The country now commonly known as the “United Caliphate”, AKA “Britcuckistan”, AKA “Cuck Island“, and formerly known as the “United Kingdom”, is one of the few countries out there that has shown itself to be a viable contender to Sweden, for the crown of “First Western country to commit national suicide”. It’s stories like today’s that reveal exactly why it’s such a strong contender for the title.
A Scottish man who taught his girlfriend’s dog to do the Nazi salute was found guilty of a hate crime.
Spare a thought for the precious 6 million, gassed to death in a homicidal fake shower room, by a vicious, Nazi Pug.
Mark Meechan, 29, was convicted on Tuesday in Airdrie Sheriff’s Court in Scotland and is out on bail until his sentencing next month, the London-based Jewish Chronicle reported.
It’s quite likely, he’ll actually go to prison for this. Literally just for posting this video.
An obvious joke video. This is a hate crime now apparently.
He taught the pug, named Buddha, to respond with the Nazi salute when prompted by statements such as “Heil Hitler” and “gas the Jews.” Meechan posted videos of the dog performing the trick on YouTube.
How could anyone have a problem with this? It’s hilarious, and absolutely adorable.
The original video, posted in September 2016 on his YouTube channel, Count Dankula, was viewed more than 2.8 million times before it was removed for violating YouTube’s policy on hate speech. Meechan said on the video that he trained the dog to annoy his girlfriend.
“My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is, so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi,” he said.
See? He isn’t even endorsing Nazism. He outright says that he wanted to turn the dog into the least cute thing that he could think of, in order to prank his girlfriend. The worst possible thing he could think of was a Nazi. That means that he thinks Nazis are a bad thing, and therefore is not a sign of support for their views.
Meechan later posted a video in which he apologized for the original dog clips, saying it was a joke and that he has no such political leanings.
“I am so sorry to the Jewish community for any offense I have caused them. This was never my intention and I apologize,” he said.
Once again proving the old adage true, which is that when you get attacked for “being offensive”, you should never apologise. They never accept the apology. They just see it as a sign of weakness and it causes them to attack even harder. The man apologised for his obvious joke video, and he still got convicted for committing a hate crime. What good did his apology do?
Sheriff Derek O’Carroll said Tuesday that Meechan “knew that the material was offensive and knew why it was offensive. He would have known it was grossly offensive to many Jewish people.”
O’Carroll said he took freedom of expression into consideration, “but the right to freedom of expression also comes with responsibility.”
So what if it is offensive? It’s called “taking offense” for a reason. Because it’s something that you take, rather than something that is given to you. If they find it offensive, that’s their problem. Have we really gotten to the stage were we’re putting people in prison, for offending others? Have we really sunk that low?
This story is bad enough on its own, but it feels even worse, when you put it in a wider context. It wasn’t long ago that yet another massive case of Muslim men torturing and raping little white English girls en masse, came out. Apparently this had been going on in the city of Telford for almost 40 years. For almost 40 years, a hostile alien force has been destroying the lives of innocent native girls, and the authorities were doing nothing to put an end to it. Yet a guy makes an obvious joke video online, gets arrested immediately, and convicted of a hate crime, just because the video is “offensive”.
Isn’t it funny how quick the police can act when a man who is a member of a “privileged” group, offends an “oppressed” group (Jews), but when another “oppressed” group (Muslims) commits the most vicious and brutal crimes against a “privileged” group (white children), the police do nothing about it for about 40 years? Isn’t that something? Does that not prove, just how real “white privilege” really is?
Britain is in an awful state right now, and is very much in the running to beat Sweden in the race to the bottom.
We live in rapidly dying societies. We’ve lost all reason and all sense of reality. We care more about not offending vocal minorities, than we do about protecting the needs of the majority. We give an inch, and a mile… no, not a mile, but rather a light-year is taken in return. When we show ourselves to be willing to compromise on something as basic as objective reality, it stands to reason that there will always be unscrupulous people out there who will be there to prey upon our moral cowardice, if it’s advantageous for them to do so.
A child rapist on trial for sexually assaulting three little girls is now claiming he’s a “trans-aged” little boy trapped in a man’s body.
Remember though. The slippery slope is just a fallacy invented by bigots to justify their bigotry.
According to the Chicago Tribune, 38-year-old Joseph Roman has been accused of violating three girls between the ages of 6 and 8. Now, Roman’s defending himself by claiming he’s a 9-year-old stuck in a grown man’s body.
“A Chicago man accused of sexually assaulting three young girls told prosecutors he considered himself a boy in a man’s body, according to Cook County court documents.
Joseph Roman, 38, is charged with predatory criminal sexual assault stemming from repeated attacks on three girls who were 6 to 8 years old at the time, according to prosecutors. Roman was a friend of the girls’ families at the time of the attacks between 2015 and January of this year.”
He needs to be fucking executed. Nothing less will suffice for a piece of shit like this.
Roman’s victims included a 6-year-old girl whose family stayed briefly in his home, and an 8-year-old girl who sometimes stayed with him while her mother worked a late-night shift at her job.
But this innocent 9 year old boy who is too young to have possibly gone through adolescence, was somehow driven to sexually violate them. It’s not his fault though, as he is clearly too young to comprehend the gravity of his actions. Plus, he’s below the age of consent himself as well, so technically speaking, those three girls are just as guilty of raping him, as he is of raping them. I guess we just gotta let them all go free, or punish them all equally. It’s the only fair solution.
Of course, those of us with more than four brain cells between our ears knew it was only a matter of time before someone offered up the “trans-age” excuse in defense of assaulting children.
If you don’t think that THIS is a 6 year old girl, you’re an evil monster.
Then again, we also knew the left’s whole “open-minds, open-bathrooms” policy would likely lead to women being creeped on and attacked by men in public restrooms and changing spaces – which it did, here and here and also here.
Yeah, but that’s a small price to pay for not potentially hurting the feeling of a demographics that makes up around 0.3% of the population.
But if men who think they’re women deserve to be treated as such simply because they say so, then whose to say this fully grown guy in Chicago shouldn’t be treated as a little boy stuck in a grown man’s body?
And that’s exactly the point I bring up with regards to the slippery slope, because it is a valid comparison. If we’re going to force people to throw out everything they know and understand about objective reality in one scenario, then what’s to say that we won’t force them to do the exact same thing in other scenarios as well? Why is it OK to demand that people refer to other people with all the physical and genetic characteristics of males, as females, if that is their preference, but we don’t expect similar things to happen in regards to race, species, and in this case, age?
One need look no further to see why the left’s “trans” logic is a house of cards that has no hope of standing.
When I look at a case like this, I can’t help but wonder. Is this the sort of thing that people will soon be defending in just a few short years? I know that might sound completely paranoid, but just look at how much things have “progressed” already in the past few years. Is it really hard to believe that something like this might be promoted as normal very soon?
More than two and a half years ago, I wrote a post, about how there were apparently plans to display Irish flags in every Irish primary school class. At the time I predicted a possibility that this would eventually be considered “offensive” to foreign students and that there would be calls to remove the flags. Well I never found out if this ended up being the case. However, I did just hear that apparently a local Dublin Councillor has come to a similar conclusion about displaying the Irish flag on top of the council building.
A Fingal County councillor has warned against flying the Irish flag outside County Hall, saying the move could offend foreign nationals living there.
Is the sheer idiocy of the statement not completely self-evident? If there really are people who find symbols of our country so offensive, then why are they even in the country?
At a meeting of the council, Solidarity-People Before Profit’s Matthew Waine opposed a motion proposed by Sinn Fein’s Daire Ni Laoi to hoist the national flag at the council’s HQ in Swords.
Don’t vote for this crowd, fellow Irish people. I can’t blame you for feeling disillusioned with the major establishment parties. I completely agree with you there. But if you must vote for something different, please throw your support behind a different party than this one. They need to understand that we will not tolerate this blatant disrespect for our culture and our heritage.
The councillor was one of just two who voted against the motion, suggesting that the red flag of Marxism and socialism should be flown instead.
“The Irish tricolour which represents Irish culture might be offensive to foreign nationals.”
“The red flag of Marxism, a flag which represents an ideology under which tens to hundreds of millions were brutally enslaved, tortured and murdered, won’t be offensive”.
Councillor Waine said: “We have one of the most multi-cultural populations in the whole country living in Fingal and I think we need to consider the sensitivity of this.
Yes it’s so insensitive subjecting them to the sight of the flag of a country they willingly chose to immigrate to. Thank you Comra… er I mean “Councillor”, for being our moral compass.
“The issue of religion, language, nationality…all of those issues are extremely sensitive and we’ve seen how that can play out to divide people.
This is what the left always do. They always project. He talks about certain issues being used to divide people, when that is exactly what he is doing right here, with his implication that our national flag is divisive. There wouldn’t be an issue if not for people like him making an issue out of nothing.
“I would prefer to see the flagpoles used to express solidarity, so for example on the week of Pride we should show the Rainbow flag.
Instead of displaying a flag which is representative of the Irish people as a whole, lets display a flag which is representative of a small minority.
“I think we should fly the flags of minority groups like Pavee Point. I come from the tradition of the workers’ movement which doesn’t see the country of your birth as being anything significant.
“I would prefer to see the red flag fly outside County Hall and maybe in the future that will be the case.”
“Because I have certain beliefs about nationality being unimportant, I think they should take precedence, over the beliefs of everyone else. I don’t care if patriotism and national identity are important to other people. What I think is what matters.”
His view was supported by Independent Councillor David O’Connor who said: “You’re saying what a lot of people think.”
And a lot more people than that, think that he’s talking complete crap.
Councillor Brian Dennehy (FG) also said he understood where Councillor Waine was coming from, because he said flags could be “used as a wedge to divide people”.
A pathetic wimp trying to sit on the fence, instead of taking a solid stance one way or the other.
But Fianna Fail’s Darragh Butler said: “I think it’s staggering that a councillor should say we shouldn’t fly our national flag, or hide our own flag away.”
No love for Fianna Fail on my part, but I gotta give credit where credit is due. Fair play Councillor Darragh Butler, for telling this prick exactly what all sane Irish people think.
Independent councillor Jimmy Guerin said: “I take offence at the comments of Cllr Waine. I’m not surprised at him.”
Councillor Ni Laoi said: “I’d love to see the national flag flying from the turrets of Malahide Castle and Swords Castle and Ardgillen, but for now I’m just proposing that this flag, this symbol of tolerance, inclusion and respect, be flown outside County Hall.”
I completely agree with this. It should be flown everywhere.
After a lengthy debate in the council chamber, with the majority of members supporting the proposal, the motion was carried by 34 votes to two.
Thankfully, our country hasn’t gone completely insane just yet. However this does worry me. It always starts off slowly, and in such a way that we ridicule it, much like we are now. But these monsters are relentless. They don’t ever give up. They only make tactical retreats until they’re ready to try again. I doubt this will be the last we hear of this. I’m certain either he, or one of his comrades will try something like this again. We must never ever give them anything. The more we give them, the further they’ll push. We must always remain vigilant and treat these people with the same contempt, that they treat us through their disrespect for our culture. They deserve nothing less.
There are a lot of countries in the Western world competing in the race to be the first to commit national suicide. There’s the United Kingdom. There’s Belgium. There’s Germany. There’s Canada. Then of course, there’s my own personal pick to win, Sweden. However there are occasionally times when I question if Sweden really is the front-runner in the race. Don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t happen very often. Usually whenever I start to doubt Sweden’s commitment to destroying itself the quickest, they manage to outdo themselves, and remind me as to why they’re my pick. However, after reading this latest story from France, another top contender in this race, I’m really considering the possibility that I may have put my money on them to win (if you can really call it “winning”) instead.
This is basically a surrender, exactly what the French are infamous for. He’s outright admitting that the multicultural plan has failed miserably, by making this statement.
Professor Christian de Moliner admits that an independent society has formed within France, which he described as: “A branch that wants to settle their lives on religious values and is fundamentally opposed to the liberal consensus on which our country was founded.
And the obvious answer to this problem would be to discontinue immigration from the kinds of people who make up this “independent society”, and then round up the ones already in the country, and deport them to a country better suited for their ideology. But of course we can’t do that, or people might call us names, and as we all know, being called names is far worse than having our homelands stolen from us.
“We can never convert the 30% of Muslims who demand the introduction of sharia law to the merits of our democracy and secularism.
“But we also can’t deport them to a country which practices Sharia law, because that would be barbaric.”
“We are now allowing segregation to take place that does not say its name. Rather than veil the face or adopt unimaginable measures in democracy (remigration, forced evictions of the most radical), why not establish a dual system of law in France?”
He literally said that deporting cultural aliens back to their countries of origin, no matter how radical they are in their beliefs, is “unimaginable”. Can you see why I’m seriously considering that France may be overtaking Sweden in this race to national suicide?
De Moliner writes that Emmanuel Macron’s Presidential election victory will not solve the problems, but will only postpone them.
“We will never be able to eradicate the radical Islamism,” he says, adding: “While we are not yet at open war, the faithful of the Prophet are already regrouping in areas sometimes governed by special rules.”
They’re waiting for the demographic balance to shift in their favour, before they go to open war. Seeing as their birthrates are higher than that of the native French population, it’s only a matter of time. Once there are enough of them, the open war will begin.
His “solution” is to create a “state inspired by colonial Algeria and Mayotte of the twentieth century: one territory, one government, but two peoples: the French with the usual laws and Muslims with Qur’anic status (but only for those who choose it).
Brilliant idea. Model your modern, democratic, technologically advanced society, on a backward colony from a century ago.
“The latter will have the right to vote unlike the natives of colonial Algeria, but they will apply Sharia in everyday life, to regulate matrimonial laws (which will legalize polygamy) and inheritance.
“They will no longer apply to French judges for disputes between Muslims, but to Qadis. On the other hand, conflicts between Christians and believers will remain the responsibility of ordinary courts.
It’s not just “multiculturalism” now, but “multilegalism” as well. One law for the French. Another law for the Muslim invaders. I wonder will they go ahead and legalise the right for them to throw gay people off of roofs and take sex slaves, seeing as this would be in line with their beliefs?
“This system would involve schools or hospitals reserved for believers and therefore the creation of local committees that will manage them independently. A council of ulemas will fix the religious law, but the autonomy will stop there,” de Moliner hopes.
“It is obviously out of the question that an embryonic Muslim government is settling in France.
“But instead of doing the sensible thing of nipping it in the bud by removing these people before they have the chance to take over, we’re just going to willingly surrender a large chunk of our territory to them. Anything else would be wrong.”
“This system worked without too many problems from 1890 to 1940 in Algeria.”
Isn’t that great, French people? Instead of living in 21st century France, you get to live in 1890-1940 Algeria instead. Doesn’t that sound exciting?
I want to compare two different scenarios. In scenario one, I lock up my home when I have to leave. When I return, I find out that someone has broken in and stolen my TV, PC, games consoles, and various other expensive pieces of property. In scenario two, I leave my front door wide open when I leave, and when I return, I find that a similar burglary has taken place. In neither situation is it justified that my property has been stolen, but in scenario two, I’m more likely to receive some criticism from others for not taking the precaution of locking my door, than I would in scenario one, were I did take precautions, but something bad happened anyway. The story behind scenario two could then potentially be used as a warning to others to take the kind of necessary precautions that I should have taken myself. This isn’t being done to shame me, or to “blame the victim”. It’s being done to hopefully prevent other people from experiencing something similar themselves, by informing them of the potential consequences of not taking the right precautions.
Lets give another example of these kinds of scenarios. In scenario one, I’m walking home at night and there are two routes home. One is a long walk around the block, and the other is a shortcut through a dark alley. Concerned for my safety, I choose the long route, but I end up getting attacked and mugged anyway. In scenario two, I choose to walk down the dark alley instead, holding a wad of cash in my hand while doing so, and the same thing happens. Once again, in neither situation is it justified that I was attacked and mugged, but in scenario two, it’s more likely that I’ll receive some criticism for being irresponsible, and my story could be used as a warning to others: “Don’t walk down a dark alley alone at night, with your money out. Keep your money hidden, and try to stay in well lit and open areas.” Once again, this isn’t being done to shame or “victim blame” me. It’s being done to prevent others from getting into a similar situation themselves by warning them of the potential dangers of doing what I did.
So now that that’s out of the way, let me get to the main point of this post. A few days ago, Irish radio host George Hook created a massive controversy when discussing a recent case in the UK, in which a 19 year old girl was allegedly raped. The girl in question, met a man at a bar, went off with him to have consensual sex, and claims that she was soon after, raped by one of his friends. Hook made it clear that the rapist is a scumbag, and he condemned his actions fully. However, he did also make a point of raising the issue of the girl’s own behaviour. To quote what he said:
“She was passed around went the story apparently. She went to bed with one guy and he went out and another guy comes in. She doesn’t want to have relations with the second guy but he forced himself upon her. Awful,
But when you then look deeper into the story you have to ask certain questions. Why does a girl who just meets a fella in a bar go back to a hotel room? She’s only just barely met him. She has no idea of his health conditions, she has no idea who he is, no idea what dangers he might pose.
But modern day social activity means that she goes back with him. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and rapes her. Should she be raped? Course she shouldn’t. Is she entitled to say no? Absolutely. Is the guy who came in a scumbag? Certainly. Should he go to jail? Of Course. All of those things.
But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger? You then of course read that she passed out on the toilet and when she woke up the guy was trying to rape her. There is personal responsibility because it’s your daughter and my daughter. What determines the daughter who goes out, gets drunk, passes out and has strangers in her room or the daughter that stays out, stays halfway sober and comes home, I don’t know. I wish I knew what the secret of parenting is.
Is a point of responsibility the real issue?
There is a point of responsibility that young girls are taking for their own safety,”
Now I specifically bolded the parts where he condemns what happened, but none of this matters. What people are focusing on instead are the bits where he talks about personal responsibility. You see in an ideal world, there wouldn’t be any rapists, women wouldn’t have to ever feel unsafe, and there would be no need for taking any precautions, just like how in an ideal world, I should be able to leave my doors unlocked without getting burgled, or walk down a dark alley with a wad of cash in my hand, without getting mugged.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world with bad people, who do bad things. People are getting outraged at Hook, claiming that he’s victim blaming, and trying to tell young women what they can and cannot do. That’s not the impression that I get at all. I don’t think anyone is telling young women that they don’t have the right to get stupidly drunk, and go off with a stranger they’ve just met and know nothing about for sex. What he’s saying is that there are predators out there who will victimise vulnerable people if they get an opportunity to do so, and is trying to warn other young women to look after themselves so that they don’t end up becoming their victims. He just articulated in a very poor manner.
I’ve come across numerous quotes online from people suggesting that instead of teaching young women to take responsibility for their own safety, we should “teach men not to rape”. The fact is, men already know not to rape. Rapists don’t rape people out of ignorance that’s it wrong. They do it because they’re bad people, who simply don’t care. By the same logic, we may as well be saying that we should teach people not to murder or steal, in the ridiculous belief that when potential murderers and thieves find out that murder and stealing are wrong, they won’t do it anymore.
No, what I believe is that we should be teaching people about the very real risks and dangers that are out there, as a warning, rather than living in a fantasy world were people are free to do whatever they want, without any potential consequences. If a woman decides that she still wants to get extremely drunk and go off with a man that she just met, after being informed of the risks involved, then that should entirely be her right, and nobody should tell her otherwise. But lets not pretend that declaring something to be a “right” means that any dangers associated with it, suddenly stop existing.
With ISIS gradually getting crushed in Syria (no thanks to America or their regional allies), being a jihadist is suddenly not so glamorous anymore for a lot of young Muslim men, who joined their ranks in recent years. A lot of them are returning to Europe, and supposedly want a second chance. They’re looking for jobs, but they can’t seem to find anyone willing to employ them, what with the big time gap in their CV, and the whole ‘fighting for a terrorist organisation’ thing hanging over their heads. This makes them sad, and a few of them have decided to share their stories with us.
The first thing an employer will ask about a resume is any gaps between jobs. But they probably wouldn’t suspect that an applicant for a certain role who seems to have been unemployed for a few years was busy fighting for the Islamic State militant group (ISIS).
I can just picture the interviews now…
Jihadis returning to their home countries in Europe are now finding out the hard way, and many cannot get a job as they try to reintegrate into western society.
These are three terms that should never be used in the same sentence, unless that sentence is “Jihadis have been deported back to their home countries, from Europe, were they’ll hopefully soon be killed by the Russian military.”
Swedish daily newspaper Expressen interviewed former jihadis about life after ISIS and they discussed the challenges of finding work. As many as 150 have returned to the Scandinavian country to try and rebuild their lives.
Oh what a surprise. Sweden are the ones leading the charge to humanise these worthless sub-human scum. They don’t deserve the chance to rebuild their pathetic lives. They deserve to be exterminated with extreme prejudice.
“I just want to forget everything,” Walad Yousef, a 27-year-old returning fighter, told the newspaper. “I apply for a lot of jobs, but I can’t get any because my pictures are out there.”
Shouldn’t have run off to fight for an organisation that regularly beheads people, commits acts of terrorism in Western countries, including your host nation, throws gay people off rooftops, and takes women as sex slaves then, should you Walad? I’ve no sympathy for you whatsoever. Don’t act as if you didn’t know what you were getting yourself into, when you signed up to fight for those monsters. They don’t even try to hide what they’re all about. You deserve no opportunities and in a sane world (so not Sweden then), you would be arrested, flown back to whichever Islamic hellhole you originally came from, and dropped out of the plane without any parachute. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with common sense (so again, nobody with any power in Sweden), that he probably came back just so he can commit an act of terrorism there.
Yousef had posted images of himself in Syria on Facebook, posing at a training camp with a Kalashnikov, and encouraging friends to join him. He returned to Sweden and said he had only gone to Syria to help civilians in the eastern city of Raqqa, where ISIS has beheaded several western hostages.
The idiot Swedish authorities will probably fall for this obvious lie.
Another returning member said that life under ISIS was “not what I thought” while others said they had only traveled to help civilians affected by the Syrian war.
Employers fear that returning fighters may commit attacks or help others to commit attacks and do not wish to be associated with them, said another returnee who has changed his name to Yousef.
Oh what horrible hate filled bigots those employers must be. How is it that in *current year*, there are still bigots out there, who think it’s perfectly acceptable to discriminate against members of a terrorist organisation?
“You in the media have scared them. I do not know why they are afraid,” said a jihadi from the southern city of Malmo of the fears that employees and civilians had of returning foreign fighters.
Gee, I wonder why people would be afraid of returning jihadists?
Another refused to speak to Expressen and give his real identity as he said he has “enough problems” finding employment in the country.
Maybe your old employer ISIS, might take you back. With all the casualties they’re suffering as of late, I’m sure they’ll be happy to take whatever recruits they can get.
Others said they had no idea why their names were on leaked ISIS records. “That’s very strange. Anyone can say they’re me,” said an unnamed returnee. “I mean, it’s war. Maybe someone recommended me. I don’t know.”
Many live at home with their relatives or their friends as they cannot afford accommodation after returning and many have changed their names.
Just as well facial recognition software is improving all the time. You can’t hide forever. You will be exposed eventually.
One of the jihadis named in the Expressen investigation is Bherlin Dequilla Gildo, a 39-year-old from Malmo, a jihadi who posed with the corpse of a Syrian regime soldier. A man answered at his address but said no one was there with that name. But he is back in Sweden, the newspaper says. One of Gildo’s associates who fought alongside him said “he can do anything. Even I am afraid of him.”
And this guy is walking the streets of Sweden quite freely. Aren’t open borders and multiculturalism just wonderful?
Sweden is one the best countries for a foreign fighter to return if they want to reintegrate. It is trialling a rehabilitation programme that gives Swedish extremists housing, employment, education and financial support. Anna Sjöstrand, the municipal coordinator against violent extremism in the city of Lund, said in October 2016 that it is much cheaper to reintegrate someone than to abandon them.
A lot of free stuff and opportunities that indigenous, law abiding, ethnic Swedes, the ones who actually pay the taxes to fun these programs, don’t get to benefit from. This is something that people need to remember. If you’re a native European (particularly in the likes of Sweden), you’re almost guaranteed to be a second class citizen in your own country, whereas terrorist scum like these guys, will get every opportunity handed to them.
It is unclear if the trial will be rolled out nationwide or how former jihadis are to be reintegrated into the job market when they face such an obvious stigma after being ISIS members.
My guess is that the Swedish government will either incentivise or force employers to hire former ISIS fighters, ahead of native Swedes. In fact, because this is Sweden we’re talking about, I can say that with 99% certainty that this is exactly what will happen.
The country suffered only its second radical Islamist attack in April when an Uzbek national plowed a truck into civilians on a busy shopping street in central Stockholm. The attack left five people dead. Authorities arrested the driver and said he had sympathies with ISIS. ISIS did not claim the attack, but it generally does not take responsibility for attackers who are captured alive.
Returning fighters are a problem across the West—security services in Europe and the U.S. are concerned that their nationals will return home to carry out attacks as ISIS’s caliphate continues to crumble in Iraq and Syria.
And here in lies a very important key problem with regards to Western policy. On the one hand, they (claim at least to) increase their attacks on ISIS in the Middle East, ostensibly to stop attacks from ISIS in Europe. Yet at the same time, they have this belief that increasing their pressure on ISIS in the Middle East, causes them to increase their attacks in the West. So a terrorist attack occurs in Europe, and they respond by bombing the Middle East, which they also believe causes more attacks in Europe in retaliation. Meanwhile, they continue to do nothing practical to prevent attacks from happening in Europe, such as having a sensible immigration policy, or deporting known radicals. It’s like imagine if your house was full of cockroaches, so you hired an exterminator, to kill the cockroaches in a house 5 miles away, instead of the ones actually in your own home. It’s just complete insanity.
More than half of Britain’s 800 foreign fighters have returned home. For the U.S., only a few have returned home with a much lower travel rate to Syria and Iraq. Former FBI Director James Comey said in 2016 that just 250 Americans had attempted to go or have gone to Syria. Almost 7,000 have traveled to Iraq and Syria as a whole from the West.
Is anyone else sick of hearing these people actually being referred to as “British” or “American” or whatever? Because I sure am. It isn’t white Europeans or white Americans… the people who actually built these nations, who are going off to Syria and Iraq (well, with one notable exception). It’s people of Arabic, North African, or South Asian descent who are doing so. These are not the indigenous Europeans, nor are they founding demographic of the United States. They are people who we have foolishly welcomed into our homelands, who have taken advantage of our kindness, and then have betrayed us. They aren’t American. They aren’t European. They shouldn’t be referred to as such.
In the country that is on its way to becoming known as the “United Caliphate”, a new textbook has been published for the purpose of brainwashing educating impressionable children. You see, there’s one group of people who are completely misunderstood by society at large. What group of people am I referring to? Why, terrorists of course. There’s a worry that children might hear all the negative stories about terrorists, and get a bad impression of them. Luckily for us, some lunatic enterprising genius has realised this possibility, and has decided that the children need to hear the government approved lies truth about them.
Yeah, no shit. It’s a very specific type of war. It’s called “Jihad”, and it has been going on in some form for the past 1400 years. The use of terrorism as a tactic might be different from traditional Jihad, but the goal is exactly the same. To establish a global Caliphate, in which the entire world submits to Islamic domination.
It tells primary age children that terrorists kill people because they believe they are being treated “unfairly and not shown respect”, Daily Express reported.
“It’s just not fair. I left my home country to come live in Europe, and the Europeans won’t change their countries, to be more like the country that I left. I should be allowed to rape women who aren’t covered from head to toe or accompanied by a male family member at all times, and throw gays off the top of roofs, all I want. It’s so unfair and disrespectful, that I’m not allowed do these things, that I’m going to strap a bomb to myself and kill their children. They deserve it.”
In an activity recommended for pupils aged seven to 11, teachers are urged to “invite children to write a letter to a terrorist. If they could ask a terrorist six questions, what would they be?”
Hey Mohammad, why did you come to Europe if you hate it here so much?
Hey Mohammad, why do you want Europe to be more like the shitty country you fled from?
Hey Mohammad, why do you hate gays so much, but not people who have sex with goats?
Hey Mohammad, why do pictures of your prophet enrage you so much?
Hey Mohammad, did you ever consider that maybe your prophet didn’t hear the voice of God? He probably just suffered from schizophrenia, and thought the voices in his head were from God.
Hey Mohammad, what did you think about the time Tesco had pork products in the “Halal” section?
The book, published by Brilliant Publications and containing a foreword by Peter Wanless, the chief executive of The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a charity campaigning and working in child protection in the UK, has been slammed by critics who say it is potentially dangerous.
Wow, I’m actually impressed. I take back what I said in title of this post. If the UK really had gone “full Sweden”, there wouldn’t be any vocal criticism of this book.
But…but… who cares about upsetting and confusing the children? The real victims are the poor, misunderstood terrorists.
“This a crackpot idea based on the misguided notion that primary school children must engage with, and show ‘respect’ for, religious fanatics who are seeking to kill them.
But of course they have to. Respect is the only possible way to beat the terrorists in the long run. Remember when the Nazis came to power? There were a lot of “bigots” and “Naziphobes”, who wanted to go to war with Germany, just because of the actions of a small minority of radical Nazis. Luckily enough, people chose to engage with the moderate Nazis instead, and a potential second world war was avoided.
“The primary school classroom is not the place to humanise terrorism by ‘pretend dialogue’.”
In trying to help children “understand” terrorists’ motives, the book invites sympathy for the killers, critics claim, the report said.
Wow, that sounds like a load of “bigotry” and “Islamophobia” right there. Hopefully, this guy will get a knock on the door in the middle of the night, and get re-educated, until he’s cured of those negative traits. It’s the least we can do, in case any terrorists had their feelings hurt.
I just can’t believe it. I thought the Nazis had been wiped out in Germany 70 years ago, but apparently I was wrong. They just went underground and bided their time, until they could implement their new master-plan… to buy McDonald’s franchises and put up signs that hurt the feelings of random non-Aryan people residing in the country (Turks specifically in this case). This is like Holocaust 2.0.
A bilingual sign at a McDonald’s fast-food chain restaurant has been branded racist. The one in Turkish sends customers to a bad neighborhood, while the German one points to an upper-class area.
Am I the only person wondering why they’re even accommodating the Turks by having signs in their language at all? I don’t believe Turkish is an official language in Germany… at least not yet. That will almost certainly change of course, if Erdogan’s plan to have Turks in Europe outbreed the native Europeans and eventually take over the continent, succeeds.
Also, if I was to guess why the sign in Turkish sends people to a “bad neighbourhood”, it’s probably because that sign directs to a neighbourhood that is full of Turkish people.
An owner of three McDonald’s franchise restaurants in the German city of Mannheim found himself in a hot water after placing a bilingual sign at the doors his establishment, according to local media reports.
In saner times, the outrage would have been for having a sign in Turkish at all. You don’t make accommodations for the invaders who are trying to conquer and ethnically replace you.
As the restaurant in question was closing down, the owner Manfred Büch explained in a statement that he wanted to direct his customers to the two other ones he owned. The two languages pointed to very different locales, however.
Here’s what I’m wondering though. Lets say the signs were reversed, and the German language one directed people to the bad neighbourhood, and the Turkish one to the upper-class area. Would there be any controversy about “racism” then?
I think we already know the answer to that question…
The questionable signs drew criticism from members of the local Turkish community, which accused the restaurant owner of “racial segregation in 2017.”
Oh my God, it’s *current year*, and the big bad McDonald’s Nazi, is hurting the feelings of the Turkish invaders with his mean sign.
Do you want to know a place you can go, where you won’t have to be offended by racist signs anymore?
The restaurant owner promptly reacted to the criticism and took the controversial signs down. He stressed that he has owned the franchise restaurants for 25 years and there have been no racist incidents in his establishments, while a lot of “international employees” had been working in them.
“We have worked together with international employees for 25 years, every day without any racism. To be accused now of discrimination makes us speechless and sad,” Die Welt quoted Büch as saying.
Yeah… none of that will matter of course, because they were just looking for a witch hunt and an easy target to bully with accusations of racism, and congratulations, you gave them what they wanted, by giving in to their stupid demands, rather than standing your ground. They’re like sharks smelling blood in the water, or perhaps more appropriately, cockroaches smelling bits of food that fell under your fridge. Once they sense weakness in their target, they become relentless.
Büch insisted that he only meant to be “inclusive” for all his customers and that the signs were simply misunderstood, adding that he had ordered the controversial signs from a Turkish company.
I think this proves that he shouldn’t have bothered trying to do any nice things for them. It always ends up backfiring.
McDonald’s Germany reacted to the incident, calling it a “misunderstanding” and praising the restaurant owner for his swift reaction to the criticism.
“Discrimination has no place in our restaurants. This is clearly a misunderstanding, and we applaud the franchise owner for his swift reaction in removing the signs,” Die Welt quoted the fast food giant’s statement.
Not good enough McDonald’s. Think of all the hurt feelings this Nazi must have caused. The fact that you aren’t taking the franchises back from him and blacklisting him from ever owning another one, leads me to only one conclusion…
What a horrible tragedy this is. I can barely even imagine just how badly this must have hurt the feelings of these poor innocent victims. Hopefully Merkel will launch an investigation into this McDonald’s/Nazi connection, and make sure justice is done.
I remember when the first notable example of a Muslim terrorist using a vehicle to kill people occurred in Nice, social media was rife with sarcastic comments about the need to “Ban all trucks” or to introduce “truck control laws”, playing off the comments about gun control, that inevitably follow every single shooting death that occurs in America. The whole point of the comments was to sound absurd as possible, to mock the fact that the media and political establishment will jump through hoops to try to avoid talking about the real issues that lead to these frequent tragedies. The reality is that you can ban guns all you want. It might make things a little more inconvenient for a determined killer, but as the wave of vehicle related terrorist attacks in Europe has shown, they will find other ways. Nobody was ever seriously suggesting that vehicles needed to be banned.
But then Sweden had a terrorist attack, in which a vehicle was the murder weapon of choice…
Cars have turned into deadly weapons.They have been easy to steal and then nothing has been able to stop their advance.
Yep. As I’ve always maintained, I’m no gun nut myself, but I’ve always believed that those who obsess over the “gun control” issue, are completely misguided. People erroneously presume that America has a huge amount of gun violence, solely because of the easy access to guns. But if easy access to guns was the case, then why doesn’t Switzerland have a similar amount of gun violence, and why is it that in America, it has only really become a problem in recent decades? Well, the answer can be found by reading “The Color of Crime”. High gun proliferation isn’t the issue. Diversity is, and as Europe becomes more “diverse”, just as America did a few decades before us, we too are seeing an increase in violent crime. If it isn’t guns, it’s trucks. If it isn’t trucks, it will be something else.
In Nice, Berlin, Jerusalem, London andStockholmthey have been used as effective murder machines terrorists who wanted to kill many people.
Yeah, and who were the responsible parties in each of those situations? It sure wasn’t indigenous, white Europeans, that’s for sure.
If people in the future will be protected cars must simply removed from the collection sites and city centers.It is not reasonable for a big truck can be driven right into Stockholm’s popular walking street on a Friday afternoon just before Easter.Politicians have been good at protecting themselves, but now they must also ensure citizens’ needs for secure environments.
And there you have it. The solution to the recent spate of terrorist attacks involving vehicles? Ban vehicles from city centers. Normal citizens have to have their own rights curtailed, in order to protect them from the invading force that their treacherous elites forced upon, against their will. This is the price we have to pay for the diversity we never even asked for.
Never forget those who were responsible for this. We didn’t ask for multiculturalism. We weren’t consulted about it. We had it inflicted upon us because of some bullshit about how we wouldn’t survive without out (no explanation as to why we wouldn’t survive). Personally, I think we could have survived just fine.
It has been fourteen years ago, a man drove right onto Western Street inOld Town.He killed a woman and injured another 18 people. There were several reasons to protect the medieval city center, but security in the narrow alleys should have been a strong argument.It is indeed remarkable that car traffic soon-still must scroll through the Old Town.
Stockholm is an international city, a tourist city with 13.5 million overnight stays last year.Of the four personskilled at Queen Streetwere three visitors, one woman from Belgium, a woman from Uddevalla, and a British man.
Don’t forget the fifth victim. The poor, innocent dog.
I honestly feel more sympathy for the poor dog than the people at this point. The people are the ones supporting this insanity, by living in denial about what is actually happening. The dog on the other hand can’t be blamed.
Shopping Street is a popular destination for our visitors and should of course be a safe environment.Many tourists continue down the street to the Old Town, but quite surely it is just around the headquarters and Parliament House.There are stops for unwanted cars that can also be folded down for any significant transport must be developed.The technology there is, but it’s not for everyone.
Sadly, the terrorist didn’t strike the parliament house instead of random passers-by. It wouldn’t be as much of a tragedy if he had.
Most things can be solved for taxi and transportation service.Deliveries to shops and restaurants can also be redirected to the times when fewer people are out walking the streets.
Stockholm’s traffic has always been about flows.Motorists should drive in a steady stream, and nothing will stop them.Now being built also fast cycle paths so that cyclists can flow through the city.
All sounds very complicated and unnecessary. I could suggest a simpler solution. Stop immigration from incompatible people, and deport the incompatible ones who are already there.
More rarely, there is talk of the need for a peaceful environment.If parks and squares friendly welcoming our visitors and where children can move without danger to their lives.
Their lives wouldn’t be in danger anyway if you put a stop to this insane immigration system.
Justice Minister Morgan Johansson believes that it is difficult to protect people in an open society.But motorists may run anywhere is surely not transparent.The cars have dominated our cities for decades, now it is the people who need space.Now it is cars that must be regulated.
“Cars must be regulated”
This is coming from the country that gave us this.
I don’t think I can really add anything more at this point. The sheer stupidity should be obvious to anyone… except this woman.
I’m a firm believer that “equality of opportunity” is a good code of conduct to live by. I don’t see any reason why a person should be denied a fair opportunity for something, on account of their membership of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation etc., if none of these things are a relevant factor.
However, a lot of people seem to confuse “equality of opportunity” with “equality of outcome” and therefore assume that if we aren’t seeing equality of outcome in certain places, that this must be down to discrimination. The problem is, that while we might be all “equal” in terms of our rights and protections under the law, that doesn’t mean that we’re equal in every way. And that’s just it, we aren’t all equal. We all have different strengths and weaknesses, and some people just aren’t as capable in certain endeavours as others. Some people are simply capable of reaching higher standards than others and it’s impossible to have equality while maintaining these high standards. The only way equality can be achieved is by dragging the standards down to the level of the weakest candidates which of course by definition means a lower quality of standards.
I’ve actually touched on this sort of thing before in a post I wrote nearly two years ago. The post in question dealt with a story about how the United Stated Marine Corps was lowering their fitness standards so that women could qualify (under the existing standards at the time, not one woman had ever passed). The logic given for this was that the test was “sexist”, and “outdated”, and that standards needed to be changed, so that women could pass. The standards that existed had nothing to do with sexism though. They were just the standards that it was felt Marines needed to meet in order to actually do their job properly. Men just had a natural advantage because due to biology, they’re physically stronger than women on average. If a man couldn’t meet the existing standards, he wouldn’t pass either. The obvious endgame of this decision to change the standards, is that in a potential future conflict, there will be marines on the battlefield who are less capable, and therefore, more likely to either die, or cause the deaths of their colleagues. That doesn’t seem to matter though. Not hurting the feelings of unqualified applicants is more important than keeping people alive apparently.
Today’s story deals with teachers, rather than military personnel. I don’t think we can expect any potential deaths because of this decision, but we could see plenty of students having their future earning potential and livelihoods hindered, because of having been taught by inferior teachers. I’m of the believe that the student’s needs are more important than the feelings of unqualified teachers. New York State doesn’t seem to share my views on the topic.
Prospective teachers in New York will likely no longer have to pass a basic reading and writing literacy exam, the Associated Press is reporting.
Who needs teachers who are capable of reading and writing? I’m sure they’ll do an excellent job teaching students how to read and write… without knowing how to do those things themselves.
The state’s Board of Regents is expected to ditch the Academic Literacy Skills Test in part because black and Hispanic teaching candidates struggled to pass the exam, according to the AP.
“Aw sheeeit. We wuz kangz yo. We don’ need no muh’fuggin crackah tests to be able to get dat learn on with those kidz n shit.”
So because black and Hispanic candidates struggle to pass the test, it must be racist somehow. I don’t really understand how this could be exactly. I don’t think we’ll be getting an explanation as to how either. Just that it “must be racist because they aren’t passing”.
Also I would like to once again point out, that if America is such a racist, white supremacist, white privileged society, then why is it that on average, Indians, East Asians, and Jews, are more successful than white people? Why do the racist white people cause blacks and Hispanics to fail, but they don’t do the same for the other groups? It’s just such a mystery. Well, it is if you choose to be willfully ignorant, make certain possible explanations taboo, and therefore limit the possibilities as to what the answer could be.
Just 41 percent of black teaching candidates and 46 percent of Hispanics passed the test on their first try, compared to 64 percent of white candidates.
So a large percentage of white people fail the test as well then? And a fairly large percentage of black and Hispanic do actually pass, but just not as large a percentage as white people. Sounds like it’s just a tough test that passes the qualified applicants, and fails the unqualified, regardless of their race. What could be fairer than that?
The multiple choice exam is meant to ensure high standards among prospective teachers, which many teaching preparation programs have struggled to do.
A December 2016 study by the National Council on Teacher Quality found that 44 percent of teaching programs “cannot ensure that most of their incoming candidates are among the top half of college students.”
Maybe the teaching programs scrapped their own set of standards for prospective course coordinators, and now there are inferior people teaching prospective teachers.
Hey, anything is possible.
A state task force recommended the board scrap the exam because of the number of black and hispanic candidates struggling to pass it. The board is expected to adopt the recommendations on Monday.
Lets not maintain high standards. Lets allow our standards to be dictated by the level of the weakest candidates.
“We want high standards, without a doubt.
Not every given test is going to get us there,” Pace University professor Leslie Soodak told the AP.
“So lets just scrap the tests entirely then.”
Soodak was a member of the task force that advocated abandoning literacy tests for teachers.
“Having a white workforce really doesn’t match our student body anymore,” Soodak added.
But…but…I thought we were all equal, and race doesn’t matter. Surely we should judge people not “by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” That would be the proper thing to do, right?
Opponents to the exam unsuccessfully attempted to have it struck down in court in 2015, arguing that it was discriminatory because racial minorities performed worse on the test than white candidates.
No explanation as to how exactly a multiple choice questionnaire could be discriminatory. Like I said, there are other possibilities to take into consideration that could more easily explain why these minorities are performing worse on average.
Nice to see there are still some good judges. Of course, that never stops these people. They’re like religious zealots. If they have a goal, they’ll keep pushing and pushing for it, until they eventually get their way. Ultimately, they can lose a hundred times in a row, and it doesn’t matter, because they’ll just try again until they finally win once.