labour in a gulag in Siberia, or murdered, all because their own child was encouraged to sell them out.
It seems that the modern west is taking lessons from that disgraceful era. In Finland, there is currently a campaign underway to encourage children to inform on their parents, if they post politically incorrect things on the internet. Lets just take a look.
It all just comes off as so cute and innocent. The mother posts a “naughty thing” on Social Media to some politician that she has a problem with, her daughter thinks this is unacceptable, and reports her to her lion teddy, who then turns into some guy in a lion mascot costume. The guy in the lion costume wags his finger at the mother for being such a naughty woman, while her daughter lectures her, and the woman seems to have learned her lesson. Then there is a weird song and dance number about how posting certain nasty comments online (no specific guidelines on what counts exactly) may be a criminal offence, and that you can be punished for it. It’s all portrayed as a simple public service announcement, aiming to inform people to be careful that they don’t accidentally commit a crime by saying the wrong thing.
It isn’t so cute and innocent at all. In the last couple of years, we’ve gradually started seeing changes in the way the European masses think. We’ve been experiencing one disaster after another, as a result of the genocidal mass immigration policies that our political establishment has inflicted upon us. None of us were ever given a vote on whether or not we even wanted to become multicultural societies. We had the decision forced upon us against our wills, and if the popularity of Donald Trump’s anti-immigration comments in America are anything to go by, I believe that if we were given a vote on the matter, and both sides were given an equal platform to make their cases, that all over Europe, we would reject it if given the option to do so.
However, the political establishment are not going to give up on their plans so easily and seeing as they can’t possibly win the debate on the merit of their arguments (lets face it, what are the alleged benefits of multiculturalism, and do these alleged benefits outweigh the consequences that we’ve seen unfold?), they have to use more and more oppressive tactics to silence dissent, and now clearly they’re aiming to follow the example that Soviet Union set 80 years ago, by using impressionable children as informants against their own parents who speak out against their plans. That is how evil and sick these people are, and yet they will project and claim that we’re the evil ones for speaking out against our own ongoing genocide.
There’s a Hitler quote that seems appropriate for what they are attempting to do.
We can’t allow them them to brainwash children like this. You can be sure that it won’t just be Finland trying this soon enough. The rest of Europe will inevitably follow. If they do manage to own the youth, they will gain the future, and from the looks of things, it will be a very grim future indeed.
This is a story that is reminiscent of the time Sweden banned a gay right’s parade through a Muslim majority area, because it “might offend the Muslims”. A Dutch watchdog has made a decision that it’s perfectly OK for Muslims to call for the violent and brutal murder of gay people, because they have freedom of religion and that is their religious belief. It’s completely mind blowing to me that they’re still trying to pretend this multicultural experiment has been anything less than a complete disaster for the indigenous populations, because only the most clueless of people out there must still be buying into the lies.
FURIOUS Dutch MPs have demanded an immediate public inquiry after a government-backed watchdog said it was acceptable for Muslims to send gay people death threats.
Honestly, it’s a really bad sign that it has gotten to the point were things like this don’t shock me anymore. It’s so completely obvious at this point that all of our governments in the Western world are actively attempting to commit genocide against us and have us replaced by Muslims, that I’m really not surprised that they allow this. They’ll go on about how much they care about gay rights, but if the choice is between protecting the lives of homosexuals and appeasing Muslims, they’ll support the Muslims every time, no matter what.
In a shocking move, the taxpayer-funded hotline said it would not pursue a criminal complaint over horrific messages from radical Islamists because the Koran says gay people can be killed.
Oh well that’s fair enough then. Because a book written 1400 years ago by a desert warlord, whose followers have been trying to conquer and enslave us ever since, says it’s OK for gay people to be killed, I guess that means it’s OK for gay people to be killed.
The disgraceful stance came to light when a member of the public complained about death threats posted to an online forum which called for homosexuals to be “burned, decapitated and slaughtered”.
Wow, what a hate filled Islamophobe, that person must be. How could anyone possibly take offence to comments like that, when it has already been established, that the Koran says this is OK?
Dutch MPs today reacted with horror to the revelations, demanding an immediate inquiry into the remarks and calling for the hotline to be stripped of public funding.
According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression.
Does that mean extremist Christians who also oppose homosexuality will be free to call for the death of gay people because of their “religious freedom”?
Yeah… we already know the answer to that question.
They argued that the Koran says it is acceptable to kill people for being homosexual, and so death threats towards gay people from Muslims could not be discriminatory.
In a jaw-dropping email explaining why they could not take up the complaint, they wrote: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character.”
I know I said before that nothing surprises me anymore, but that doesn’t mean that I’m able to actually understand this. I really can’t comprehend the mental gymnastics that has to be done to think this way and to believe that it makes sense.
They concluded that the remarks were made in “the context of a public debate about how to interpret the Quran” and added that “some Muslims understand from the Quran that gays should be killed”.
WHY WOULD YOU LET PEOPLE LIKE THIS INTO YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY? WHAT BENEFIT IS THERE IN HAVING PEOPLE LIKE THIS IN EUROPE?
And they went on: “In the context of religious expression that exists in the Netherlands there is a large degree of freedom of expression. In addition, the expressions are used in the context of the public debate (how to interpret the Koran), which also removes the offending character.”
The death threats had been made in the comments section for an article about a Dutch-Moroccan gay society, which had been posted to an online platform for Holland’s large Moroccan community.
The revelation that they were so easily brushed aside by the anti-discrimination hotline will fuel an intense debate in the Netherlands over freedom of expression.
Personally, I’m very much in favour of freedom of speech. I think unless a direct threat is made (ie., at a specific person, or laying out a specific plan to make an attack), people shouldn’t be arrested for saying offensive things. However, if they have laws like this in place anyway, then everybody should be equal under them. It isn’t right that a Muslim person can make a statement that “gay people should all be killed”, but if a non-Muslim, Dutch person said the same thing, they would be arrested for it. Fair’s fair.
Far-right politician Geert Wilders, whose party is expected to win next spring’s general election, is currently on trial for inciting racial hatred after telling a rally there were “too many Moroccans” in the Netherlands.
Muslim says gay people should be killed. Perfectly acceptable.
Dutch politician says there too many members of an alien group in the country. Hate speech.
Does this make any sense?
And two right-wing MPs, Joram van Klaveren and Louis Bontes, have now announced their intention to bring up the incident in the Dutch parliament by asking questions of the Justice Minister.
Good. Put him on the spot and force him to try to defend this insanity, thus exposing himself as a traitor.
The pair argued that public prosecutors must be permitted to take up cases of homophobic abuse, especially where it concerns threats of violence, no matter who is making the discriminatory remarks.
As I said, fair’s fair. Why should Muslims be immune from certain laws?
Mr Van Klaveren will ask: “Do you share our disgust at the fact that this explicitly states that inciting violence is not a problem if it comes from the Islamic belief?”
A spokesman for the MiND hotline admitted that after “further research” of the issue it had concluded that the complaint had been “unjustly assessed”.
Translation: “We didn’t expect anybody to call us out on this, but now that they are, we have to make it look as if it was just a silly mistake, rather than a deliberate decision”.
He added that when the complaint involved calling for violence against a particular group, the beliefs of the person making the threats should not matter.
Following the last few terrorist attacks in Europe, there’s naturally been a lot of worry about when and where the next one will happen. The Euro 2016 tournament in France is cited as prime target for terrorists looking to make an impact and people are understandably frightened of the prospect.
Fortunately, the brilliant French authorities have thought of a fantastic plan to keep the people safe. Hire the terrorists themselves to do security at the event. This really is just incredibly intelligent. How could I have not thought of it myself? If the terrorists are doing security at the event, then they’ll be too busy doing their jobs protecting people from terrorists, to commit acts of terrorism themselves.
Let me just repeat that again so it sinks in. The terrorists won’t do terrorism, because they’ll be too busy doing their jobs (protecting people from terrorists), and therefore won’t have the time to do terrorism themselves.
A new shocking twist in the Euro 2016 saga has emerged just days after stark warnings ISIS would make the event a target. It turns out 82 of the people hired for security posts on the football cup are on French terror watch lists.
What could possibly go wrong?
The Directorate General of Internal Security (ISB) has screened a total of 3,500 individuals already hired for the job of ensuring the safety of visitors, according to Le Point. Those among the 82 found on the watch list could by definition either belong to a terrorist group, such as Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), or have a history of questionable behavior or extreme beliefs on either the left or right.
Can I just point out yet again (as if I haven’t enough already) why is that people who are known members or sympathisers of terrorist organisations are being allowed to roam free on the streets? I do acknowledge that simply holding extreme beliefs is not enough for a criminal conviction (because if we did that, we’d essentially be enforcing thought crime legislation) but I cannot for the life of me understand why people with these beliefs are being allowed into Europe and are free to live among us. It’s one thing if native European people have extreme views. I don’t condone it from them anymore than when foreign nationals have them, but I at least realise that we have an obligation to deal with them ourselves seeing as they are our own people. But when foreign people who we have no legal or moral obligation to, have such views, then why can’t they just be deported back to where they came from? What possible justification is there for keeping them?
According to French authorities, some 90,000 personnel in total will be on duty during Euro 2016, including the stadiums, fan zones and on the streets. Of those, 77,000 are police and gendarmerie, while the rest comprise security and military personnel, as well as 1,000 or so volunteers.
“Such a unique event in exceptional circumstances requires extra security measures,” Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve told journalists.
Extra security measures which literally include hiring terrorist suspects to protect people from terrorism.
In the meantime, French President Francois Hollande admitted that the risk of a terrorist attack taking place during the Euro 2016 football championship exists. “This threat will last for a long time. But we must do everything to ensure that the Euro 2016 is a success,” the French president told radio France Inter on Sunday
Everything except stuff that might not be perceived as being politically correct, such as deporting people whose values and beliefs are incompatible with Europe’s.
The French had made promises that the championship would be entirely secure, and the Mediterranean resort of Nice is set to spend about €1.2 million on preparations, which is almost half the €2.5 million budget, according to Le Point. The city will host four matches.
Each football team will also be given 17 police officers and two agents with France’s elite special forces for extra protection.
Russian police officers will also form part of the international operation deployed to maintain order during the championship. Six specially trained officers will be sent to France, while the need for more rank-and-file boots on the ground will depend on how far the national team gets in the tournament.
Well the Russian police are a welcome addition because I have faith in them not to fuck around when it comes to maintaining security. However, the cynic in me also suspects that if an attack does happen, that the Western authorities will try to pass the blame onto them, all in order to continue their demonisation of Russia and Putin himself.
Governments of nations with ardent football fans have been warning citizens to exhibit caution, following warnings by members of the intelligence community that the Euro cup increasingly looks like a high-value terrorist target.
“Euro Cup Stadiums, fan zones and unaffiliated entertainment venues broadcasting the tournaments in France represent potential targets for terrorists,” the US State Department said in a warning to its traveling fans. That statement came following intelligence warnings that the Euro, along with seaside resorts and areas with a high concentration of people are all potential IS targets.
Embassies and consulates in Paris have also been reinforcing their premises with extra staff and security.
France has seen a wave of horrific terrorist attacks in recent months that leave many understandably worried about the prospect of security at the upcoming championship, to be held across 10 French cities, starting on June 10.
They have good reason to be worried. This is fucking insanity.
A Belgian politician has figured out just who is to blame for the Brussels attack. Apparently it wasn’t Islamic extremists, but Belgian people, who didn’t do enough to make those Islamic extremists feel welcome in their country.
The problem is not Islam, he insists, but the negligence of government officials like himself in allowing self-contained ethnic ghettos to grow unchallenged, breeding anger, crime and radicalism among youth — a soup of grievances that suits Islamist recruiters.
He’s right that government negligence has played a part, but not in the way he means. The actual negligence was in carelessly throwing open Europe’s borders to infinity people whose belief system is entirely incompatible with ours, and allowing them to live among us, without thinking of the effects it would have.
“Our cities are facing a huge problem, maybe the largest since World War II,” Mr. Goldstein said. “How is it that people who were born here in Brussels, in Paris, can call heroes the people who commit violence and terror? That is the real question we’re facing.”
Because despite the propaganda we’re constantly fed, the reality is that people aren’t all equal, and geographical location is not the sole determinant of a person’s behaviour, or beliefs. A Muslim person born in a European society does not just magically become a typical European citizen, not as long as they’re being taught from birth, a belief system by their parents, and religious leaders, that is completely incompatible with the values of their host nation.
Friends who teach the equivalent of high school seniors in the predominantly Muslim districts of Molenbeek and Schaerbeek told him that “90 percent of their students, 17, 18 years old, called them heroes,” he said.
“BUT IT’S ONLY A TINY MINORITY WHO HAVE EXTREMIST VIEWS!!!!”
Mr. Goldstein, 38, grew up in Schaerbeek, the child of Jewish refugees from Nazism. Now a councilman from Schaerbeek, he is also chief of staff for the minister-president of the Brussels Capital Region.
Adjacent to Molenbeek, Schaerbeek is richer, tidier and more mixed. Jacques Brel lived here for a time, so did René Magritte. It has a young, affluent section, which some compare to Notting Hill in London, and a large Turkish population.
The townhouse where preparations were made for the Paris attacks and where Mr. Abdeslam sought refuge for weeks is in the Turkish area, which is more well-to-do, and a better place to hide.
Brussels itself is about 25 percent Muslim — 70 percent are of Moroccan heritage and 20 percent Turkish, and the ethnic groups tend to stick to themselves, making them difficult for outsiders, like the police, to penetrate.
Belgium is a white country historically. Muslims are not indigenous to Belgium. The indigenous white Belgians are gradually being replaced against their will. This is genocide.
Belgium’s integration has been somewhere between the French model, which put new immigrants in suburban ghettos, and the British and American one, which created communities like Chinatown or Little Italy, Mr. Goldstein said. “In Brussels, everyone lives in the city, and we chose a model of diversity through mixing of populations in the same neighborhoods.”
But “we failed,” he said. “We failed in Molenbeek” and Schaerbeek, too, to ensure the mixing of populations.
Of course you failed. It was always destined to fail. Can anyone honestly name one truly multicultural society in history that has ever actually worked? Because as far as I can see, every single time two or more culture collided, one of three things has happened.
They divided along ethnic lines, forming separate states in the process (this is why national borders exist).
One culture conquered and oppressed the other.
They manage to mix, BUT in a way that involved giving up old identities, and creating a brand new, shared one based on compromise. For example, white Americans are made up of a mixture of various European cultures, but instead of keeping their old cultures from their homelands, they instead came together to create a new, American one that incorporated compatible elements of them all.
Genuine multiculturalism (numerous differing cultures with different beliefs and ideas of how a nation should be run, living peacefully in the same borders), does not exist. It has never existed, and it never will.
Now people might look at option three and think that it isn’t so bad. However, my argument against that option, is that why should indigenous European people, whose ancestors have lived here for generations, have to give up their old culture, in order to create a new one at all. Why should we have to compromise on how we do things? These are our homelands, and we have the right to preserve our cultures as they are. Outsiders should either accept the fact that they need to integrate with us, or they should choose to stay in their homelands, where they do things their own way.
“We have neighborhoods where people only see the same people, go to school with the same people,” he said. “What connection do they have with the whole society, what connection do they have with real diversity? It’s the establishment of the ghetto,” he said, “and it’s the thing in our urban development that we have to tackle.”
Again they’re still trying to push this diversity nonsense as if it is a good thing. As the old saying goes, united we stand, divided we fall.
Jews have left Schaerbeek, and the last two synagogues are being sold. Instead, there is a kind of suffocating, insular, ethnic uniformity. “These young people will never go to museums until 18 or 20 — they never saw Chagall, they never saw Dalí, they never saw Warhol, they don’t know what it is to dream,” Mr. Goldstein said.
I’ll never stop posting this video. Whenever I hear about Jews fleeing the multicultural rot, it’s important to remember that it was members of their own community who played such a leading role in causing it. No multiculturalism for Israel though.
Of course there is poverty and unemployment, he said. “But we don’t give these young people the keys to think differently, to think outside the little box, the little neighborhood where they live — this ideological box, this closed-eyes box.”
As for the terrorists, “religion for them is a pretext,” he said. “They believe in nothing. But Islam is the way they find to express, to crystallize their radicalization.”
Of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. It’s just young people using religion as an excuse to commit horrific acts of violence. It could just as easily have been any religion.
Why just last week, a bunch of Scientologists in Italy detonated a bomb outside a hospital for absolutely no reason. 37 people were killed. The week before that, some Hindus in Denmark shot up a cafe, killing six people, and wounding a dozen more. Yesterday, a group of nuns took some school children hostage in Britain, due to their anti-abortion views, and their anger at Irish women travelling their to get one. Tragically, three children were killed in a shoot out with police. The biased, anti-Muslim media didn’t report on any of these stories, because they’re involved in an evil conspiracy theory to trick the public into thinking that religious extremism and terrorism are more likely to be committed by Muslims than people of other religions. They even edited wikipedia to support their lies.
Young people whose parents or grandparents were immigrants face serious questions of identity, Mr. Goldstein acknowledged, speaking during and after a conference here of the German Marshall Fund. “But identity is a two-sided relation” — between young Muslims and ourselves.
“We have to fight racism and discrimination with the same force” as radicalization, he said, because “our society gives to these young people a bad idea of who and what they are.”
“If we just keep trying, and don’t do anything to upset them, these peaceful and moderate people, won’t turn into homicidal maniacs and blow people up, for reasons which we can’t figure out, but definitely have nothing to do with their religious beliefs.”
There was some glorious news yesterday that made me smile when I read it. The low IQ rape swarm, showed just how stupid they really are by attempting a repeat of Cologne in Russia. The results were not in their favour.
A group of 51 refugees were brutally assaulted outside a night club in Murmansk, Russia, after they groped and molested women at a night club Saturday.
“Those poor innocent victims of horrible racism ;_;
We know those Russian thugs will claim that they were just trying to protect women from being sexually assaulted, but really, they just hate them for their skin colour, and were using the sexual assaults as an excuse for racially motivated violence. We know this, because all white people are evil and enjoy oppressing non-whites for absolutely no reason whatsoever.” ~ Social Justice Warriors.
The refugees had previously been ordered to leave Norway for “bad behavior” and tried their luck in Russia. What they didn’t realize when they went out clubbing in Murmansk is that Russians have less tolerance when it comes to sexual assault on local women than other European countries.
Ordered to leave Norway, but not sent all the way back to where they came from. They just become someone else’s problem instead. Absolutely ridiculous.
Russian men… alpha as fuck, and an example to us all.
The refugees tried to flee but were quickly captured by the Russians. They then took them out to the street and gave them a beating they will remember. Police arrived to break up the fight but locals report that they threw a few punches at the refugees before arresting 33 of them. Eighteen refugees were in such bad condition they had to be take to the hospital.
Even the Russian police are amazing. They actually fight side by side with their own people, unlike the police in EU countries, which seemingly go out of their way to cover for the invading rapists.
Oh, and I’m glad that the so called “refugees” were that badly beaten. It might teach them a lesson regarding what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour towards women.
Unfortunately, for every warm, feel good story with a happy ending like this one, there are significantly more which aren’t so good. Which brings me to Finland.
Unlike Russia, which seems to have found a sensible way to deal with these animals (well, the most sensible way that doesn’t involve deporting them back to wherever they came from that is), Finland has come up with a very stupid one. Check out this video to see what I mean.
They literally produced an educational video that teaches women that they can fend off a would be rapist, by putting their hand out defiantly.
If for some reason, sticking their hand out fails to deter them (I know, crazy concept. Surely the hand should have a 100% effective success rate at scaring them away) the video suggests that they should instead attack the rapist with their purse.
I find this video completely stupid on so many levels. I think the hand thing speaks for itself so I don’t need to clarify that any further. Regarding the advice to attack with the purse, this suggests that the idiots behind this video don’t think rape victims try to defend themselves any way they can already. You can be sure that every single one of them, did everything in their power to fight off their attacker, including hitting them with anything they could get their hands on. It’s not as if they just went limp and passively accepted their faith. They don’t need to be told to fight back. However, it’s just biological reality that on average, men are physically stronger than women, so in a confrontation between an average man, and an average woman, the man will almost certainly overpower the woman, and won’t be badly phased by a few clumsy shots from a purse.
The video is also extremely dishonest by portraying a single white man as the example of an attacker. The reality is, that although there obviously are individual white men, who do commit rape (and I fully condemn them), the greater threat currently, are brown men, who go around in gangs, attacking women together. One woman would have absolutely no chance fending off an attack by four or five men at once, but this stupid video makes it look as if they’ll be able to defend themselves quite easily if ever they are attacked. A better video, that actually wanted to educate women as to to how to best protect themselves, would teach them to avoid Muslim majority areas, to not go out alone at night, and to choose flight over fight, if ever they were attacked.
Thankfully enough, the YouTube community seem to agree with me.
And some of the comments.
Why can’t people in real life be as intelligent as this?
Some lunatic by the name of Alex Tabarrok has published an article to the Atlantic, calling for the abolition of national borders altogether, based on some ridiculous form of morality that somehow those of us who are born in functioning, first world countries are just “luckier” than those who weren’t, and aren’t anymore deserving to live here than those who weren’t.
Meanwhile, on his twitter account, he brings up an interesting point about how there are now “no-go zones” in Europe for Jews, because so many Jew hating Muslims are now living in European countries, and are becoming violent towards European Jews.
He’s literally calling for a type of immigration policy, while at the same time, speaking out against the effects said immigration policy is actually having. The whole thing is yet another blatant example of what Orwell referred to as “doublethink“, in which a person can hold two blatantly contradictory views simultaneously, and believe both of them to be true.
The sad thing is, what he’s saying isn’t really extreme in this age. It might sound like he’s saying something that’s completely out there, but the reality is, the modern system of mass immigration, in which people from virtually any part of the world are free to come in to first world societies, shows that borders already don’t mean all that much as it is. All this guy is doing is calling for them to speed up the process of what’s already happening. And sure, if a bunch of ISIS terrorists, or Somalian rapists come into Europe… who cares? It is apparently our moral duty to let them in, just because we’re lucky enough to have ancestors who built countries that are actually worth living in.
To paraphrase Rousseau, man is born free, yet everywhere he is caged. Barbed-wire, concrete walls, and gun-toting guards confine people to the nation-state of their birth. But why? The argument for open borders is both economic and moral. All people should be free to move about the earth, uncaged by the arbitrary lines known as borders.
Not every place in the world is equally well-suited to mass economic activity. Nature’s bounty is divided unevenly. Variations in wealth and income created by these differences are magnified by governments that suppress entrepreneurship and promote religious intolerance, gender discrimination, or other bigotry. Closed borders compound these injustices, cementing inequality into place and sentencing their victims to a life of penury.
It’s hilarious that he brings up that point about nature’s bounty, when Europe (which dominated the world for centuries, and is still situated near the top today) has less natural resources than most other parts of the world. Meanwhile, the Middle East has all that oil. Africa has more gold and diamonds than anywhere else. These third world countries have an abundance of “nature’s bounty” but are too incompetent to actually use the potential wealth they generate, to actually improve their.
As for those oppressive governments, wouldn’t a completely open borders policy allow people like those who run these oppressive governments to come into our countries as well?
The overwhelming majority of would-be immigrants want little more than to make a better life for themselves and their families by moving to economic opportunity and participating in peaceful, voluntary trade. But lawmakers and heads of state quash these dreams with state-sanctioned violence—forced repatriation, involuntary detention, or worse—often while paying lip service to “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
It doesn’t matter if the “overwhelming majority” (allegedly, citation needed) are like that. How can first world countries look after all of them? Are we seriously supposed to throw open our borders, and allow the entire third world in? To let them depopulate the third world altogether, while overpopulating the first world? It’s not as if the first world countries have some kind of magic aura about them that makes them work better. The reason the work, is because of the people who live in them, and made them what they are. The third world countries are disasters, because of the people who inhabit them. Therefore, it’s simply an obvious reality, that allowing every single third world person (who greatly outnumber us as it is, and who breed faster than us) into our countries, will just lead to them turning first world countries into third world countries like the ones they came from.
We can see this in Zimbabwe, which went from being a first world country under people of white European descent, to a third world country under people of black African descent. We can see it in Detroit, which went from being one of the most industrialised cities in the world when it had a white European majority, to being the poorest city in America, when the demographic shifted to an African American one.
We can see it in Haiti. Under French colonial rule, Haiti was a prosperous colony, known as “the jewel of the Caribbean”. When the black former slaves took over it in the Haitian Revolution, they quickly turned it into an African style hellhole. It gets even more obvious looking at Haiti when you consider its history ever since. In 1915, the poverty ridden hellhole was occupied by America. They stayed there until 1934, and during that time, they built schools, hospitals, roads, and maintained stability in the country. By the time they left, they had created a country that could potentially allow for a first world standard of living. Instead, as soon as they handed back control to the Haitians, they destroyed the country all over again. In 1959, fearing the spread of Communism (as had happened in Cuba), and with the Haitian economy in tatters, America once again took an interest in aiding the country. Sure enough, once again, Haiti went to hell soon after. By 1991, a military dictatorship was in place, and in 1994, the US occupied the country YET AGAIN. Again, America stabilised the country, handed power back over, and again, the country declined soon after. The reason why this is happening should be quite obvious, but instead of outright stating it, I’ll just let people figure it out for themselves. And when they do figure it out for themselves, I hope they realise that this is the future of Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, if ever an entirely open borders policy is ever brought in.
The rest of the article just kind of rambles on about all the alleged benefits these people would somehow bring to our countries, as well as insisting it’s morally wrong for us to keep them out (because somehow, creating a society where our own descendants are at the mercy of a bunch of primitive savages, is the moral thing to do). I really don’t feel like going through the rest of it, but the link is there to check out, and I’m sure the stupidity and insanity of it, will be self evident.
In what I can only describe as “an absolute tragedy”, it seems that Iceland has decided that they too want to get their share of the vast benefits of diversity. Clearly, they’ve been carefully observing all the wonderful enrichment that it has brought to Europe such as racial tensions, terrorism, an increase in violent crimes and rapes, rioting, and a strain on available tax payer funded resources. How could Iceland possibly say no to that?
Prime Minister of Iceland Sigmun dur Davíð Gunnlaugsson is planning to appoint a committee of ministers to discuss the growing pressure from Icelanders, politicians and the public, on the government to accept more than 50 refugees.
This genuinely amazes me. Normally when things like this happen, it’s the government imposing it on the people against their will. The fact that in this case, it’s the people who are demanding it, seems completely insane to me. As much as I think they’re being stupid to do this, I do ultimately respect the rights of a sovereign people to decide things for themselves. If they want to destroy their country, what business is it of mine to tell them they can’t do that? I do hope they at least put it to a vote though and actually allow everyone there to have a say. Something tells me that this is just a vocal minority trying to impose their will on everyone else. If I’m wrong however, and it is in fact the majority who are in favour of this, then by all means, destroy yourselves if you want to.
“I assume that during Tuesday’s cabinet meeting I will propose the establishment of a special committee of ministers to discuss the problem and evaluate how Icelanders can respond, how we can contribute as much as possible,” Sigmundur told RÚV.
“It has been our goal in international politics to be of help in as many areas as possible and this is one of the areas where the need is most right now,” Sigmundur added.
He wouldn’t say anything about how many people Iceland can accept but stated that the 5,000 refugees petitioners on Facebook have been calling for is unrealistic. “I believe there is solidarity on that we should do more to respond to the problem, we just have to find out the best way to do it.”
I’d suggest that the best to respond is by taking in zero. But again, it’s the choice of the Icelandic people, not me. I only wish to offer advice.
People are posting the letters under their own names on a Facebook page called:Kæra Eygló Harðar – Sýrland kallar (‘Dear Eygló Harðar – Syria is calling’). Below are a few examples:
“I’m happy to look after children, take them to kindergarten, school and wherever they need. I can cook for people and show them friendship and warmth. I can pay the airfare for one small family. I can contribute with my expertise and assist pregnant women with pre-natal care.”
All sounds very generous. I’m sure they’ll be very grateful, like most of these migrants seem to be.
“I have an extra room in a spacious apartment which I am more than happy to share along with my time and overall support.”
“I would like to help: I have clothing, kitchenware, bed and a room in Hvanneyri [West Iceland], which I am happy to share with Syrians. I would like to work as a volunteer to help welcome people and assist them with adapting to Icelandic society.”
No, you don’t seem to understand, do you? If you’ve paid attention to other countries which have opened their borders, you would realise that expecting them to adapt to your society is racist. You’re supposed to change your entire society to adapt to their expectations. Oh my God, you’re such a hate filled racist.
While I continually mock the cuckold nation of Sweden for their insane self destructive policies, I have generally spoken very highly about their neighbour Denmark, a country which seemed to be more in touch with reality. Just to remind you of what I’m talking about, here are my two most recent posts about Denmark.
So it’s clear, that I thought very highly of Denmark. That just makes this video a whole lot harder to watch for me.
Holy shit, this is just unbelievable. After watching something like that, Sweden actually comes off as being more reasonable by comparison. I never thought I would say that, but that’s honestly how I feel.
And now, lets just post a few comments from the video, to see what other people think.
Wow, I kind of went overboard with screenshotting those comments, but so many of them were just pure gold, and in line with my way of thinking, that I just had to share them. I’m glad to see that there are so many more people who are aware of what’s going on, and are speaking out against it. I only hope, that those of us who can see the truth, reach critical mass, before it’s too late.
I remember I made a point before that social justice has no end in sight. This was all well and good when Social Justice Warriors were fighting for people who were genuinely disenfranchised and discriminated against unfairly. Gay people, minority races, minority religions etc. These people actually deserved to have their rights fought for. The problem however was that for every person who fought for their rights because they truly cared about them, there were others, who only fought to satisfy their own desire to complain about things. In a sense, they did the right thing, for the wrong reasons. As these groups become more and more accepted, these people are forced to find new victim classes to fight for, and are having to go to more extreme lengths to find these victims. We’ve already seen examples of this with the recent trend of “fit shaming” were SJWs mock and belittle people who are in good physical shape in defence of morbidly obese people. Well, they’ve outdone themselves now with the new victim group they’re looking to fight for.
OTTAWA — When he cut off his right arm with a “very sharp power tool,” a man who now calls himself One Hand Jason let everyone believe it was an accident.
But he had for months tried different means of cutting and crushing the limb that never quite felt like his own, training himself on first aid so he wouldn’t bleed to death, even practicing on animal parts sourced from a butcher.
“My goal was to get the job done with no hope of reconstruction or re-attachment, and I wanted some method that I could actually bring myself to do,” he told the body modification website ModBlog.
His goal was to become disabled.
People like Jason have been classified as ‘‘transabled’’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.
“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa
“The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.”
Do I really need to explain how insane this all is? I really don’t have the energy to go on a big rant, but I’m sure the insanity here is so obvious that it speaks for itself. Then again, maybe it’s not. I actually told several people about this, and some of them acted as if I was some kind of hate filled, human rights hating monster because I thought this was insane. Apparently researching topics like this and forming opinions from analysing the facts as I interpret them is wrong. Instead, I should do like everyone else, close my eyes, and ignore everything that’s going on
Researchers in Canada are trying to better understand how transabled people think and feel. Clive Baldwin, a Canada Research Chair in Narrative Studies who teaches social work at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, N.B., has interviewed 37 people worldwide who identify as transabled.
Most of them are men. About half are in Germany and Switzerland, but he knows of a few in Canada. Most crave an amputation or paralysis, though he has interviewed one person who wants his penis removed. Another wants to be blind.
See, this perfectly illustrates why I think it’s ridiculous that transgender people are lumped in with LGB people, because as far as I can see, it has far more in common with this condition than it does with simply being attracted to the same sex. LGB people just have a different sexual orientation. They don’t have any desire to mutilate their bodies.
Many people, like One Hand Jason, arrange “accidents” to help achieve the goal. One dropped an incredibly heavy concrete block on his legs — an attempt to injure himself so bad an amputation would be necessary. But doctors saved the leg. He limps, but it’s not the disability he wanted.
The transabled are very secretive and often keep their desires to themselves, Baldwin says. One 78-year-old man told Baldwin he’d lived with the secret for 60 years and never told his wife.
Some of his study participants do draw parallels to the experience many transgender people express of not feeling like they’re in the right body. Baldwin says this disorder is starting to be thought of as a neurological problem with the body’s mapping, rather than a mental illness.
I like that term. I find that if I use the term “mental illness” in discussions, it seems to automatically make people uncomfortable to the point where they just won’t listen. “Neurological problem” sounds so much less controversial.
“It’s a problem for individuals because it’s distressing. But lots of things are.” He suggests this is just another form of body diversity — like transgenderism — and amputation may help someone achieve similar goals as someone who, say, undergoes cosmetic surgery to look more like who they believe their ideal selves to be.
See what I mean? They’re actually suggesting amputating perfectly healthy body parts to deal with this issue, rather than giving them psychiatric help. Yet somehow I’m the monster for thinking this is utter insanity.
In the late 1990s, Scottish surgeon Dr. Robert Smith amputated the legs of two patients at their request. While the surgery involved National Health Service staff, each patient paid nearly $6,000 for their procedures.
How is that not a violation of the Hippocratic oath?
As the public begins to embrace people who identify as transgender, the trans people within the disability movement are also seeking their due, or at very least a bit of understanding in a public that cannot fathom why anyone would want to be anything other than healthy and mobile.
It’s actually quite obvious why you don’t want to be healthy and mobile. The reason why is because you aren’t mentally well. You need help and compassion, but you don’t need lunatics cooperating with your disorder and actually crippling you.
But this has been met with great resistance in both the disability activist community and in transgender circles, argues Baril, a visiting scholar of feminist, gender and sexuality studies at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.
“They tend to see transabled people as dishonest people, people who try to steal resources from the community, people who would be disrespectful by denying or fetishizing or romanticizing disability reality,” Baril says, adding people in both transgender and disabled circles tend to make judgmental or prejudicial statements about transabled people. “Each try to distance themselves.”
I don’t think they’re dishonest at all. These people genuinely believe that making themselves disabled on purpose is a logical decision. If anyone can explain how it’s any different from transgender people who wish to go the full on transexual route by mutilating their genitalia, please feel free to explain it to me, because I really don’t see any major difference between the two conditions.
Baril — who is himself disabled and transgender — believes the transgender community distances itself because it has worked very hard to de-pathologize what’s known as ‘gender dysphoria,’ and sought its removal from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Transability is also known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder, which was only just added to the “emerging measures and models” appendix section of the DSM-5 in 2013. Many transabled people want to see it fully added to the psychiatric bible because it might legitimize their experience in the field of medicine, Baril notes.
Oh I have no doubt that it is a legitimate thing. I don’t believe for a second that anyone would be willing to fake something like this.
I’m just after reading an article which tries to downplay yesterday’s terrorist attack as if it was something that we brought up ourselves. You can read it here, though I’ll be quoting and responding to relevant pieces of it here.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo will further entrench the terms of a confused European debate about Muslim immigrants—one in which both the “accusers” and the “defenders” of Islam are painting in dangerously broad brushstrokes. While the European far right points to Islamic terrorism to exclude and malign all Muslims, the European left responds by refusing to recognize how fundamental a challenge Islamic terrorism represents (or that it is inspired by Islam at all).
I actually have to give credit here. Unlike most of these articles which usually only side with the defenders and automatically treat anyone who dares to criticise Islam as an intolerant Nazi, it seems that the author here at least recognises that there are extreme loons on both sides of the argument.
Both sides fail to realize that two seemingly opposite sentiments can stand side by side: the conviction that Muslims should become full and equal members of European democracies
Absolutely not. The only people who should be full and equal members of our countries are our own citizens. I’m perfectly willing to give outsiders a chance to come in and earn that right, but only after years of living within our societies and proving themselves to be loyal and respectful of our laws, cultures and traditions. Without earning that privilege, how can we ever expect them to appreciate it? This ridiculous nonsense of “Oh, they’re lashing out because they aren’t equal, so we should just hand them citizenship to make them feel better” is fucking insane. Plenty of other countries have stricter immigration procedures than we do (Japan for example) and the immigrants don’t go in and cause trouble because they know it won’t help. The outsiders who cause trouble here do so because they despise our cultures and they know that we’re too weak willed to do anything of consequence about it. These people need the stick approach, not the carrot, if we want to keep them in line.
and the unabashed determination to defend those democracies against Islamic fundamentalism.
I agree. We can start by rounding up in the middle of the night, anyone within our borders who so much as expresses sympathy for Islamic fundamentalism, beating the fuck out of them, flying over the nearest fundamentalist Islamic country and dropping them out of a plane (maybe with a parachute if we’re feeling generous).
Even before Wednesday’s attacks, tensions between “natives” and “Muslim immigrants”—a telling juxtaposition, since a majority of Europe’s Muslims were in fact born on the continent—were at a boiling point.
Of course tensions are high. Because of all the previous Islamic terrorist attacks that have occurred in our countries. Because of their constant threats of enforcing Sharia Law if they ever got the numbers to do so. Because of all the rapes of native European women and children by Muslims. It’s not as if tensions are high over nothing. There are very real reasons for it. As for those born in Europe, that’s an irrelevant argument because ultimately, their cultural values are still those of their home countries, rather than their European homes, values which are incompatible with our own.
In France, fears about Islam have been at the center of political debate for the past year, helping far-right political parties attract unprecedented support. If French presidential elections were held today, Marine Le Pen, leader of the xenophobic National Front, would likely beat her rivals to the top spot in the first round of voting.
How terrible. We certainly can’t allow people to vote for people who represent their views. Why would we have democratic values in a democracy? What a crazy concept. Did it ever occur to you to ask why people are likely to vote that way? I doubt it’s simply a case of “we hate those brown people for absolutely no reason”.
Leading French intellectuals have begun to join the anti-Islamic bandwagon. For the past several weeks, French papers have been consumed with a protracted debate about Submission, a new novel by Michel Houellebecq—one of France’s most celebrated writers—which landed in French bookstores on Wednesday. Set in 2022, its protagonist is François, a literature professor who converts to Islam to practice polygamy, rises to the French presidency, and rules the republic according to the dictates of Sharia.
The scary thing is, I can actually see something like that happening. Maybe not as early as 2022, but much like how a lot of the stuff in 1984 is gradually becoming reality, I can see something like that occurring sometime by the mid 21st century if present trends continue.
That is just the kind of scenario that adherents of Pegida, a self-styled alliance of “Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West,” claim to be resisting in neighboring Germany. For months they have been taking to the streets of Dresden to protest immigration in general and the growing influence of Muslims in particular.
It’s happening all over Europe for a reason. The fact of the matter is, we Europeans are fond of our cultures the way they are and we don’t want outsiders coming in and changing it to suit themselves. Any outsiders need to accept our cultures or leave. Those are their choices. Changing things to suit themselves at our expense is not a choice.
Though they say that they defend universal values, their chants of “We are the People” betray how exclusionary their conception of nationhood really is. Appropriating the most famous slogan of the 1989 protests that helped to bring down the Berlin Wall for their own purposes, they are signaling that they will never consider Muslims as true Germans.
To be blunt, they won’t be, no more than a white guy living in China will never be a true Chinese man. European culture has been evolving for thousands of years. Islam originated around the Middle East and so, has ties to Middle Eastern cultures. The two are simply incompatible. I’ve already explained why multiculturalism is destined to failure here.
That’s sadly typical of the “liberal Islamophobia” that has taken hold in much of Europe. To court mainstream support, the far right has cleverly repackaged its disdain for immigrants and religious minorities as a defense of liberal values like gender equality and freedom of speech. This allows the far right across Europe to claim that its real problem with “those Turks” (or “those Algerians” or “those Bangladeshis”) is not that they look different or worship another God; it is that they are enemies of the universal values that a much wider portion of Europe holds dear.
The old racism argument. The author provides absolutely zero evidence that the only reason people have a fear of Islam is due to the skin colour of the people who practice it, but automatically assumes it must be the reason, even though the reason that (s)he dismisses make more sense.
This tack is doubly disingenuous. It is disingenuous because it invokes violent extremists to tar the vast majority of peaceful Muslims with the same calumnious brush. And it is disingenuous because its supposed love of liberal values is but a fig leaf.
I don’t condone attacks on peaceful Muslims either, especially seeing as I have many Muslim friends who I have a great deal of respect for. That’s why I’d prefer for us all to work together to get rid of the extremists who are a curse on us all.
Also I wouldn’t call freedom of speech a liberal value seeing as “liberal” types are at the forefront of censoring free speech that might offend people.
What ultimately drives movements like Pegida or the National Front is not a defense of universal norms but rather a monocultural and monoethnic conception of who is a true German or a true Frenchman.
And what’s wrong with that? Why is that every other country in the world is allowed to remain monocultural and monoethnic, but what were once predominately white countries (Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand) are expected to put aside their own cultures in favour of those of outsiders? Outsiders who might I add will still have their countries of origin and culture preserved perfectly? It doesn’t seem fair that it’s only us who aren’t allowed to preserve our cultures or our distinct ethnicity.
After all, most of the same people who attack Muslims on the grounds that they are unwilling to accept liberal values are themselves unwilling to accept that most basic of liberal credos—that somebody should be able to become a full member of the nation irrespective of his skin color or his creed.
Nothing to do with skin colour. It’s about their values. Most reasonable people (myself included) don’t care what race a person is as long as that person is as respectful and loyal to our countries as anyone else.
Those who advocate for a more diverse Europe tend to have a lot of fun pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of liberal Islamophobia. But, all too often, these tolerant souls are guilty of an equally dangerous hypocrisy of their own. They rightly lament that there’s a lot of prejudice against Muslims, but they wrongly infer that we should refrain from criticizing any manifestation of Islam—and consequently deny that there is anything Islamic about the kind of terrorism that has just left a Paris magazine’s offices riddled with bullets.
Another good point that I have to give credit to.
The terrorism of ISIS and al-Qaida no more defines Islam than the Crusades or the Inquisition define Christianity. But just as no historian can make sense of the nature of the Crusades without grappling seriously with the religious beliefs of their protagonists, so too it is impossible to make sense of Islamic terrorism without taking seriously the religious motivations of those who perpetrate it.
Comparing stuff that happened centuries ago in Christianity to stuff happening today in Islam. The stupidity speaks for itself.
In denying that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with Islam—or that a small fringe of fundamentalist Muslims poses a real threat to values we deeply cherish—self-styled defenders of Muslim immigrants are making the same mistake as their adversaries. For political reasons, they blind themselves to the vast differences among various forms of Islam.
True. This ridiculous need to appear tolerant is suicidal It’s perfectly acceptable to criticise things that deserve criticising.
The slogan #JeSuisCharlie, “I am Charlie,” is making the rounds on Twitter and Facebook at the moment. It’s the right sentiment, for the attack on Charlie Hebdosurely was an attack on everyone who values a free society. But in rallying to the defense of our values, we must, as ever, remember what those values actually are: a set of rules and institutions that allows everyone who subscribes to them to live together peacefully—whether they be a devout Muslim or a blasphemous cartoonist.
Living together peacefully requires cooperation on both sides. The way I see it, simply by allowing them to come to our countries at all, giving them a chance to work and live with us, and by bringing in laws to protect them from discrimination, native Europeans have already done their part. The ball is in their court now. They need to show us that they want to live peacefully with us. Otherwise, they need to leave.