It takes a nation to protect the nation
We begin this discussion with a comment from Paul:
In reference to the attack in Corsica. Other news outlets are reporting it as an Islamophobic attack? Im not posting links to such garbage.
Its typical of certain media outlets to fail to report the full story. There's no mention of the attacks on the Police and fire fighters, and i bet if someone with even the slightest of interest would find there's been a long history of irritation between the two communities. Because it doesn't just happen that 600 people go on the rampage over one event.
I've seen photo's of the so called rampage, and it looks like a small amount of damage has been done compared to similar events involving Muslims. Normally when gangs of Muslims rampage over korans or drawing of Mo or the crusades or something, the scenes normally resemble a war zone, with dead people.
I agree. I've given up capturing those shitty, Islamophilic reports. Its clear that the quislings see no disparity between the violence, frequency and depravity of Muslim attacks, and the rare, black swan instances of kuffar response.
And you always have to dig to find the underlying truth - normally some Muslim violence finally provoking the exasperated kuffar.
As has been said before, what was the untold story behind the Bradford and Bolton riots of the 1990s? We now know that Muslim grooming gangs have been trashing thousands of underage girls since that time. Was that what provoked the riots? Don't expect the 4th estate to tell you!
The Islamic gang is clearly defined, well organised, fully funded, and totally comitted to the promotion of the gang's interests and the protection of its members. How can a disparate scattering of individuals in a confused and aimless democracy, ever compete with that? And so it is that with a little bit of string pulling here, a little bit of threatening there, combined with a fully compliant BBC, their message will always get out in suppression of the kuffar's perfunctory attempts to set the record straight.
How is this system supposed to work? Well, after incidents like mass grooming and rape of kuffar girls, 5 times normal criminality, officially codified hate speech, extreme violence and terror attacks in this country and abroad and cutting their little girls clits, followed by mealy mouthed excuses and brazen lies from Muslim leaders, people develop a societal memory. People do not create a database to stor and codify all this information, they just develop a general impression that Muslims pose a risk to them and their society. They do this in the same way that we develop a general impression that driving at high speed poses a risk to others, and if performed by a large group of people, to society in general. We dont remember all the news reports and personally known tragedies; we just form a general impression.
So why doesnt that system work anymore? Its because that accumulated societal knowledge is now called 'prejudice'.
Muslim gangocracy will replace secular democracy, and very soon, the canaries in the coalmine like ourselves, will be shut down by the very thing they are trying to protect.
Which leads to the question that Anthony puts: why isn't this blatant kuffarphobic oppression leading to protests and rebellion?
Re Corsica/Bradford etc riots, connected with this, and probably the subject of lengthy discussion, is that it is amazing just how few and far between they have been considering the awfulness of grooming gangs,fgm, heroin pushing etc - back in the day in the 70's and 80's, people used to be kicking off and rioting all the time !, why so infrequent now ? is it because the police have better detection methods, or is it because people have become so browbeaten that they don't riot anymore, or a combination of other reasons ?
I believe its for 4 reasons.
The process is fully perfected and very powerful, yet has the advantage of not being identifiable as a formal system, like Stalins secret police, or East Germany's network of informants, so it is much harder for people to rebel against it. How can you fight back against something that doesn't even have a name? Truly, Stalin would have been jealous of our modern systems of political control.
We don't know what Muslim gang members are active within the BBC, the CPS, the Metropolitian Police, the Guardian, Hate not Hope, etc, pulling the strings to crush all opposition. We don't even know quislings are active in these organisations, promoting their totalitarian kuffarphobic agenda for them. Truly, it is hard to see how individual political activists in an open society, can stand up against this well organised, well funded and thoroughly embedded, Islamic political juggernaut.
Around 1 hour in, Tatchell is nearly weeping, begging to ask a question, saying these kinds of question are a matter of life and death for him, that he lives in fear of being killed. Bear in mind, that this is a man who was prepared to get brain damage from Mugabe's thugs, yet here he is begging to be allowed to query just which one of the Nazis in the room might be the one to behead him.
He's teetering very near the edge of The Chasm, IMO. Although I think he might just have a mental breakdown, realising that his life's work has been for nothing. He's tweeted this "encounter" as if he's proud of it, saying he challenges them on the morality of killing apostates under sharia. Wow, what a bold and nuanced and controversial position for him to adopt. Fancy that, thank goodness he's there as a moral guide for us dumb kuffars.
Yes. He should have just walked out.
Meanwhile, Nero has been tweeting videos of himself firing a grenade launcher. I know which one of them is standing up for gay rights.
Yeah, Nero is great. Everyone should subscribe to his podcasts:
I would never expose myself to a video like this.
The point is that dialogue with muslims is impossible, a waste of time. They do not care how wrong they are or how stupid and illogical their arguments are, because they do not care what we think and cannot be bothered to listen to anything we say.
They are only speaking to the Muslim audience and the muslims understand them very well.
They just reiterate dogma.
An Imam in Oslo (here seen with the previous Prime Minister of Norway, now leader of NATO), voiced support for the murderer of a governor in the Punjab, who was too liberal for the islamist taste.
A muslim norwegian labour party member of parliament, went up against a female progress party youth in a TV debate and refused to condemn this Imam because this was a private and not a public matter, and the Mosque would decide if this Imam lost his job or not. He is on a long holiday in Pakistan waiting for the matter to be forgotten. This muslim politician repeatedly attacked the progress party in the debate for bothering about an Imam voicing a personal opinion whilst they refuse to condemn the far-right-extremist Pegida. The Muslims and their leftist pals always call the progress party extreme-far-right. The progress party youth demanded that Muslims condemn this Imam and that he lose his job for supporting terrorism.
Muslims have an agenda that all muslims understand, but that few in the West understand.
"Is Islam the cause or solution to extremism....?"
I don't know who posed this question.
Of course Islam is the solution to extremism, because when everyone has been forced to submit to Islam there will no longer be any need for islamic extremism
Far-right extremism is a response to islamic aggression and not the cause of islamic extremism.
To the question "Is Islam the cause of islamic extremism?" the answer has to be Yes.
Was there a movement before hand dedicated to the eradication of Islam, that required Islam to defend itself? No.
Is Islam intent on destroying everything non-Muslim? Yes.
Is a culture and an ideology that is devoted to destroying every other ideology and culture extreme? Yes.
To the muslim mind the islamic terrorists are heroes and freedom fighters, defending islam from the aggression of the non- muslim world, that hates islam and unjustifiably murders innocent muslim women and children. Almost every terrorist is a muslim and most muslims want sharia and believe that islam is the one true path.
I do not think there is any way past this muslim mind-set.
This video is another take on the Gangocracy idea. So it is statistically proven that Diversity causes societal fracture and a decrease in social trust, once the imported group or gang, attains a certain size. Upon reaching that size it no longer needs the host society, so it can self-isolate and reject the host, forming a parallel society, which then promotes its own values.
Futures societies will look back nostalgically to our dreams of an egalitarian, culture blind, race blind, faith blind society. They will live in a reality where the strongest gang (probably the Muslim one) is dominant, and which distributes the spoils to its own members, while oppressing and persecuting all the non-members. Anyone who doubts the natural dominance of the Gang model over the non-discriminatory egalitarian one, should please go see how white farmers are treated in Zimbabwe or South Africa, or see how Jews, Christians, Hindus or Zoroastrians are treated in Muslim countries.
It should be obvious to an intelligent and objective mind that multiculturalism causes division and ethnic conflict, not harmony and wellbeing. The decay of the civilized societies that have embraced multiculturalism evidence this. Only a monocultural society can be harmonious.
Monocultural harmonious country- uncontrolled immigration- increasingly large minorities- integration efforts overwhelmed- the concept of multiculturalism dreamed up, to excuse the lack of political will to solve the problem through deportation- ethnic conflict- accusations of racism used as a morality weapon, again to avoid the painful measures necessary to restore the monocultural nation.
The Triumph of Oligarchy ; http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-triumph-of-oligarchy.html
A U.S. website had a poll with the question "Do you think that whites are now an oppressed group?" The vote was an overwhelming yes. I put the following comment there.
I think the root issue here is tribalism and nepotism. About two hundred years ago, we in the West decided that if we could just abandon our tribes and work together, we would all benefit. It doesn't matter if the tribes are Protestant v. Catholic, Irish v. Chinese, Black v. White, or even Men v. Women, I think we were all rather tired of it and wanted to move forward, so we created new laws and new institutions. Of course, the culture took some time to catch up with the intention of the laws and institutions, but by around 1980 the process was complete.
Other societies, like the Islamic ones, decided to keep their societies divided on tribal lines, and I leave it to the reader to conclude the result.
Unfortunately, societal memory only seems to last one, or at most, two generations. So we forgot how we got here. But the proper answer to this constant clamoring for the recognition of new tribal groups, with the consequent demand for extra privileges and exemptions for those groups, should be strong anger, and ruthless suppression. It doesn't matter who the group is or what it is demanding, the core principle is that it is seeking to divide society in what is essentially just a more sophisticated form of apartheid. Then after the division, this new tribal group is trying to get extra rights and privileges for its people, above and beyond what are guaranteed by the standing principle of 'equal treatment for all'.
Over time, the new tribal group can morph into a 5th column, actively seeking to destroy the society from within, as is the stated objective of Obama's beloved Muslim Brotherhood. It is also shown by the constant stream of terrorist acts in Europe, which have successfully bullied its people into cowardice and submission already.
Once the tribe has become established in some of society's organisations and companies, it can then start to directly distribute extra benefits to its members, without even waiting for the slow erosion of our protection to be completed - by demonstration, lawfare and political pressure. This is the arrival of Nepotism, which we witness now in parts of Europe, in the replacement of local staff by Muslims once a Muslim manager is installed, and in the US, by the partisan behavior of Loretta Lynch and Obama, when dealing with some Black issues. I'm not saying that it's wrong that Lynch and Obama held the positions they did, I'm saying that its wrong that they held those positions whilst openly professing a tribal allegiance. They were supposed to be non-tribal, non-partisan, here to protect everyone equally, without discrimination.
In the case of Islam, we even lose both ways. Muslims demand separate facilities, extra resources, and special exemptions, pleading that they are a well defined and properly organised group, with a clearly stated ideology, and that ideology requires them to have those extra dispensations above the other 'haram' citizens. Fine. But when one of their brethren, following the instructions of their 'holy' prophet, blows up and maims some of the 'haram' citizens, they plead the opposite, that they are a collection of individuals with a wide variety of different views, and that its not possible for the leaders of this tribe, let alone any of its members, to take responsibility for the actions of its members.
It's not even possible, apparently, for the leaders of that 'well defined' tribe, to reject members from that tribe, whom they have said to be 'bad Muslims'. So really we lose 3 ways. We have to give them special rights because they are a special, well defined tribe. But we must not hold them responsible for the actions of that tribe because they are not *that* well defined. But even when a Muslim leader says 'Muslim X is not behaving in proper accord with Islam', we cannot demand that he eject X from the Muslim 'faith', deny him a Muslim burial, have his family ostracised, etc. So Muslim leaders are allowed to say "He is not one of us", whilst still treating him and his family as "one of us".
So the response to all these tribal complaints should NOT be to start discussing the particular special treatment demanded. It should be to reject at the outset, on principle, the demand for recognition as a recognisably separate grouping of society.
Muslims are a special case that cannot be compared to any other minority. As you point out Alan there is a duplicity(triplicity) that we do not find in other groups. Two or more standards apply at the same time to muslims. And this is exploited as you describe-
" ... But when one of their brethren, following the instructions of their 'holy' prophet, blows up and maims some of the 'haram' citizens, they plead the opposite,...."
Which makes it very hard to oppose Islam, and very easy for those that so desire to defend muslims.
Compared to far-right-extremists where one violent attack by any member can clearly be ascribed to be the responsibilty of the entire far-right group and its ideology. They are not pretending to be peace-loving or tolerant.
Islam pretends to be peace-loving and tolerant while conducting war and persecuting. We believe that honesty is a virtue and hate to lie, muslims just do not care they can justify any action no matter how dispicable by refering to their holy scriptures. There are so many nasty bits in the koran,hadiths and sira that you have to be wilfully ignorant in order to ignore them.
There is no other defence against a psychopath other than to break off relations with him entirely.
Islam is an extremist ideology.
TRUMP RAGED AT PALESTINIAN LEADER MAHMOUD ABBAS IN BETHLEHEM MEETING: 'YOU LIED TO ME'
We need more leaders like Trump