Thursday, April 24, 2008

Surrender, Genocide… or What?

Regular readers will remember our guest-essayist El Inglés, who has contributed several thoughtful pieces to Gates of Vienna in the past.

The essay below presents a stark view of the West’s most likely future. It’s difficult to read such a pessimistic scenario, but El Inglés’ analysis rewards close scrutiny.

Remember: the article below is descriptive, not normative.


The Ummah Jack

Surrender, Genocide… or What?
by El Inglés


Introduction

A few months ago, I wrote “The Danish Civil War”, a fictional scenario which served to structure a consideration of various issues relating to the rise of Islam in Europe and the likely consequences thereof. The essay finished with the conclusion that Islam constituted an existential threat to the survival of European civilization, and that Islam’s influence on Europe therefore needed to be eliminated. It further concluded that, logically speaking, the various ways of achieving this goal could be broadly subdivided into three categories:

1) inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will,
2) mass deportations, and
3) genocide.

(Hereinafter referred to as options one, two and three, respectively)

This final conclusion was delivered as dispassionately as possible due to a desire to present the situation objectively, as if an alien super-intelligence were viewing the conflicts of various warring tribes of hairless apes. If I am correct in arguing that the number of Muslims in Europe must be reduced to no more than a fraction of its current value, then the three options I discussed are the only three options for achieving this goal. We may consider all three to be morally abhorrent and decide to submit to Islam rather than avail ourselves of any of them, but that does not alter the brute analysis of what could, in principle, be done in response to the Islamization of Europe.

Having now had several months in which to further consider this issue, it seems to me that my conclusions in this regard can be considerably refined. For reasons that I hope to make clear in this essay, I no longer believe that it is possible to solve the problem that Islam has become by means of option one, and I have little confidence that even option two could constitute an effective tool in this regard. I therefore predict that Europe is being swept into a position where it will be forced to choose between relying overwhelmingly on option three and surrendering.

To the type of people most likely to read this essay, this suggestion will not necessarily come as much of a surprise. However, I feel that an issue of such gravity should be analyzed with as much rigour as possible, and this essay will constitute my attempt to conduct this analysis. I have much confidence in parts of it, but less in others, and would appreciate comments from those who feel they have greater or additional insight into key topics. There is certainly a huge amount of variety among European countries in key respects, which I have largely ignored here. Ideally the key claims of the essay would be explored on a country-by-country basis, but such an analysis is quite beyond me. There is also great variety in terms of the current degree of Islamization of these countries, and the amount of braking room that they therefore have available. To the extent that the analysis herein captures the imagination of any of its readers, I would welcome opinions on the likelihood or likely timelines of the different discontinuities discussed below.
- - - - - - - - -
These caveats out of the way, I will briefly describe the structure of the essay. It is divided into three parts. The first, “Decay”, will consist of an overview of certain aspects of the current situation in an attempt to establish the momentum already established by the forces of Islamization. The second, “Consequences”, will analyze the extent to which our options in dealing with Islam have been and will continue to be narrowed for some time yet by this momentum. The final part, “Violence”, will take this analysis further whilst also considering the likely nature of the large-scale societal breakdowns we will see as Islam in Europe continues to be what it cannot help but be.

Decay

Information pertaining to the decay of European societies in the face of the onslaught from Islam comes so thick and fast these days from such a variety of sources that there is no particular need to try and summarize it here. Instead, I would like to examine one particular aspect of the decay of one particular country in an attempt to establish the sheer momentum already inherent in the process of Islamization, which will have ramifications later on in the essay. Sadly, the country in question is my own, the UK, and the institution already in an advanced degree of cultural and political putrefaction is that of the British police. I will briefly summarize three examples of their egregiousness.

The first relates to that most sweet-natured of Muslim terrorists, Abu Hamza (Captain Hook to the tabloids). In 2005, under the Freedom of Information Act, the Metropolitan Police were forced to reveal that they had spent nearly £900,000 over a 22-month period from January 2003, stewarding (i.e. protecting and enabling) illegal street sermons given by Hamza after he was evicted from the Finsbury Park Mosque. Patrick Mercer, the Conservative frontbench spokesman on homeland security at the time this information came to light, had the following to say in response: “The effect of the police action was to make it easier for poison and subversion to be preached openly on our streets.”

However, according to an article in The Times, the paper which made the original request for the information, Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, expressed himself to the effect that his force had been presented with “a challenging policing operation” that had been handled with “appropriate sensitivity.” Contrary, it seems, to the lowbrow prejudices of xenophobes like the current author, spending vast sums of money on protecting criminals openly engaged in criminal activities in public is an appropriate response to the challenges of multiculturalism. Whether similar consideration would have been shown to large, illegal gatherings of white supremacists advocating, say, the ethnic cleansing of London, remains an open question.

Boom Allah!Moving on, we have the inspiring response of the police to the online publishing of one of the Mohammed cartoons by the British magazine, The Liberal. In an online editorial explaining the decision to put the image on the magazine’s website, the editor, Ben Ramm, wrote the following: “[The Liberal] will not be coerced into self-censorship by the threat of violence from those who use a platform of free speech to call for the destruction of the very system that enfranchises them.” In other words, despite the very real possibility of being the target of violence, Mr. Ramm refused to allow himself to be intimidated by Muslim fanatics. Unfortunately, he was subsequently intimidated somewhat more effectively by “senior officers” at Scotland Yard, who conveyed to him that the resources of the police were “not infinite.”

Given that this is, in fact, a statement of the crashingly obvious and therefore conveys no information if interpreted literally, we would surely be justified in assuming that the police meant something else by it, something they could not say explicitly. I will hereby hazard a guess that the police had decided that by withdrawing the protection of the state from law-abiding citizens exercising their historic rights in the face of murderous religious savages, they could successfully conclude another “challenging policing operation” with the “appropriate sensitivity.” Presumably the fact that they were acting as highly effective force multipliers for the enforcers of a totalitarian political creed, which would destroy British society if it could, did not occur to them.

Channel 4 on UK mosquesFinally, we have the controversy over the British documentary “Undercover Mosque,” which showed undercover footage from a variety of British mosques and Islamic centres of Muslims being Muslims. The response, predictably, was split down the middle, with Muslim groups taking the presentation of the filth spouted by Muslims as being evidence of Islamophobia (yes, really) and everyone else calling for a police investigation. The investigation, far from resulting in the charging of anyone caught on tape, resulted in the West Midlands Police complaining to Ofcom, the media watchdog, that the film had been selectively edited in a manner “sufficient to undermine community cohesion” and “likely to undermine feelings of public reassurance and safety of those communities in the West Midlands for which the Chief Constable has a responsibility.”

This development allowed the usual apologists for Islam, Muslim and non-Muslim, to crawl out of the woodwork, claiming that the revelations in the film were meaningless, the intent Islamophobic, and the featured imams victims. This significantly blunted any effect the film might otherwise have had in alerting the British public to the danger of the growing Muslim presence in their country. It also had the effect of libeling the creators of the film, as Ofcom itself concluded that “Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest… On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context.”

I cannot comment on the soundness of the decision not to prosecute any imams featured in the film. But the way the police and the Crown Prosecution Service effectively accused the filmmakers of inciting hatred against Muslims in response to having been presented with incontrovertible evidence of Muslims inciting hatred against others strikes one as being a less than satisfactory response on the part of those entrusted with the maintenance of law and order.

As I hope I have demonstrated, we have concrete examples here of the following activities on the part of the British police:

1) Publicly and unashamedly protecting criminals engaged in criminal activities in broad daylight
2) Greatly amplifying the efficacy of shari’a-based intimidation directed at law-abiding citizens by criminals and would-be murderers
3) Subverting serious journalistic efforts to investigate the degree of Islamic rot in the UK by hurling libelous claims at said journalists, thereby helping to perpetuate the smoke and mirrors of the Islamic apologism that afflicts our societies

There are many people far better positioned than I to try and explain how it came to pass that the police could have become so thoroughly and hopelessly compromised. But the sheer scale of the disaster that this represents is something that needs to be appreciated, as is the light it casts on proposals to reverse Islamization.

It is striking to note that there does not seem to be any discernible philosophy or strategy guiding the response of the British police or establishment to the encroachment of Islam into our lives and societies. The terrible, mind-numbing boilerplate about inclusion, and integration, and assimilation, and reaching out, and Muslims being just the same as everyone else, and inter-community respect, and Islam being one of the great religions, and on, and on, and on, simply highlights their complete and utter cluelessness. Islam is a problem the solution to which exists so far outside their mental universes as to exist, in effect, not at all. This can perhaps be forgiven to some extent on the part of the police, who are presented with a demographic reality that they are then required to deal with. It is hardly forgivable on the part of their political masters.

London protestHaving accused the British police of not having a strategy to deal with the increasingly corrosive effects of large and growing numbers of Muslims in British society, I will now suggest that there is one strategy consistent with their behaviour, whether they have ever consciously formulated it or not. Simply put, it is the strategy of managing decline. The police have recognized that brute demographic realities render it impossible to ensure that the rule of British law continues to obtain in Muslim-dominated areas or with respect to Muslims in general, and that there is nothing they can do about it. They therefore take action against the most egregious examples of Muslim criminality, whilst simultaneously recommending that clergymen in London not wear their collars in public for fear of being assaulted by adherents of the Religion of Peace. They are, in essence, fighting a rearguard action against an inexorable demographic process, which can be slowed, but no longer stopped through mainstream political processes.

Consequences

Anyone masochistic to enough re-read my earlier 10,000-word essay will find ample explanation of why I believe that accommodation of, indeed coexistence with, Islam is impossible, and I do not propose to revisit those arguments here. Instead, I will claim that the pathetic and dispiriting abandonment of pride and principle in the face of Islam described so far has attained a momentum that renders it impossible to reverse by any gradual process.

Let me first make clear what I mean by a gradual process. I use the term to refer to sets of policies and actions: a) implemented by existing mainstream political parties that b) do not consist of or result in major, long-term disruptions to the stability, security, or viability of the countries in question. It does not imply that sudden, far-reaching changes in legislation (on immigration, for example) could not be part of the process, only that such changes, if they occur at all, must come from outside the political mainstream that allowed the Islamic cancer to metastasize in our midst in the first place. This would prevent them from constituting gradual change as defined here.

UK immigration graph

My reasoning in concluding that gradual change is impossible is very straightforward. Consider a hypothetical, yet representative European country with a 5% Muslim population and the attendant problems that we are painfully familiar with and need not elaborate here. We can be sure that this country has a certain type of political and media elite, with certain ‘progressive’ attitudes towards national identity, immigration, religion and race, as only the existence of such an elite could allow a 5% Muslim population in the first place. This elite has at least three decades of intellectual and emotional investment in an entire moral-cultural-political worldview which is embodied in the corrupted state the country now exists in. So terrified at the prospect of having to confront the consequences of its macro-historical errors, which even it has now dimly started to perceive, it chooses a course of appeasement, making soothing noises to Muslims, and cracking down on anything that might displease them in whatever manner it can.

Let us now advance our country a discrete portion of time, say one year, during which the Muslim population has increased to 5.5% and become ever more accustomed to demanding and receiving concessions, while the ruling elite has made an even greater investment in its position and conditioned itself even more thoroughly to genuflect to the adherents of Islam. Is it now better positioned to confront the reality of the situation, or less well positioned? Clearly, all the factors that made a realistic appraisal of the situation impossible before are all reinforced now, which will only increase the extent to which the situation worsens when we advance our country by a further increment of time. I conclude that no extant political elite will take any serious steps to reverse the tide of Islamization. I do not claim that they cannot slow this tide down at all, and the tightening of family reunification and marriage laws in some European countries is evidence that the blinkers are slowly coming off. But this is too little, too late.

This argument about the inability of mainstream politicians to solve the Muslim problem will seem absurdly simplistic to some, ignoring as it does worlds of complexity, along with national differences and idiosyncrasies. But I would argue nonetheless that it is the fundamental dynamic at work here. Those who think I underestimate the chances of gentler political change led by mainstream political parties should consider the brilliant innovation of Gordon Brown’s government in the UK, in response to the terrorist attacks that occurred shortly after he entered office: Muslim terrorist plots directed at non-Muslims would now be referred to as ‘anti-Islamic activity.’ What to make of the people who dreamed up this ‘policy’?

Now the notion that the mainstream political parties who have put our head in the Islamic noose will not come riding back to take it out again may not seem particularly insightful. But that is not the key point to be made here. The key point is twofold:

1) Stopping and then reducing the Islamization of our countries will require a discontinuity, a completely new dynamic that overpowers these existing trends and that must therefore come from outside of the existing power structure, which is not capable of generating it.
2) Although, in principle, one can conceive of two distinct types of discontinuity, the electoral and the non-electoral, there is a very high probability that the first, if it could be achieved in time at all, would rapidly collapse into the second, resulting in a grand total of one type of discontinuity that could reverse Islamization.

To try and establish both halves of the proposition, let us first consider what these two theoretical discontinuities would look like. The electoral discontinuity consists, naturally, of the election of political parties from outside the political mainstream who would introduce new legislation to deal with the Muslim problem. This legislation would act as the basis for the implementation of some combination of options one, two and three as detailed above, all three of which still exist as options at this point in time. The non-electoral discontinuity refers to a discontinuity that bears no relation to politics in the normal sense of the word, but consists instead of a partial or complete breakdown in the authority of the state and a concomitant descent into chaos, subsequent to which options one and two are no longer available to any significant degree.

It must first be observed that the possibility of electoral discontinuity, clearly the most desirable of the two types of discontinuity, seems remote at present in most European countries, despite the remarkable efforts of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and the positive developments in Denmark. Given the private sector opposition to his efforts, the fact that his party currently has only 9 seats out of a total of 150 in the Dutch Parliament, and the likelihood of existing elites resorting to every dirty trick in the book to foil him as his influence grows, it is hard to believe that a Netherlands with him or a similar figure in the driving seat is likely to exist any time within the next five years, during which time the window of opportunity for successful electoral discontinuity will continue to close. In France, another country neck-deep in the green stuff, Sarkozy was, some hoped, to represent the long-awaited electoral discontinuity. To be as gentle as possible, this does not seem to have been the case. As for Sweden, if what I read about its political and media culture on concerned websites is accurate, there is no hope whatsoever of electoral discontinuity occurring before it is preempted by something far more grisly. I note, for the sake of completeness, the existence of countries such as Denmark, Italy, and Switzerland, which hold more promise than most of refuting my position in whole or in part.

Map of the NetherlandsLet us focus on a single example and consider the most optimistic possible scenario for the Netherlands. I do not know the country or its politics well, but will attempt to use it to examine some general principles. If Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party were to attain an outright majority in the Dutch parliament tomorrow and attempt to implement option one, we would have achieved as neat and clean an electoral discontinuity as could be imagined. Would it be possible to solve the Muslim problem then without recourse to either options two or three? I do not think the possibility can be ruled out, but I think there are many factors that make it improbable.

Collectively, the Dutch have, until recently, offered, as far as the interested layman can discern, not a single iota of real opposition to the influx of massive numbers of adherents of a religion which considers everything they hold dear to be absolutely anathema (I intend no disrespect by this, and observe that in terms of sheer preemptive cultural surrender, the UK competes with the very best).

SlotervaartDespite Muslims’ well-rehearsed claims of how brutal and oppressive their host societies in Europe are, I feel that Dutch Muslims are confident that they, in fact, have the initiative in the Netherlands. The readiness with which they riot and burn, the shockingly disproportionate fraction of crimes they commit, and the demands for inconveniences such as freedom of speech to be removed to appease them are not suggestive of a people who shy away from conflict or have much regard for the will of the people on the other side of that conflict. Put differently, Muslims in the Netherlands seem to be desensitized to conflict to a very significant degree, be it verbal conflict or actual street violence. In contrast, significant numbers of ethnic Dutch seem to still be operating within a paradigm which sees civil breakdown along tribal lines as being literally unimaginable, something which can be avoided through concessions, and must be avoided at all costs.

This disparity in the relative appetites for and desensitization towards conflict is scarcely the type of thing that the Muslim population of the Netherlands could be unaware of. Much weepy-eyed talk to one side, it does not exactly seem to be a community living in fear. Of course, we have stipulated that the Freedom Party has already won an outright majority, which would only be possible with a significant hardening of opinion on the part of ethnic Dutch towards Muslims. But I do not believe the desensitization gap can be closed so quickly or so easily in either direction, and it is a key contention of this essay that this gap will be the key factor in turning electoral discontinuities (should they even occur) into non-electoral discontinuities.

Would a young, violent, disproportionately criminal community, possessed of (and by) a supremacist and totalitarian politico-religious ideology preaching world domination, significantly desensitized to the tribal violence most Europeans fear above all else, and already approaching being a majority in the biggest cities in the Netherlands, be likely to conclude that the jig was up for Islam, that it would simply have to pack its bags and leave? To even ask the question, I think, is to realize that the answer is no. They simply would not believe that massive amounts of rioting, killing, and burning tearing through the urban centres of the Netherlands would not be able to force the Dutch to back down and revert to their earlier path to dhimmitude. Thus does the chaos of the non-electoral discontinuity strip away from the hands of those Dutch who would still apply them options one and two, which both require an intact and dominant apparatus of state.

Weakness has two disadvantages, the weakness itself being but the first of them. The second is the inability to have a reversion to strength taken seriously without violence. The Dutch will inevitably overcome the first of these disadvantages sooner or later. But they cannot overcome the second without locking horns with their Muslim population in such a manner as to almost certainly collapse their hard-earned electoral discontinuity, should they even be capable of generating it in the first place. Even if I am wrong about the country already having reached this point of no return, where options one and two disappear and only option three remains, I feel that it will reach it very soon. And there are other European countries which are in similar, if not worse, positions, such as France, Sweden, and Belgium. Others, such as the UK, Germany, Norway, Austria, and Denmark do not seem to be that far behind. And the violence will prove to be contagious in direct proportion to its severity, destroying the ability of neighbouring countries to achieve or build upon electoral discontinuity.

Violence

I have argued that, in those European countries with significant Muslim populations, a situation is rapidly being reached, if, indeed, it has not already been, in which option three is the only option left for dealing with the Muslim problem. I have also argued in the Danish Civil War, that though this violence may well involve the organs of state, most obviously the police and the army, it will be of a scope and scale which will ensure that it spills outside any cordon the state may try to erect around it. This may well result in not only a collapse in the authority of the state itself, but a collapse in the coherence and command-and-control of such organs of state as remain intact, thereby accelerating the downward slide into anarchy.

The Danish Civil War

The first and perhaps most important point to make in this context concerns the reduction of a continuum of violent options into a brute choice between a small handful of broad-brush approaches. Considering violence to consist of all types of physical coercion and all actions backed by the obvious and immediate possibility of bringing violence to bear, it is clear that the state, alone among all potential actors in the early, non-critical phases of a conflict, has the ability to calibrate without restrictions the violence it can apply to a situation. It can combine, in arbitrary proportions, incarceration, the prohibition of proscribed activities (wearing hijab, etc), large-scale non-lethal violence (using riot police, etc.), curfews, targeted executions, deportations, internment, mass expulsions, and large-scale killings. Moreover, the knowledge that it has access to these varied options will reinforce the likely effectiveness of the less draconian and therefore reduce the likelihood of the more draconian being used.

Following the types of discontinuity that I envisage occurring in the near future, we must observe that the likelihood of government being capable of maintaining an effective monopoly on the use of violence is exceptionally low, and that, in direct proportion to its failure to do so, the continuum represented by various combinations of the above options will be collapsed into a much smaller number of discrete, widely separated and virtually impossible-to-combine options. Incarceration after a fair trial will simply not exist as an option in the event of societal breakdown. Prohibitions of proscribed activities will be enforceable only through immediate violence, which essentially collapses this option into a new option not available to the state itself, mob violence and vigilante ‘justice’ centered on tribal markers such as dress, appearance, or language. Large-scale non-lethal violence takes large numbers of well-trained, well-equipped, well-organized and amply-supported personnel and is therefore the province of organs of the state, guided by intact political structures. It cannot exist in the circumstances imagined here.

Curfews require a patrolling presence by a heavily-armed controlling authority in areas of potential unrest and therefore suffer from the same problems as large-scale non-lethal violence. Deportations are a key point to which I will return briefly, but I suggest here that they will be impossible to organize on a large scale once the situation has degenerated to the point foreseen in this analysis. Internment that does not result in everyone being dead 48 hours later is obviously the province of government, with the massive infrastructural demands it makes of those who would implement it. Mass expulsion, the poor man’s deportation, though possible in principle on an impromptu basis, would present insuperable problems in practice that are presumably obvious but that I will discuss below nonetheless. As for large-scale killing, it is not only always an option, it is the option that constitutes the backdrop to all human conflict, whether we perceive it or not.

As this brief categorization makes clear, the tactical options left to actors on either side of the conflict in the result of non-electoral discontinuity become very similar very quickly, even if the means available to implement those options differ significantly. Surrender, flight, mob-style violence resulting in almost immediate segregation in major cities, and more determined efforts to actually start systematically killing entire groups of the opposition: these are the tracks along which the course of events will inevitably run once the grip of government on the situation fails.

And this is the tragedy of the situation and the scale of the betrayal. Government, the one entity capable of preventing the problem in the first place, and capable also of solving it with a minimum of bloodshed once it was indeed recognized to be an existential problem, has, in effect, simply washed its hands of it. In doing so, it has guaranteed the deaths of countless people and the utter destruction of the society it was responsible for protecting, at least in the form in which it has hitherto existed.

The joker in the pack here is the joint category of deportation/mass expulsion. I take the former to mean the removal of people by government in a relatively orderly manner, the latter to mean the expulsion of entire groups by violence and the threat of violence in a disorderly and impromptu fashion. The most obvious point to make here is the that the latter can only take place if there is some adjacent territory to which the group being driven out can easily gain access. Despite the dark mutterings of some that people like myself are advocating some sort of mass ethnic cleansing, it is not clear that this would even be physically possible. How would the French ethnically cleanse their Algerian population? By driving them from one side of Paris to the other? That, to put it politely, would not solve the problem. Perhaps they could drive them, by fire and pitchfork, into Spain. But one suspects that even the Spanish would not put up with this, and would simply drive their own burgeoning Moroccan and Pakistani populations back into France, bringing new meaning to the term population exchange. Mass expulsions as I have defined them here are actually not possible in a brute physical sense. Compare this with what, in principle, America could do to its Mexican (or Canadian, if you prefer) population, and the point is clear.

This leaves only the question of deportations. I am aware of no examples of large-scale deportations being carried out by aircraft, which they would have to be in this case. Apart from the faintly surreal notion of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis being flown out of the UK and being served hundreds of thousands of halal meal options while fiddling around with hundreds of thousands of aggravating airline headsets on the way back to the homeland, it must be observed that air travel is the most infrastructurally fragile of all modes of transportation, and completely reliant on the goodwill and cooperation of people at the destination. A functioning government might be able to organize and carry out mass deportations via airline, but would surely be forced to preemptively intern the target population, and the notion that such populations in Europe would allow themselves to be peacefully interned strains credulity to breaking point and beyond. If this is true now, how much truer would it be in five or ten years time? Even the merest suggestion of implementing such a plan would surely collapse an electoral discontinuity into a non-electoral discontinuity for reasons already discussed. It is on the basis of this reasoning that I argue that deportations and mass expulsions, though the most difficult types of violence to read in this context, will not play a key role in post-discontinuity violence apart from perhaps being used to repatriate the survivors once the conflict has been won.

It is worth noting that the notion that some sort of Nazi-style genocide is in the cards for Europe’s Muslims would seem to be missing the point for related reasons. The Holocaust, like the Armenian Genocide that provided the inspiration for it, was conducted with as much deception and misdirection as was possible given the vast numbers of people involved. Both genocides were heavily reliant on the relocation of vast numbers of victims to sparsely-inhabited areas to be dispatched, whether in recently conquered territories as in the case of Germany, or the wilder reaches of empire, as in the case of the Ottoman Empire. There is no conceivable way that this would be viable in any European case, especially given the massive qualitative gulf between communication and surveillance technologies of the early/middle 20th-century and the first decades of the 21st. Whatever type of violence we end up seeing between Muslims and their host societies (and I do believe it will be appropriately described by the word genocidal), the Holocaust will not be much of a reference point. I suspect that the recent conflicts in the Balkans are much more likely to overlap structurally with what we will see in Europe in the near future.

The disparity between the levels of desensitization of Muslims and non-Muslims has already been mentioned. However, there is an additional consequence that should be mentioned here in closing. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I have gained the impression from various sources over the years that it is precisely those who are plunged into violence without having been conditioned to deal with it psychologically, in whatever manner, that are most likely to commit atrocities (excluding those who are already ideologically committed to them). If violence does erupt in European countries between natives and Muslims, I consider it highly likely that people who had never done anything more violent than beat eggs will prove incapable of managing the psychological transition to controlled violence and start killing anything that looks remotely Muslim. Our unspoken conviction that we, in 21st-century Europe, have moved beyond such savagery will be shown to be an arrogance founded on a few decades of fragile peace and prosperity, taken for granted and allowed to slip through our fingers for no reason at all.

In Closing

Given my obvious and adamant opposition to European countries allowing themselves to have their political, cultural, or legal destinies influenced by their rapidly-growing Islamic populations, and my belief that, in all likelihood, violence edging towards the genocidal would be an inevitable part of removing this threat, readers would be perfectly justified in wondering if I am advocating genocide. The answer is no. Let me make clear what I do in fact advocate in the context of my own country, that is to say, the policies I would immediately implement if I were the sole, unchallenged ruler of the UK. I will not concern myself with any legal issues that would be involved in actually implementing such policies; ignoring such technicalities is one of the great pleasures of being dictator-for-a-day.

As newly installed ruler, I would introduce an immediate ban on Muslim immigration. If I were in an exceptionally good mood, I would consider allowing up to 100 Muslims annually to gain temporary residency in the UK if, and only if, they were married to non-Muslim UK citizens. Other than this, no Muslim would be granted permission to live in the UK unless essential (diplomatic staff, etc.). Visas, whether for tourism, study, or business, would be exceptionally hard to come by for Muslims, especially for Saudis wishing to go shopping at Harrods. As a result of this policy, exogenous growth of the Muslim population of the UK would be reduced to zero. The question of determining who was a Muslim and who was not would not be difficult for a committed immigration service to answer, and in the case of any doubt, permission to enter the country would simply be denied.

It would be announced that immigrant Muslims, of whatever generation, (i.e. the overwhelming majority) would all be investigated to discover whether they had any record whatsoever of supporting the erosion of British freedoms to further the dictates of Islam, and could demonstrate proactive efforts to engage with British society on its terms. Anyone failing to satisfy any of these criteria would be deported immediately, without the possibility of appeal. Ideally, the announcement in advance would serve to inform many Muslims that their days in the country were numbered, and provide them with a period of time in which to put their affairs in order and hopefully make a dignified exit from the country of their own accord. Muslims claiming to have converted to another religion would have to provide evidence of attendance at a house of worship of said religion for at least the last year. Questionable cases would be deported. Anyone having been judged to be in accordance with these criteria would be informed that they could be deported at any time in the future if they were judged to have ceased to comply in any respect.

East London MosqueHaving banned Muslim immigration and deported some hundreds of thousands of people, thereby addressing the most pressing demographic issues, attention would be turned to undermining Islam itself at the institutional level. Mosque construction would be banned, and locations serving as mosques without official permission would be closed down by the police. Attending an illegal mosque would be considered grounds for deportation. Advocating or defending the use of violence in support of any Muslim cause would be considered grounds for deportation. Advocating the adoption of any aspect of shari’a law would be considered grounds for deportation, especially if you happened to be the head of the Church of England. A thousand and one various other gradual restrictions could be conceived of to squeeze Muslims so hard that they concluded that there was simply no point in remaining in the UK at all, up to and including the classification of Islam itself as a pernicious political ideology, the practice of which would be considered grounds for deportation for immigrants or their children, imprisonment in the case of native Britons.

Observant readers will note that this set of policies is actually a combination of the previously discussed options one and two, coupled with the obvious necessity of curtailing any further Muslim immigration. It also has the advantage of allowing ‘borderline’ or ‘cultural’ Muslims the option of staying in the UK if they understood that Islam had no future there and would simply be bleached out of British life over the course of a generation or two. But there are two other observations that need to be made here. The first is that there is not the slightest chance of any European country enacting policies of this sort any time soon, if ever. Secondly, there is absolutely no guarantee that they would not, if actually enacted, simply fall prey to the structural problems outlined in the discussion above, and result in us slipping all the way down to the bottom of the slide, where option three awaits us.

121 comments:

Sodra Djavul said...

Unfortunately, the United States is facing the same slide. We have absolutely no room to criticize.

Take for instance the recent Aliza Shvarts episode.

Apparently this woman decided to either: a) knowingly inject herself with semen during her ovulatory period and then take "morning after" pills, for a period of an entire year; or b) she made the whole thing up to show how evil anti-abortion groups are. Still no bombings, death threats, etc. from those who believe life begins at conception.

Aliza Shvartz. I know there has been much discussion on this board recently regarding the insane liberalism represented by certain groups we would traditionally consider allies. And whether that should be considered constructive criticism or hate speech.

Here is her photo. Decide for yourself.

My only point being that regardless the fate of Europe, the United States itself is not far off from the same fate.

- Sodra

Sodra Djavul said...

That first link to the news article apparently did not work as intended.

Here: Aliza Shvarts insemination project

latté island said...

Sodra, this gal is a nut job and doesn't represent anyone else. Deliberately inducing serial miscarriages is borderline psychotic self-harm. I hope she gets some professional help. This isn't political.

latté island said...

Rather than delete and rewrite my previous comment...miscarriages is the wrong word, I mean abortions.

Sodra Djavul said...

I agree the woman is nuts.

However, just as with the recent posting of a 10-year old ranting about wanting to murder the President, this does not come to happen in a vacuum.

I consider myself highly pro-Israel. I consider myself highly pro-Zionist. I consider myself highly protective of individuals practicing the Jewish religion.

However, it is of concern to me that the most fanatical of liberal groups in my country seem, without variation, to either claim Jewish heritage or religion. The people sponsoring the ACLU in filing suit on public places opposing the celebration of Christmas. The people filing suit against the pledge of allegiance.

I do not intend this to sound anti-Semitic. I am truly confounded at the situation. I consider some of the best allies we have the right side of the Israeli political parties. Sharon should be considered a hero.

But the preponderence of the evidence indicates a severe disconnect between what I believe my country should be and what, it seems, the activists want it to be.

- Sodra

latté island said...

Sodra, I can relate. Jewish liberals give me a lot of stress, because I used to be one. I don't know why so many of my people seem to be crazier and more self-destructive than any other first world ethnic group. I'm hoping they'll get with the program like I did.

Bilgeman said...

From the top, shall we?

On October 9th,732 AD, Islam seemed poised to conquer Christian
Europe.
The Ummayadd Caliph's forces were defeated the next day at the Battle of Tours.

In 1099 AD, Christian Crusader Armies occupied Jerusalem, and set up Christian realms that lasted for 200 years.

In 1492 AD, the 750-year Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula was completed with the surrender of the Kingdom of Granada.

In 1683 AD, the Islamic Ottomans laid siege to Vienna.

In 1923 AD, the Ottoman Empire was dissolved. The Christian nations of Britain and France ruled former Ottoman territory under mandates.

In 1948 AD,Israel was re-established.

In 1991, a Christian-led Coalition defeated Iraqi forces, and turned Kuwait into a de facto Christian military base. Bahrain is a de-facto Christian naval base.

On September 11th, 2001 AD, Islamic terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, and attacked the Pentagon.

In 2002 AD, Christians deposed the Taliban and installed a satrapy in Kabul. Pakistan is already a Christian satrapy.

In 2003 AD, Christian tanks rolled into Baghdad, and Christians occupied Mesopotamia.

Just keeping our "pas-de-deux" in perspective, a definite pattern emerges...almost tidal, isn't it?

And it would also appear that while Islam may confer an impetus to conquer, it does not seem capable of occupying and defending what it has conquered...even in its' traditional homelands.

Diamed said...

I'm still betting on mass deportation. If they riot, slap them down, then go back to mass deporting.

I see what you mean though, what are the odds of any European government ever mass deporting undesirables? In fact right now they're mass deporting natives, who are fleeing the 'new british' to all the corners of the earth. But what else can we do? Is it easier to genocide someone than mass deport them politically? And if it's politically impossible to mass deport them, it's obviously also politically impossible to genocide them. If something is politically impossible, it's also in reality impossible, since no extra-state body will be powerful enough to impose such a solution. So if the current state won't deport or genocide the muslims, and no non-state body can deport or genocide the muslims, obviously there would first have to be a revolution that creates a state that both can and will do it. The easier of these two is mass deportation, both politically and practically.

This is not uncommon. Weak and tottering states like the Weimar republic or Tsarist russia can quickly become ruthlessly capable states like 3rd Reich or USSR. Nor has it ever required anything so polite as a majority of the citizenry for a successful revolution. The bolsheviks for instance were just a tiny fringe party the one time there was an election, but they still had total power within a few years. (In the american revolution, likewise, there were 1/3 neutral, 1/3 loyalist, and only 1/3 of americans actual revolutionaries--and yet in a few years the revolution had taken power)

A revolution can become popular later. You see, most people just want to stay out of trouble and will bow to whatever ruler asks them to. They are apolitical and just do whatever they're told. So you will see something like 99% of people support the government of the United States, but if a civil war were lost and a new 1% group came to power, say the 'Consolidated States of America', you would find within a decade that 99% of people supported this government and had no interest in fighting its rule either. This means revolutions are much easier than governments pretend. Indeed in Roman times, new Emperors could be enthroned within days or hours, and the general populace would never give a peep about it. The revolution would make some claim about having the electoral majority by citing anti-immigration polls, seize power by forceful confrontation with the current government, and then reconcile itself to the people by not endangering their lives and property. Just like that, the entire state apparatus--police, military, jails, etc, are under new management. Most likely, they would be the same very people as in the previous administration, just new marching orders. (ones they in the bottom of their hearts know they approve of anyway).

Since the current governments are illegitimate, betraying the most basic purposes of government, to control the borders, resist invasion, secure the homeland, prevent crime, install justice--I see no moral reason not to revolt against them. The question isn't about how many sheeple and apolitical dunderheads agree with us, but how many men of action and brave patriots do. If That number should ever rise to a certain threshold, the rest would follow in the same blind manner they follow their current masters now. El Ingles seems to say the political viewpoints of the average European make it impossible to do anything serious against this threat. But that assumes you would consult the average European's viewpoint. Since they were stupid enough to get us here in the first place, why on earth would you consult them now?

For one thing, no matter how disquieting our options are, the worst of all is surrender. Current trends have 75% of the native European population simply going extinct by 2100. By that time, muslims will be the majority everywhere and rule with an iron fist, just like they do in every other muslim land. In addition, they will have all the power of European science and wealth they can still parasitically expropriate from the remainder of the natives, all serving pure evil--a rapist child molesting slave taking mass murderer. This includes a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and submarines to deliver them. Think about that for a second, then twiddle your thumbs over whether a revolution or mass deportations are too 'extreme.'

Zenster said...

As always, El Inglés, a superb bit of writing. Not anywhere have I seen such a thorough and well-considered analysis of why the current state of world affairs is leading directly to a Muslim holocaust. I have been predicting exactly such a thing for many years now and absolutely nothing has arisen to alter my expectations.

I therefore predict that Europe is being swept into a position where it will be forced to choose between relying overwhelmingly on option three and surrendering.

Most abominable of all is how both Muslims and the EU’s Vulture Elite™ are actively trying to bring about that surrender. This, despite how the Vulture Elite™ will be among some of the first to be displaced or executed. Their visions of ruling over these barbarians they’ve snuck inside the walls notwithstanding.

Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, expressed himself to the effect that his force had been presented with “a challenging policing operation” that had been handled with “appropriate sensitivity.”

The only question being: Sensitivity to whom? The needs of Britain’s public or those of convicted terrorist Abu Hamza? One can only hope that for these treasonous rotters there awaits a very special corner in Hell. Preferrably one where Satan tries out his most innovative and excruciating new punishments.

Presumably the fact that they were acting as highly effective force multipliers for the enforcers of a totalitarian political creed, which would destroy British society if it could, did not occur to them.

And most likely will not occur to them until fleeting moments before the blade descends upon their bared necks.

… consider the brilliant innovation of Gordon Brown’s government in the UK, in response to the terrorist attacks that occurred shortly after he entered office: Muslim terrorist plots directed at non-Muslims would now be referred to as ‘anti-Islamic activity.’ What to make of the people who dreamed up this ‘policy’?

What to make of them? Petfood? … Lampshades? … A host of even less savory fates spring to mind, including many that involve barbed wire, lit cigarettes and specially shaped electrodes connected to car batteries.

Weakness has two disadvantages, the weakness itself being but the first of them. The second is the inability to have a reversion to strength taken seriously without violence.

This is why I continue to advocate that the West begin a program of massively disproportionate retaliation in answer to all future Islamic terrorist atrocities. Nothing short of inflicting huge amounts of pain and suffering upon the Muslim world will reverse the West’s current image of being a paper tiger.

And the violence will prove to be contagious in direct proportion to its severity, destroying the ability of neighbouring countries to achieve or build upon electoral discontinuity.

In electronics this is known as a “cascade” or “avalanche” effect and it perfectly models the above described contagiousness.

The first and perhaps most important point to make in this context concerns the reduction of a continuum of violent options into a brute choice between a small handful of broad-brush approaches.

It can no longer be deemed at all ironic that European legal proscriptions against “stirring up religious hatred” and such appeasing rubbish are, in fact, directly responsible for reducing that same “continuum of violent options into a brute choice between a small handful of broad-brush approaches”. It is here where so-called moderate Muslims will harvest the bitter fruits of their deafening silence. Any sufficiently “broad-brush” will sweep out moderate and extremist Muslims alike without making the least distinction between them. This no fault of those who will push the broom. Supposedly moderate Muslims have had nearly SEVEN LONG YEARS since the 9-11 atrocity to clearly distance themselves from their radical co-religionists and they have done exactly nothing of the sort.

targeted executions

I still maintain that an immediate campaign of targeted assassinations aimed at Islam’s clerical, financial and scholastic aristocracy might have some sort of chance at reversing the tide of Islamization. Such a program is one of the only viable or cost-effective bulwarks standing between shari’a ruled Europe or a Muslim holocaust.

And this is the tragedy of the situation and the scale of the betrayal. Government, the one entity capable of preventing the problem in the first place, and capable also of solving it with a minimum of bloodshed once it was indeed recognized to be an existential problem, has, in effect, simply washed its hands of it. In doing so, it has guaranteed the deaths of countless people and the utter destruction of the society it was responsible for protecting, at least in the form in which it has hitherto existed.

The above statement should be pinned onto every politician of Europe’s Vulture Elite™ just prior to their being suspended from a lamp post.

The first is that there is not the slightest chance of any European country enacting policies of this sort any time soon, if ever. Secondly, there is absolutely no guarantee that they would not, if actually enacted, simply fall prey to the structural problems outlined in the discussion above, and result in us slipping all the way down to the bottom of the slide, where option three awaits us.

And thus will begin one of the most horrendously avoidable, regrettable and predictible tragedies in modern human history. Despite any complicity by Europe’s Vulture Elite™—when all is said and done—each of us must remember this:

ISLAM WOULD NOT HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY.

Fairlane said...

Interesting thesis. You onle forget one major detail:

If Europe starts executing one of those 3 options... what will be the response of the plus/minus 1 billion muslims worldwide ?
Don't you think, that option 3, would lead to a total war being waged on us, from the East and the South ? Do you actually think, these countries will sit there and do nothing while we execute their relatives ?

Face it. Europe can only succeed when it manages to implement option 1 OR (with support from the muslim nations) option 2.

randian said...

I dunno about "unable to occupy and defend". Islam seems to have done a pretty good job occupying Egypt and North Africa, and they're still busy killing and occupying the rest of Africa. As for defense, who do they have to defend against? Middle Eastern petrodollars are doing a pretty good job helping turn formerly Christian majority countries like Nigeria into Sharia paradises.

randian said...

Do you actually think, these countries will sit there and do nothing while we execute their relatives?

Actually, yes I do. In order for Afghanistan to do something about the executions, it must project force outside its borders. Being cocaine-harvesting goat herders, just how do you propose they do that? Muslims are irrational, so Pakistan might attack India in retaliation for Britain killing Muslims, but that won't exactly stop the Europeans. North Africa is not in a position to conduct a naval invasion of Europe. The Balkans would erupt, but I don't see them as a significant military force.

If the situation is so far gone we're executing Muslims, even economic threats won't matter. The European military powers can simply take the Middle Eastern oil fields and the Saudi or Kuwaiti military will be helpless to stop them.

Fairlane said...

"Actually, yes I do. In order for Afghanistan to do something about the executions, it must project force outside its borders."

Okay... let's look at the options, and reason from scenario 3 - Genocide on Muslims.

Now... what would the muslim countries do, what are their options.

1. There will be a significant drop in oil for Europe.
How will societies and armies handle this ? This large a reduction in oil also means a civil breakdown of the economy and has a large effect on our armies mobility.

2. Joined forces.
Sunni, Shi'ite, Salafist etc. are all nice and neat, but in the end and under the line, they are all muslims.
A combined force of North African, Middle Eastern, Persian and Turkish troops (hence the power of Erdogan's Islamic party in Ankara), would probably be able to take on Israël in a decisive manner.
After that they would simply repeat history and invade the balkan, and run straight on untill the German and the Italian borders, before they meet significant defense.

3. Divide and conquer
The world has become a much uglier place over the past 10 years. The division between Western and Westernlike societies on one side and Muslim and third world countries on the other side, has increased enormously.
Therefor the US will only be able to do so much in their efforts to AND support Europe/Israel while at the same time guarantee the safety of their homeland.
What will China do (after they have taken care of the muslim fundamentalists in their own borders) ? They need the oil as much as we do ?
And what about the role of South America ? They will definitly hold the US back.

North Africa does not need to "invade" Europe by naval force (allthough they probably would achieve a front post in the south of Spain), but they would tie us down as well. This would lead to a boost in confidence for the muslims INSIDE our borders.

Now... don't get me wrong. I think that Europe IS heading for the mentioned options. It is the political elite that do not see that their appeasement is increasing the suspicion between the various groups within our society.
On the other hand, we must realise, that we are not yet in a state that we could afford a war against the muslim world.

We have weakened so much over the past 30-40 years, that we can no longer rely on our military power to handle such a task.

thll said...

Fairlane - The worldwide Muslim response to us taking back what's ours is of no concern to us unless that response is war, and then we should respond in kind. Once the will is there Muslims become at most an irritant.

Michael said...

Sorry. No doubt a great post but haven't got time. At work. Verrrry busy, supporting the Belgian welfare state so that our homegrown islamoterrs can receive their monthly stipends.

SO DYMPHNA!!! Over at LGF they say that you are a racialist and a fascist shill. Congratulations with your promotion. And why? Because you had a very modest, absolutely noninsulting reply to Mr. Spencer.

Which Our Lord Charles Johnson labeled as a scathing attack.

Paul belien posts a quote from the Dissident Frogman. NOTHING but a quote. Johnson's reply? That it's a frontal smear attack from 'VB shill Paul Belien'.

My God, what hyperbole!!!! That Johnson must have serious problems. Probably not getting as much attention as he would like. It's utterly sad that the founder of a site of such magnitude is, well, he's going totally over the cliff.

Keep up the good work, Baron and Dymphna. OK, back to the job.

Outlaw Mike/Belgium

PS: good that you brought that story about our gynaecologists and the new code. It's indeed getting worse. And it's not only the gynaecologists.

NJArtist said...

Haven't finished the essay yet; despite this, my initial comment is that the ruling powers are looking one or two years down the road and realizing England will no longer exist in the EU: see article and map above this essay. Secondly, as disappearing powers, in terms of England existing, the English elites are probably taking their cue from Brussels.
----
Aside: When the EU is finalized and England is gone, will the queen cease being queen and the aristocracy become as nothing?

Irish Tory said...

There is another and a far better way to exterminate Islam, convert them to Chritianity!

Surely this is the best thing to do, send missionaries into the ghettos, set up missions, convert as many as possible, send some converts home to become missionaries in their homelands.

Imagine what could happen? Ethnic Arabs could fill our churches, not with the call to prayer, but with ancient Christian hyms. They could shame the goddless or lukewarm to come back to church, this is the only realistic anwser to the problem of Islam.

Genocide will not work, look how guilty many of us feel about the Holocaust or colonialism, look how the left bash us over the head with this guilt?

Imagine how worthless we would feel after killing 20 milion muslims?

Deportation is the second option, we could convert as amny as possible, send the hard nuts home and hopfully the problem would disapear!

NJArtist said...

@Fairlane

Your statement on oil can be modified to include natural gas. Europe and the U.S. no longer control their oil: the U.S. will not drill in order to preserve itself: the environmentalist have a death grip on this nation; Europe's oil and gas are controlled by Russia. The world's oil and gas is increasingly in the hands of the Turd World mostly backed by the Chinese: This means also that our wealth is being transferred out of this nation; and Europe.

China and Russia have no reason to allow us to remove Islam's death grip: they will oppose and waylay our attempts at option 1 and 2; by the time we get to option 3, the corrupt "elites" will be destroyed or sufficiently weakened to be a deterrent against foreign aggressors.

ENGLISHMAN said...

Most of the opposition from the billion plus muslims ,could be nuetralised by three or four nuclear weapons,but the fifty million subversives already within our borders would have to be dealt with individually as each component in each country is only a regiment in the muslim army.As they have no intension of living in peace,we must destroy them before they destroy us in whatever manner is necessary.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I quite like Irish Tory's idea. It has a certain poetic justice to it.

Bilgeman said...

El Ingles:

"1) Stopping and then reducing the Islamization of our countries will require a discontinuity, a completely new dynamic that overpowers these existing trends and that must therefore come from outside of the existing power structure, which is not capable of generating it. "

Well, he's half-right.

The discontinuity that would have to occur would be when native-born Brits once again run Fish n' Chip shops, perform janitorial duties, and tend their own gardens, i.e.: do the scut work jobs that 3rd world immigrants are usually allowed residency in order to perform.

Maintaining one's faith, one's sovereignty, and one's culture can be long, nasty and smelly work.

And that ain't just rhetoric, folks...

You ain't "to the manor born", so quit pretending that you are. And if you insist on playing "aristo-poser", at least pay more for the Christian variey of peons, you cheap ph*ck!

When you clean your own house or nanny your own kids, you're striking a blow for the Economic Counter-Jihad.

Bilgeman said...

randian:

"I dunno about "unable to occupy and defend". Islam seems to have done a pretty good job occupying Egypt and North Africa, and they're still busy killing and occupying the rest of Africa. "

Uhhh, Egypt was conquered by Napoleon, whose lads stripped the Pyramids of their marble, and carted their Pharaonic goodies off to the Louvre in Paris.

Then the Brits applied the smackdown to the French, and governed the joint from 1882 to 1952.

France ruled Algeria and Tunisia until 1962.

Morroco was divided between Spain and France, Spain didn't cough up it's slice until 1975.

And Libya was under Italian occupation from 1911 to 1943, and then under Allied occupation until 1951.

So it seems quite clear that whatever impetus to conquer that Christians may have, we're not so good at holding and defending our conquests either.

The only place that really put up a fight was Algeria, and that was all the pieds-noir,and their mutineer paras and foreign legionaires, (and they were sold out by their "frere", Charles Degaulle).

(Not at all surprising. A Cajun could tell you all about how Frenchmen can turn their coats on each other, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana is only partially "terre" and only marginally "bonne"...though you can't beat the fishing and hunting and cuisine).

Conservative Swede said...

Sodra,

My main point regarding Jews is that they should not be treated differently than any other ethnic group. Not as especially bad and evil, not as especially good and protected. This is such a simple truth, still almost nobody gets it right. Jews get people to go nuts one way or the other.

For this I have often been described as a rabid pro-Zionist. My support for Israel against Islam is stalwartly without compromise. Just as my support for Russia, China, etc. in the same struggle. So I'm actually not much of a Zionist at all, I come from a different angle. Surely this angle will make people call me anti-Semite too. I get the two things in stereo, one in each ear: rabid pro-Zionist and anti-Semite.

It's never a good idea for any nation to have a large and/or influential minority with a clearly separate identity, a distinct ethnicity. This applies to Jews, but also e.g. to Catholics in Protestant countries. Jews and Catholics, as groups, typically act constructively in their own countries, but destructively in other people's countries. (So no surprises here, nothing new under the sun, everybody acts as expected.)

After the decisive discontinuity, described here by El Inglés, has taken place, we should expect laws forbidding Jews and Catholics having higher positions anywhere in our societies. Both regarding authorities and positions such as editor of a newspaper. Uniculturalism will be in focus, and not other ethnic group will be given a special status. This is my prediction, and it's logical to assume.

Sodra Djavul said...

OT
Self-professed Lizard King takes pot shots at Dymphna

Yggdrasil said...

Dear El Ingles

Wonderful essay - very depressing though in the analysis of the UK.

I have had a hand i strategy behind SIOE and SIAD. And these are some of my reflections on the issue;

1. To take initiative, you have to have something to fight for. That was one of the reasons we made such a fuss over the freedom of speech. Instead of going into the defensive and loosing ground - we made an aggressive offensive on the anchorprinciple of democracy.

The strategy has paid off pretty well - we have won some decisive battles. I did not invent the principle myself, it was actually the Mohammad cartoons that inspired me - but the basic point, that we should figth for something - is important i think.

2. You presented the three possible options dealing with muslims. I absolutely agree, this is exactly the same conclusion I have made. The first option; paying muslims to go back, has been tried in Denmark already, and does not work. So my target has to been to reach second option before it is too late. We might have a chance in Denmark reaching this options - but to be honest, i pretty much doubt it. I think, that even in Denmark we will have to fight the muslims in the streets.

So how do we prepare the public to this fight; enlightenment. We need to tell the public the truth about the muslims, in order for the public to prepare themselves.

In this process, the media is crucial; blogs, and mass media. The Fitna movie served just this purpose - it gave the public insight into the mindframe of the hardcore muslims, and the option to prepare.

My guess is, that Europe in the next decade will erupt in massgenocide, revolution and so on.

The effect will be the end of EU and the scourging of the muslims. What is important in this process is to give people options, vision, something to fight for.

My answer to this was to formulate a democratic vision. There has been a tendency for the streetlevel fighters to identify with nazist ideology - this has been shifted out with democratic ideology. This may, in the next decade, evolve into strengthened democracies in the individual european countries. I hope so - because this will reinstate Europe as the leading cultural and political force in the world - bringing peace to mankind.

Brazentide said...

I also agree with Irish Tory's solution; converting your enemy has twice the impact of simply removing him. As part of that solution native Europeans must reclaim their faith and heritage as well. This influx of Islam is the result of the religious and reproductive vacuum that occurs when a society becomes more secular.

The most guilty ones in our society are the elites that run the governments and educational institutions. These traitors are well aware that their own heads will roll when the tide shifts and they are now working overtime to insulate themselves from any repercussions from their actions via the EU (Lisbon Treaty).

Zenster said...

Irish Tory: There is another and a far better way to exterminate Islam, convert them to Chritianity!

All well and fine. Now, would you—or any other backers of this idea—please so kind as to tell our studio audience and all the folks at home exactly how you will reliably determine that a given Muslim's conversion is genuine and authentic.

There's this niggling little thing called taqiyya.

El Inglés made some sort of effort to address this extremely important issue in the following excerpt:

Muslims claiming to have converted to another religion would have to provide evidence of attendance at a house of worship of said religion for at least the last year. Questionable cases would be deported. Anyone having been judged to be in accordance with these criteria would be informed that they could be deported at any time in the future if they were judged to have ceased to comply in any respect.

Please remember that a Muslim can pretend conversion to Christianity, swear fealty on a Bible, spit on the Koran and do so with complete and total religious exoneration so long as that person is furthering Islam's agenda.

Pray tell—short of polygraph examinations or fMRI scans on an individual basis—exactly how will you sort out those who are merely pretending at conversion from Muslims that might actually have done so?

In reality, what you will have succeeded at is opening up a path whereby the enemy may migrate into your own camp so they can continue carrying out subversive and terrorist activities. This is why I maintain that Islam is irrevocably tainted and fatally flawed by its sanctioning of taqiyya. There is simply no possible way of reliably trusting a Muslim. Period.

Now, as to the Muslim world projecting military force against Europe: I invite anyone who thinks this is of serious consequence to read Norvell B. De Atkine’s short but entertaining paper, “ Why Arabs Lose Wars”.

Imagine a small nation like Costa Rica consistently beating American military forces on their own soil like a cheap dime store drum. This is what tiny Israel has done to its much larger Arab neighbors. Were Europe embroiled in neutralizing its Muslim colonists and suddenly engaged by any combined Islamic military force, the fallback to using nuclear weapons in response would likely be rather swift.

Those who point out the consequences of a halt in petroleum exports from Islamic nations should also remember that the sword cuts both ways. Nobody is going to take up that much slack oil demand. Nobody. The MME (Muslim Middle East) OPEC countries would take a monstrous financial hit. Quite possibly one that would cripple any attempt to launch whatever sort of coordinated military riposte against Europe. Funny that.

Finally, try to recall that Islam wants nothing more than this exact scenario. Bereft of significant military weapons, it has been driving towards this sort of breakdown with the specific intent of causing maximum bloodshed. Islam could give a rip about lost Muslim life. It never has in the past and only seeks ascendancy at any price. Better this whole keruffle should begin now while the West has some remote chance of success rather than in a future that contains nuclear-armed Islamic nations. In one version or another this crisis is arriving. It is far more desirable that Westerners—even without the backing of their governments—set the terms and tempo of this battle than to have Islam dictate them to us. Remember:

ISLAM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY.

Irish Tory said...

I've known 3 Christian converts from Islam, 2 women one man, all three were estranged from their families, both women were in hiding from their familes as they feared for their lives. The man I knew was not in as much fear as the women, but his family did not speak to him, and they were not aware of where he was living.

I think they pass the test!

It wont be easy to convert Muslims, as you say, Taqqiya is rife, 'family honour' is important, and many converts after the initial rush of joy and freedom, crawl back to that religion, but we dont have any other way right now.

Our governments ignore us, worse, the make the problem even more insurmountable every passing day. The law is not on our side any more, it is in league with the enemy, this 'war on terror' seems designed as a war on us, in league with the imams to entrench Islam in the west by shutting up opossition to this migration.

There have been many converts from the religion of war to Christ, it happens, a report from Iran stated that as many as million Muslims in that country may have become believers in the past decade! This was reported on GoV a few weeks ago, the same is happening all over, in secret!

The best thing we can do is support these efforts, support these conversions, try it ourselves when in their company.

What better way to win, then to co-opt their own!

The real effort wuld be to get white Europeans back to church, that is the challenge.

I believe that if Europe was still full of faith, these immigrants would not be a problem, many muslims immigrated to Catholic Brazil in the 19th century, they assimilated and became Catholics.

That was because Brazilians were religious, they were culturally sure of themselves, their leaders did not cringe at the idea of their culture or faith being in one,s face, they had confidence.

Thats what we need, confidence and faith in ourselves and our culture.

Having said all of the above, does not mean that I disagree with the post, it is a distinct possibility, a fearful one at that!

Painlord2k said...

One pint I think El Inglés is undervaluing is the economic changes of a European civil war against the Muslims. These changes will be complexes and the ripples will shake the world, and the Muslims countries much more.

The main producers of oil need the technology, expertise and financial help of the western people to build and maintain their infrastructure (civil and military). But, more important, they need the food we produce or they will starve given their inability to produce enough food themselves.

The current food riots in Egypt and other places are simply a warning of what will happen in the future is things go wrong. There is a not negligible possibility that the next decades will see a "little Ice age" that will cut the production of food of the temperate zones (Europe, USA, Canada, Australia).

The military might of the combined European countries must not be undervalued, because they could be mismatched, but they are second only to the US forces.

Open warfare between North Africa and Middle East is suicidal for them, because they have no way to prevail in the air. It is true that there will be the need of ground forces to clear and occupy the territory, but precise airstrikes are able to stop any ground and naval force. We have the tech and the people to replace any airplane or advanced tech we lose in combat but they have nothing apart cannon fodder.

Current weapon technology is able to do, in day and weeks, what a nuclear bomb can do in few seconds. What prevent the tech and the military to implement these are only politics. Take away the politics and they will implement these technologies in little time.

The backlash of the news will be very limited, because in a civil war the owner of the news will want to sell what lead and not what will make their readers hungry and dangerous and they will be very hungry and dangerous.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I get the two things in stereo, one in each ear: rabid pro-Zionist and anti-Semite.

You got the latter over at you know where. Out of context quoting does wonders for the blood pressure don't it? :D (apparently we're also discussing a "final solution" or something. God, what nazis we are!)

I don't agree with your idea about banning people of certain faiths from holding certain positions in society simply because, unlike Islam, those other faiths don't automatically result in protectionist enclaves. Lets not forget, at one point the situation ws completely reversed in this country. Protestants were the minority, and prevented from holding positions, which resulted in a lot of antipathy. Reversing the situation created an atmosphere where the catholics were tempted to think in terms of getting on top again. When the laws against papism were repealed and catholics were allowed to re-enter society they lost that urge, spread out and became... normal. That's because they were a faith, not an ideology, and lacked that tribal unity in the end. They were bound only by common belief in certain scriptural dogmas, and little more. The same can be said of judaism and the jews, inasmuch as their behaviour in societies that express hostility toward them is to group together and attempt to control, whereas their behaviour in societies that treat them as no different is to spread out and attempt to integrate, which is what they do around here where I live. Plenty of jews around. The only hostile jews I've met or known about have been staunch atheists...

Islam is different. You know this. I know this. It's unlike anything else, to the point where we don't have the precise terms to describe it; banning it from public life is a legitimate reaction to something that enters a nation, attempts to slice pieces off and ultimately take over. No other religion does this, because no other religion acts like a "nation" as Islam does.

So, in that sense, I understand and agree with your position re Israel (the bit that the LGFers missed) and disagree with your position on catholics.

Holger said...

It is an interesting essay. What is also very interesting is how the EU now in a footnote to a footnote has installed the death penalty. Not for murderers per say, but for enemies of the state in case of war and uprisings. I suppose the EU aristocracy must know what's coming...
They'll execute the rebel leaders, because tribalism is probably exactly what is going to happen. When the state has lost all credibility there will be three factions, I suppose:
1) The muslims/autonoms
2) The native Europeans and non-muslim immigrants, like Hindus etc.
3) The State with its milita.
All will fight against each other, and the situation is going to remind us of the Balkans. From an outside perspective you can't tell who is the "good guy".
It won't be surprising either if bombs start going off soon against the rulers in Brussels, by some IRA-like group. Then a few years down the line when the terrorists has struck European civilian targets again, all hell will break lose, with mass killings taking place - like hit and run mini-genocides etc. which will lead to bigger incidents until you got the "Balkan" situation.

thll said...

Holga, I'm not sure I agree with the third of your three factions. I tend to think the state (ie the establishment) is going to be out on a limb trying to keep the peace between 1 and 2 but with its militia increasingly favouring 2.

Paul said...

Option 4: Become Lebanon.

I predict that Europe will become a backwater, overtaken completely by North America, Asia, and South America in importance. Europe will be a land of enclaves, structured along Muslim-non-Muslim lines. There will be no massive genocide, because in order to service, all sides will have to co-operate to some degree. Consider it a cultural devolution.

There will be occasional war between enclaves, or civil wars will flare up (with mass killings), but in the end, exhaustionwill settle in and the sides will coexist uneasily.

Lebanon is Europes future.

And finally, there will be no rescure this time from North Americans. They will see what is happening though, as they are already, and will avert their own tragedy. North America will remain a colourful mix of mostly non-Muslim peoples ... and along with China, India, and Latin America ... and even perhaps Russia, will sadly deal with Europe like a backwater.

Zenster said...

Painlord2k: ... more important, they need the food we produce or they will starve given their inability to produce enough food themselves.

The current food riots in Egypt and other places are simply a warning of what will happen in the future is things go wrong.


For those who may have missed my earlier comments regarding this, I invite you to investigate Water Poverty.

Some basic facts:

The entire MENA (Middle East North Africa) region is experiencing extreme water poverty. While partly due to geological circumstances, it is also caused by extreme mismanagement of hydro-resources. Saline intrusion into aquifers over-pumped by the Palestinians is but one excellent example.

Burgeoning MME (Muslim Middle East) populations have forced increasing diversions of agricultural irrigation resources over to municipal water supplies.

Iran recently eclipsed Japan as the world's biggest wheat importer.

The MENA area is the world's fastest growing regional importer of wheat.

To irrigate a similar quantity of wheat that the MENA region imports would require an amount of water equal to the entire annual flow of the River Nile.

Importing wheat essentially is a way of importing water. Many current wheat exporters may soon face Water Poverty issues themselves.


Now, consider how Islam continues to stab at the West. Even as it precariously balances on the razor's edge of famine. Were America, Canada and Australia to halt all wheat exports to the MENA region, THE ONSET OF STARVATION WOULD TAKE PLACE IN A FEW SHORT WEEKS.

Russia and China, both major food importers, could not possibly triangulate against such a move by the West.

Even a complete OPEC embargo of oil shipments to the West would not take effect soon enough to prevent mass starvation throughout the entire MENA region.

Yet, Islam still stabs at us from Hell's heart. These fanatical zealots are utterly immune to logic of any sort. Be it though conventional military intervention, nuclear holocaust or mass starvation, rest assured that the MME WILL be brought to its knees. The entire region is so vulnerable that its continued hostility against those whom they are utterly reliant upon for sustenance and petroleum extraction technology simply beggars all comprehension.

Islam is hurrying along its own doom in so many ways at once that, were this group one single individual, it would be forcibly confined under physical restraints as a suicide case of great danger to itself and others.

Western political leadership's adamant refusal to even consider the implications of this fact contiune to cement the eventuality of a Muslim holocaust. To be sure, Islam bears primary responsibility for this, but, at day's end, there will be plenty of blood on the hands of our political traitor elite as well.

Sodra Djavul said...

Welcome to our LGF trolls!

Rest assured, Lizard minions, Sodra has not forgotten about you.

Just as he Rickroll'd you in this thread 'Government Riots in Egypt' just two short weeks ago, he will pull something even more evil out of his hat for you now...

My screen name was "Silent But Deadly." My "avatar" was a man farting. And my comment was #142.

Next, it is time to spin the meat. As in MEATSPIN. Be careful of which links you click on, because it will be nasty. And it will NOT be safe for your workplace.

I have cellared more LGF nicknames than I can count simply waiting for this opportunity.

You attack the Gates, you attack it at your own peril. See you inside the ranks, Lizardkin...

- Sodra

The Pundit said...

El Ingles provides a stark, almost apocalyptic view of Europe following a complete breakdown in the untenable system of ‘order’ imposed by spineless Eurocrats. But despite its chilling and seemingly extreme message, El Ingles’ essay mirrors to a great extent recent history and gives a factor of probability, rather than possibility, to events occurring as El Ingles hypothesizes.

It is all-too-easy to get mired in the depressing realisation that Europe has fallen prey to a stifling, intractable system of multicultural lunacy and self-destructive behaviour. But a similar condition prevailed not that long ago in post-WWI Germany.

Germany was defeated and bankrupted, its resources and territories plundered, its military emasculated and its political system was seen to be under the control of ineffectual appeasers. From this seemingly hopeless situation Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party arose, and within a generation turned Germany into a force that came uncomfortably close to world domination.

Unfortunately what Hitler ultimately stood for was abhorrent, but how he turned Germany’s fortunes around was nothing but remarkable - something modern Europeans need to keep firmly in mind when contemplating the seeming fait-accompli of the Islamic question.

Hitler employed a devilishly simple stratagem in his rise to power; His political philosophy tapped into the core elements of societal dissatisfaction with life in post-war Germany. He surrounded himself with cadres of hard-core thugs who effectively became a private protective service at a time when Hitler’s personal safety was far from assured. He went on to take his philosophy to the people, rather than preach from afar. He said what people had only dared to think privately.

Again, let me make it clear that ultimately that what Adolf Hitler stood for and what he did, were abhorrent. However it is the method that he employed in gaining a foothold on the ladder to power that is of importance here and now.

Imagine if in 2009, a similarly small political party establishes itself in Britain for example. Its leader is charismatic and taps into the core elements of societal dissatisfaction. However unlike modern political parties, the party makes a case to be able to maintain its own protective service in light of the known and admitted fact that Britain’s police and security services are unable to guarantee the safety of its representatives. The private protective service should not have to be of the thuggish nature of Hitler’s Brown Shirts, but sufficient only to provide protection for representatives as they take their message to the people. Imagine.

My scenario is perhaps a simplistic one, but then again so was Hitler’s. A way can be found to break out of the death grip on political and social expression currently experienced by people living in the Western democracies. In many respects that way is already being facilitated by the very political systems that seek to stifle and eliminate voices that oppose Islamification – they are re-creating some of the core elements of societal dissatisfaction that faced ordinary Germans following WWI.

scrilla said...

russia is the only hope for europe.

cowwoc said...

I don't know what to make of these posts. I am half convinced that they were made with the intent of making Jewish people look bad. I have never in my entire life met a single Jew who expressed the extreme views you have above.

In case they are real, however, I wanted to make the following points:

1) In my experience, the vast majority of Jews in the US, Canada and Israel hold liberal political views (that is, left-wing).

Of the few right-wing Jews I met none has ever expressed the kinds of extreme views you have mentioned above. A minority of them wanted to expel all Arabs out of Israel, but that was conditioned on the assumption that Arabs don't want to live peacefully alongside Israel.

None of them advocated imprisoning Muslims or criminalizing their religion. They just wanted Arabs to finally make peace or leave us the hell alone already". People just wanted to get on with their lives!

So my first point is that as far as I can tell, your views do not represent the views of mainstream Judaism or Zionism. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

2) I wanted to say that I am Jewish and I condemn some of the things some posters advocated above. I love Israel with all my heart and I hold right-of-center political views but I simply do not agree with you.

It is one thing to be frustrated with Arabs and take action to defend yourself against their extremists. It is another thing altogether to take action that would harm them without any reasonable benefit (security or otherwise).

You want to kick extremists out of your country? Great, I agree. But you don't need to take extreme actions to do it.

All any country needs to do is simply imprison or deport outspoken extremists (and there are plenty of them!). Countries have tons of anti hate-speech legislation but they never enforce them. If they *did* then you would end up with all the extremists deported and radicalization put to an end within a generation.

Western governments need to be unflinching when cracking down on individuals. Passing laws is one thing, enforcing them is another. We need to start holding individuals accountable for their actions and the rest will follow on its own.

Dymphna said...

@cowwoc--
I don't know what to make of these posts. I am half convinced that they were made with the intent of making Jewish people look bad. I have never in my entire life met a single Jew who expressed the extreme views you have above.

It's probably because I'm tired and the comment thread is long, but I can't find particular instances of what you say.

Our blog was founded on two principles, and one of those was to fight antisemitism.

We allow a lot of latitude in people's arguments as long as they are civil, temperate, on topic, and show decorum. If anyone has violated those rules, please point out the specifics.

Other than that, the commenters are free-ranging and diverse and they often get into debates.

I have been told I am a righteous Gentile, and it is one of my favorite designations. Almost as good as a Jew.

jaycurrie said...

What an important essay. I don't agree with big chunks of it but it is critical that we begin to think seriously about the issues raised.

As you reach the end of your argument I am reminded of the position of the Jews under the Spanish Inquisition - and not the Monty Python version.

Save that it would make no sense at all to force conversions to a Faith which is no longer taken seriously in Europe. Nor is there much evidence that a Muslim conversion under duress would count for the convert.

For fifty years the Euros have been building a rod for their own back...now the rod strikes. Will Europe simply endure or will it fight back.

Nothing I see in the mainstream media suggests a willingness to fight and so the rod will fall.

bin Laden's remarks as to the weak horse and the strong seem apposite. Because if deportation or genocide are the options I rather suspect most Euros of means and intelligence will simply emigrate and leave the poor to their fate.

As the chav and yob classes are hardly likely to organize in any serious way, in the absence of what used to be called the officer class, Islam wins by default. Over a century perhaps, but a win is a win.

KGS said...

I have a dissenting view concerning El Inglés essay on the three different possible scenarios/options facing Europe. I have to admit that I'm shocked by the need to even address such scenarios as 1 and 2. Are there troubling signs ahead for Europe, well yes, but to feel that possibly the last two options could even be addressed...is distressing.

One noticeable scenario, and in my opinion the only viable scenario are, (a) changes in the social policies of Europe's nanny states (welfare) that discourage economic growth, (b) putting a full stop to mass immigration which is directly related to (a), and then (c) and increased drive in getting Muslims integrated into their host societies.

Inducing Muslims to leave for home, (if the inducements mean better standards of living await) is as benign of an option as creating conditions for better integration of Muslim populations in Europe. Mass deportations, and ....genocide no matter how far fetched, are NEVER AN OPTION. I do indeed draw the line with those two. They are not an option at all. Good, bad or whatever, Europeans have allowed immigration all by themselves regardless of whatever the reasons behind it. Muslims, who for whatever their reasons, take them up on the opportunity, and cannot be forcibly removed, morally or otherwise, and neither would I ever condone such a thing.

The only answer is for Europeans to start taking a zero tolerance to intolerance, which means no special group rights, enforcing a reeducation on the principles of pluralism and democracy and the Judeo-Christian ethic and a strong stand against any form of sharia. Any immigrant not born in Europe that is found to have broken the law in regards to Jihad, whether through actual planning, carrying out or even financing it, are to be deported.

This is just to name a few of the options available, that are indeed achievable, if we only set our minds and energies into pursuing it. No, I will have to be the lone dissenter in all of this and emphatically state that the 2/3 options explained by El Inglés, will never be an option, or even a valid scenario.

What is "Occupation" said...

Europe has murdered it's Jews...

Not once or twice but many times...

From the expulsions from England & Spain, to the Crusades, the Church's anti-semitism to the Final Solution Europe has not had a good record with the jews.

That said...

The Jews of Europe were actually living as slaves within the Roman Empire IN Europe before most European Nations even knew they were a people that could be nations...

The Jews of Europe Brought Literacy, Art, Glass Blowing, Dye Making, Medicine, Jewelry Making, Law..

The Jews of Europe from Spinoza to the Rambam, From Einstein to Rothchild the Jews of Europe improved, educated and enhanced Europe...

Tailors, Restaurants, Butchers, Retailers, Shop Keepers & more...

For this they were raped, tortured, looted and genocidially murdered....

Now 60 years later the vacuum left by their departure has been filled by the islamic peoples of the arab world, north africa & pakistan (and several other places)

The new "jews" of Europe impose their own Ghetto's on themselves, they impose their ghettos on others... they do not add to the fabric of european life, no happy bright smiling people who seek to engage with tolerance and products and services, but rather they seek governmental welfare, demand the majority of the population accept their ways as the new standard bearer...

the New "Jews" are violent, they are the majority of rapists, robbery, arson and mayhem creators from Sweden to Germany..

The Real Jews of Europe NEVER bombed railroads, Hijacked Cruise Ships, Murdered Christians because Christians insulted them (after all Christians in Europe legalized insulting Jews for CENTURIES) The real Jews of Europe tried (and failed) to BE Europeans, Just study the Reform Jewish Movement created and promoted in Germany!!!!!

So here we are.... Jews are mostly a vanished people from Europe and in their place a hostile, violent, uncompromising 7th century death cult has replaced it...

and you doubt that the savage baser side of the europeans that could shove 6 million jews and another 6 million others into ovens will NOT return?

baloney...

the europeans have a history that cannot be washed away...

It is NOT advocating genocide, but just making a prediction...

As islam invades europe again, the europeans will resist, but alias it will have to be at a tipping point that will beyond civil discourse...

all because europe flushed it's jews 60 years ago...

I do see a rise/reaction to the islamic takeover of these european population centers and quite frankly the europeans have done genocide for far less to others...

so, LGFers, dont be so naive....

Gates of V AINT promoting GENOCIDE, it's what could happen if the ship doesn't change it's path...

And trust me, as jew, I know Europe & I KNOW the Islamists...

It's aint going to be pretty

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Bilgeman
RE: Hello, Old Friend

Good to see you again.

RE: History

"Just keeping our "pas-de-deux" in perspective, a definite pattern emerges...almost tidal, isn't it?" -- Bilgeman

Indeed.

I've been trying to tell people that this is just another phase of the war that has been going on for the last 1300 years.

More like 'glacial' than 'tidal', in human terms.

RE: Holding On

"And it would also appear that while Islam may confer an impetus to conquer, it does not seem capable of occupying and defending what it has conquered...even in its' traditional homelands." -- Bilgeman

No. They certainly are not very effective, in terms of combat operations against combat formations.

I attribute to the Mongols.

After their rampage through the lands of Islam, the Muslims turned away from logic and science to religion and therein lost their edge, in knowledge, over the West.

Ever since then they have been in a downward spiral regarding technology. However, in an upward spiral verses 'morale' vis-a-vis the West's downward trend in that area.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In battle, morale is to physical as 90 to 10. -- Napoleon]

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: GoVer and LGFers
RE: Too Funny

"Welcome to our LGF trolls!" -- Sodra Djavul@GoV

"Well, you could open registration for a while and allow us to troll hunt. You know they are banging on the door right now." -- Sol Roth@LGF

You guys are so much alike.

Where's the Shakespeare of our age when we REALLY need one?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Who wants the Capulette coat of arms? Who the Montigue?

Inalienable Rights said...

I have stated in other forums that I see only 3 futures for Europe: subjugation to Islam, the return of Christ, or a war that kills millions (winner TBD). Nothing in this article alters my assessment, but at least one of my outcomes will have a happy ending.

Dymphna, please work it out with Robert Spencer. I can tell from your comment, and his reply, that there's background stress between the two of you, and the last thing we need is to give Charles the Lizard any ammunition. He is the real "watcher" (read: spitball wizard) who lends nothing to the cause.

Those who are blind to the coming violence are as useless as those who are blind to the coming Islam.

Sura 109 said...

Greetings, lizardoids.

It's good to see that Chucky isn't too sanguine about ethnic cleansing. What isn't at all clear to me, however, is just what is in this GoV article that one does not regularly see among Chucky's goose-stepping lizardoid minions.

Yes, I was quite the troll over at LGF. I didn't go there intending to be a troll, just the loyal opposition at most, but I have a hard time not calling out stupid people. I admit, furthermore, that it was fun to stir up the lizardoids by suggesting that "A totalitarian police state that will institute policies of concentration camps and mass deportation, and criminalize being a Muslim in Europe" might not be such a good idea.

And now we have the Head Lizardoid himself saying that this isn't such a good idea.

I'm not quite sure I believe in his sincerity. Chucky's M.O. is to dog-whistle and let his wannabee-brownshirt followers do his talking for him. It gives him plausible deniability. Meanwhile "Kos" is responsible to the Nth degree for every trollish diary and comment posted at his site.

Bilgeman said...

@ ChuckPelto:

Re: A sight for sore eyes!

How are you Cunnel?

Good to see that you're still in there pitchin' for the side.

"You guys are so much alike."

But aren't they?
Here's the plan, then: A single envelopment with charged fire-hoses to cool 'em off and hopefully bring 'em to their senses.
(It's a heap of fun, too).

Then maybe we can think and speak clearly about those wretched "Mesopotamian Pedestrians" taking potshots at all of us.

Nazis over here, Zionists over there...or is it the other way around?...Yeesh!

Don't ya just LOVE the intertoobs?

Look how fast the dogmatic schisms were erected. People must be feeling pretty secure if they have the time and energy to snipe at each other, eh?

Keep well, old friend, and rememmber that the UberFrauFuhrer loves us all.

Heil, Hillary!

DWMF said...

3 options? You forget there is a 4th:

Conversion to Christianity and willing assimilation into Western culture. That's what the intelligent ones will be doing.

Those who return home will take their (partially) Western culture with them, which will bring the home countries psychologically closer to the West.

To my mind, this is not about genetics (colour, race, appearance), but loyalties. Who you believe you are, and who will you fight for.

Look at the Iraqi Awakening. Ordinary Iraqis have rejected Al Qaeda in disgust, due to AQ's oppressive habits and barbarity. The whole Moslem world needs such an Awakening. I pray that the Wahhabi/Salafist extremists are branded as dangerous, anti-social heretics by other Moslems.

Afonso Henriques said...

El Ingles,

"I am aware of no examples of large-scale deportations being carried out by aircraft, which they would have to be in this case."

It is indeed possible. And I am speaking on a huge scale.

The greatest problem of all it is that probabily, the host governments would not want their natives back in their land. Especially the ones who have "European" Nationalities.

Here goes a History:

After 25th April 1974, the Portuguese settlers were forced to leave their homes in their colonies in Africa. They were forced out over a great danger of being killed by the "Freedom Fighters" of Decolonisation people praised so much.

The great majority of the Portuguese setllers (some 90% of them) came by plane.
It may not seem massive to you, but to those people coming from Africa were given the name of Retornados (The ones that returned). They were about ONE MILLION in a country of only TEN MILLIONS. So, you can conclude that almost TEN PERCENT of the Portuguese population came here by PLANE from Africa, in what they called a "Ponte Aérea" (Air Bridge) between a few airports in Africa and Lisbon. They got almost ONE MILLION PEOPLE OUT OF AFRICA THIS WAY, BY PLANE, but just because the Portuguese government choosed to do so and because Portugal was controling that African airports de facto. It can not be possible if the two governments do not reach a consensum. Also, in this case the Air Force and the TAP (Portuguese Airline Transporter) had great importane, both of them, civil and militar aviation. All the Portuguese individuals in Africa had to do was to get into the airports and they would make it to Lisbon.

I will leave you a link in case you want to know more about this (maybe) excepcional and amazing exodus (those people would likely be killed) that saved thousands of a lives.

"Apart from the faintly surreal notion of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis being flown out of the UK"

In this case, it was nothing of sureal. And it were not one, not two but almost TEN Hundred Tousands of people who were evacuated. 10% of a NATION. And it was made by a country far less developed than the U.K. and with far less ressources than the U.K.
And it was in the fricking 70s!!!

Link:

Well, I can't find a good link in English but you can for sure google it. Sorry for that.

Afonso Henriques said...

Fairlaine,

"North Africa does not need to "invade" Europe by naval force (allthough they probably would achieve a front post in the south of Spain),"

That I would like to see!

Actually, in 2001 (I guess), I think prior to 9/11, Morocco did in fact attacked Perejil.

Perejil is a small uninhabited island in the Northern Moroccan coast. It was conquered by the Portuguese and subsequently offered to the Spanish crown.

Moroccan troops invaded the island and put there a Moroccan flag. 2 weeks later, the Spaniards sent a small armed force and the Moroccans runned a way immediately. They were so coward that nobody died! It was during daylight (I think).

I would like them to invade us... I would really enjoy...

Also, I can not see the muslims in the Balkans going up untill Croatia. Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria may fall. But Croatia and Romania? I doubt it!

Wake up to the real world man! Live the PS off for a while!

Afonso Henriques said...

"My main point regarding Jews is that they should not be treated differently than any other ethnic group. Not as especially bad and evil, not as especially good and protected. This is such a simple truth, still almost nobody gets it right. Jews get people to go nuts one way or the other."

Amén Conservative Swede!

" It's never a good idea for any nation to have a large and/or influential minority with a clearly separate identity, a distinct ethnicity."

Amén again!

"This applies to Jews, but also e.g. to Catholics in Protestant countries. Jews and Catholics, as groups, typically act constructively in their own countries, but destructively in other people's countries."

What the hell!!!

Yes, I would agree that Jews are "distructive". But Christians? How are Christians distructive? Uuooowww, I see! Northern Ireland! There was a problem between Catholics and Protestants! Ooops, maybe you forget that that religious difference comes from an ethnic difference. Catholic=Irish and Protestant=English, more Anglo Saxon.

Another case, Ex-Jugoslavia! You have Serbian Ortodhox against Croat Catholics. What's behind? 300 hundred or more years of German power over the Croats whereas the Serbs were being fuc*ed in the ass by their Turkish counterparts. That ended up making two different ethnicities! I am starting to wonder...

Look, now I got it! Protestant Flemish and Catholic Waloons! Oh boy, both are traditionally Catholic! The problem is that whereas the Wallons are nothing more than a bunch of French out of France, the Flemish are not more than a bunch of Dutch living out of the Netherlands!

Now let's look to the more "divided" country in Europe in what concerns religious lines: Germany!!!

What have they done? Nothing. Oh no, they killed the Jews! They were so united they created the II and the III Reich! They also had the Germanic Confederation that did not look towards religion. Both, the holly Christian Austria and the so Protestant Prussia were both part of it!

So, the problem may be ethnicity that sometimes correlates with religion.

And all the Religious wars of the past were just pretexts of Princes, not of peoples, to get power.

Why don't you agree, Conservative Swede? What more evidence do you want? Look at Ukraine! Their problem is ethnicity, even if they don't know it!

Do not forget that Ethnicity=Historical Memory. Especially for the masses.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Bilgeman
Re: A sight for sore eyes!

“How are you Cunnel?” -- Bilgeman

Life could be better. The distaff’s parents are into some deep medical kimchee, i.e., mom has gone terminal. She’s the epitome of the sweet, little old lady. It’ll crush dad. It’s going to be a hard year on this household. Fortunately, we moved down here to help them 5 years ago. We’re in a good position to support them in this time, thank God.

“Good to see that you're still in there pitchin' for the side.” -- Bilgeman

Everybody ought to have a hobby. Political discourse excites me, these days; now that I don’t wear green all the time.

I keep pitchin’—from the side—but, as experienced the other day, they keep shootin’ back. [Note: Got ‘killed’ by PJM because I had the temerity to declare one of the contributing authors—Amy Alkon—a brazen hypocrite on a topical thread titled—now get this—Crushed into Silence. I swear....you just CAN’T make this sorta s--- up.]

"You guys are so much alike." -- Chuck Pelto; to VoGers and LGFers

“But aren't they?
Here's the plan, then: A single envelopment with charged fire-hoses to cool 'em off and hopefully bring 'em to their senses.
(It's a heap of fun, too).” -- Bilgeman

It’s one of those Love[-to-hate-ya] sort of confabs. Worse than the rivalry between cross-town high schools. At least they aren’t throwing dead bodies [of cats] on doorsteps. [Note: That’s what Airline used to do for the Bossier City Bearkats.

On the otherside, we tried crashing an airplane (B52s from Barksdale AFB) on theirs, but we just couldn’t find anyone to fly the plane into their building. Maybe we should have gone Muslim?]

The fire hose idea might work. When I was a young sergeant in the 82d, pulling CQ duty, a fight broke out in the company day room. I poured myself on it like a bucket o’ water and it was over in ten seconds.

“Then maybe we can think and speak clearly about those wretched "Mesopotamian Pedestrians" taking potshots at all of us.” -- Bilgeman

What are the ROEs?

“Nazis over here, Zionists over there...or is it the other way around?...Yeesh!” -- Bilgeman

Can’t we all just get along? -- Jack Nicholson in Mars Attacks

Somehow, I have my doubts. But then again, neither of the parties cited are what any reasonably prudent individual would call ‘Christian’...tongue firmly in cheek.

“Don't ya just LOVE the intertoobs?

Look how fast the dogmatic schisms were erected. People must be feeling pretty secure if they have the time and energy to snipe at each other, eh?” -- Bilgeman

Indeed. It has been a rabid build-up. And, as I pointed out (above) you tell them they gotta problem, they’ll ‘kill’ YOU TOO.

I say it’s another ‘sign of the approaching apocalypse’.

“Keep well, old friend, and rememmber that the UberFrauFuhrer loves us all.” -- Bilgeman

To death, based on the body-count I’ve followed the last 14 years.

I wonder if her staff is looking for a latter-day Sirhan-Sirhan?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Crime does not pay...as well as politics.]

Afonso Henriques said...

Irish Troie,

"many muslims immigrated to Catholic Brazil in the 19th century, they assimilated and became Catholics."

No they didn't.

It was Christian Lebanese. They migrated also to Europe and thei integrated perfectly. Why? Genetically and culturally they are (almost) European. They were happy to live far from Islam.

Also, you look too "puritane" too be right. Your proposition is Utopic.

"That was because Brazilians were religious, they were culturally sure of themselves"

During most of the XIX century, Brazil was ruled by a Portuguese aristocratic elite (the Portuguese would be King himself. Said no to Portugal and went to rule Brazil).

Also, the blacks were enslaved, the indian women raped and the men exterminated.

What a Christian society!

After this, when the "whities" saw they were a minority they started calling for poor Europeans to pour in. Especially Portuguese and Italians. The great majority was explored.

What a great Christian society!

There was nothing strong and unifying in XIX century Brazil except the Portuguese language and the white elite.

Also, even today, many Brazilian churches I like the ones Obama usually goes, or are even worst with African traditions like some African God who needs to eat. And people who know the future by looking to the fishes...

Great Catholicism!

Afonso Henriques said...

Jaycurrie,

" I rather suspect most Euros of means and intelligence will simply emigrate and leave the poor to their fate."

Most Euros may even emigrate. And of the poor, the lefties will integrate with the "ethnics" and the other vil poor uneducated Europeans will be more ruthless and, when they are the only legitimate sons of Europe, they will rebell. After this, all the right wing expatriates will return.
So, only the lefties will go away.

Afonso Henriques said...

dwmf,

"To my mind, this is not about genetics (colour, race, appearance), but loyalties. Who you believe you are, and who will you fight for."

Yes, and race. I mean, the family has nothing to do with that... especially in third world cuntries... But what choked me the most was:

"Look at the Iraqi Awakening. Ordinary Iraqis have rejected Al Qaeda in disgust, due to AQ's oppressive habits and barbarity. The whole Moslem world needs such an Awakening. I pray that the Wahhabi/Salafist extremists are branded as dangerous, anti-social heretics by other Moslems."

Yeah, Iraq is a paradise to Iraqis.

Wake up boy!

Bilgeman said...

Chuck Pelto:

"The distaff’s parents are into some deep medical kimchee, i.e., mom has gone terminal. She’s the epitome of the sweet, little old lady. It’ll crush dad. It’s going to be a hard year on this household."

Ahhh, sorry to hear it, hang in there, buddy.

"What are the ROEs?"

I think that's kinda what this blog-tiff is about. Seems that The Bicyclist wants to impose some.

Unfortunately, his draft copy seems to be cribbed wholesale from the playbook of the very dullards who have allowed this mess to fester to the point where God's Own Englishman above,(and Yankee Doodle Dandy,The Big Kahuna, and the Heap Large She-Chief of the Ubangi Tribe), are contemplating the possibility of Very Nasty Things in order to "fix" it.

To wax all philosophical n'stuff, what is a "punishment" that by it's very nature, is NOT "cruel and unusual"?
(A "reward", I'd offer.).

RoE's? I thought you knew me better than that. I'm a Privateer, not a Swabbie. I don't much care if you show up for your watch in a cocktail dress and high heels, just so long as we get the prize money.

If The Bicyclist requires a background check for membership in his "Great Big Counter-Jihad", that's alright by me...but I betcha the Lizardoid Fleet that gathers under the banner of "Idealized Touchie-Feelieism and Kindness to Animals" is somewhat less imposing than it might otherwise have been.

As laudable as his goals may be, we have to zap the slobbering Islamist zealots and their Dirt Merchant willing tools FIRST.

THEN we can set about purging and re-educating our ranks of the non-inclusive and "wrong-thinkers".

"To death, based on the body-count I’ve followed the last 14 years."

Somehow she managed to miss us?
(And people say there is no God!)

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Bilgeman
RE: Family SITREP

“Ahhh, sorry to hear it, hang in there, buddy.” -- Bilgeman

“God willing. And I am confident He is.

RE: ROEs 1

"What are the ROEs?" -- Chuck Pelto to Bilgeman

“I think that's kinda what this blog-tiff is about. Seems that The Bicyclist wants to impose some.” -- Bilgeman, in reply

True. And there is no time like the present to discuss what they should be.

“Unfortunately, his draft copy seems to be cribbed wholesale from the playbook of the very dullards who have allowed this mess to fester to the point where God's Own Englishman above,(and Yankee Doodle Dandy,The Big Kahuna, and the Heap Large She-Chief of the Ubangi Tribe), are contemplating the possibility of Very Nasty Things in order to "fix" it.” -- Bilgeman

I think it’s about time that someone did/published a staff study on the various courses of action—ranging from do-nothing-more to genocide [just to capture the whole gamet]—and review all the advantages and disadvantages of each course of action.

“To wax all philosophical n'stuff, what is a "punishment" that by it's very nature, is NOT "cruel and unusual"?
(A "reward", I'd offer.).” -- Bilgeman

Ture. All punishment is ‘cruel’, in the eye of the recipient. But, unlike the UCMJ, I prefer corporeal punishment over monetary and/or time.

RE: ROEs 2

“RoE's? I thought you knew me better than that. I'm a Privateer, not a Swabbie. I don't much care if you show up for your watch in a cocktail dress and high heels, just so long as we get the prize money.” -- Bilgeman

Since when did our mutual rich Uncle start issuing letters of marque? Or is this a new way to fund the National Reserve Fleet? Does the captain go by the name of Jack Sparrow?

“If The Bicyclist requires a background check for membership in his "Great Big Counter-Jihad", that's alright by me...but I betcha the Lizardoid Fleet that gathers under the banner of "Idealized Touchie-Feelieism and Kindness to Animals" is somewhat less imposing than it might otherwise have been.” -- Bilgeman

I’m not sure just why Charles and he don’t get along. Maybe it is the allegation of fascist supporters that has Charles so irritated. But fascists are always with us. Heck. Even PJM and other allegedly ‘conservative’ blogs has them on-board, albeit they are not your regular skin heads. As some Wag put it, 2000 years ago, “A tree is known by its fruit.” Or, as Bush the First put it, “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....”

Instead, they are the people who will ‘kill’ you for disagreeing with them. And it doesn’t matter if you’re polite about it. Rather that you are (1) correct and (2) adamant about it.

So what if GoV has ‘fleas’, as bitsy over at LGF puts it. Fleas can be disposed of, with proper chemical agents....soap and water.

RE: Give ‘m the Dirty!

“As laudable as his goals may be, we have to zap the slobbering Islamist zealots and their Dirt Merchant willing tools FIRST.” -- Bilgeman

One of my comrades-in-brains, up in Denver, is a ‘certified’ Muslim, i.e., a ‘convert’ while he was assigned to Iran; before the Shah Shah fell.

Shortly after 9/11 he asked me how can we defeat so many people determined to destroy US.

I replied, “One well-placed bullet at a time.”

He shut up.

I think we need to be (1) selective and (2) ruthless in our prosecution of this war.

I have no problem with Muslims amongst US. As I have no problem with my brother-in-law; an Iranian expat....with a PhD in bio-physics. Great guy.

I DO have a problem with someone who wants to overthrow our Constitution. Something I swore to protect some 38 years ago.

So, I supposed that if someone says he hates the way the government is going is not a problem. I say such thinks myself on occasion. However, if someone says they hate the way our government is organized, vis-a-vis the Constitution....throw the bum, and his family and his furniture OUT!

As for those who actually act on such an ideal....prison! And, as I’ve espoused for a number of years on the web, I’d use a variant on the Pershing technique. Let ‘em work a pig farm. And when they die of natural causes, their carcass is FED to the pigs.
Pershing’s technique worked in the PIs.

Why can’t it work in this instance?

RE: Education

“THEN we can set about purging and re-educating our ranks of the non-inclusive and "wrong-thinkers".” -- Bilgeman

I’m working on that. But it’s going to take a lot more people than just me to turn the vaunted American public education system around.

RE: The Elizabeth Elliot of Our Reality; Read Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears (© 1991)

"To death, based on the body-count I’ve followed the last 14 years." -- Chuck Pelto to Bilgeman

“Somehow she managed to miss us?
(And people say there is no God!)” -- Bilgeman, in reply

As surely as He lives, she did. But we were ‘beneath’ her ‘radar’.

But the point here is that no matter what she, or any other Republicrat does, there is no changing the proverbial ‘bottom line’. Something like Twila Paris mentions in her award winning song from the 90s.

And, getting all philiosophical and such, all we can do, is all we can do. So we do it, never counting the cost.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God is in control...... -- Twila Paris]

P.S. Heck of a day, here.

Charles is now threatening to kill me for the impertinence of asking if he was a Christian.

I think he is beginning, more and more, to behave as he is accusing some people on GoV of wanting to behave.

Interesting think, that.....

Dymphna said...

He, Pelto and Bilgeman--

An interesting reunion, but please confine it to about 5 paragraphs or so. For someone with astigmatism, it's difficult to scroll and read. Plus, it's not polite to use inside jargon whilst speaking in the midst of outsiders. It excludes...though I will say I enjoy the delight you seem to experience in each other. Just do it by email, okay?

Pelto (if it was you, I've lost track), what you say about Chazzer and religion is most interesting. One time in early 2006 or so, while visiting his site I stumbled across a little quote, waaay down the page, sitting on the sidebar all by itself. This may be a paraphrase: "There is nothing worse you can do to a child than bring him to church."

It was such an amazing aphorism that I pondered it for awhile. Having been a CPS worker, I can think of three or four dozen worse things to do to a child. I've seen them.

Now maybe some brilliant hacker sneaked in and put that up on LGF. Who's to say? At any rate, when I went back the next day, I couldn't find it. I could be wrong, but Chaz presents as one of those people who is allergic to organized religion. A few of my friends are like that. They give me books proving how damaging religion is.

Some people are simply indifferent. I figure they're missing the god gene and that's okay. In his autobiography, Sartre said that he met God once when he was nine and that the meeting didn't go well; they didn't like each other. I can see why. No one wanted Jean Paul when he was a kid; he was a superfluous person. Anyway, they never spoke again.

Others are much more invested than indifferent. They *need* to convince you of their orthodox atheism. I flee them as quickly as I do the Jehovah Witnesses who come to the door.

Hmmm...I just took you to account for being wordy. I'll have to work on that.

Zenster said...

jaycurrie: I am reminded of the position of the Jews under the Spanish Inquisition - and not the Monty Python version.

Nobody expected that!

… it would make no sense at all to force conversions to a Faith which is no longer taken seriously in Europe. Nor is there much evidence that a Muslim conversion under duress would count for the convert.
[Emphasis Added]

Much like the case with Islam’s forced conversions. What a startling coincidence! Please keep in mind that this grueling scenario touches not at all upon that Islamic bugbear known as taqiyya.

Because if deportation or genocide are the options I rather suspect most Euros of means and intelligence will simply emigrate and leave the poor to their fate.

To paraphrase the inimitable Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy, “Won’t somebody please think of the nukes!” Namely, what about them? Some participants here keep assuming that Muslims will overtake certain European regions without reconciling exactly how the outside world will respond to French or British nuclear weapons potentially falling into Islamic hands.

Far more disturbing is how those who control European nuclear arsenals could react to the imminent threat of Muslims appropriating such devices. Might they not resort to the “launch or lose” (i.e., use ‘em or lose ‘em) doctrine and immolate the MME (Muslim Middle East), sooner than see such WMDs turned against the Western world? Were I a missile silo’s guardian, such a notion would certainly cross my mind if any risk of that sort pertained.

Over a century perhaps, but a win is a win.

Ain’t no "century" about it, mate. Islam has a decade (or two) at most to reverse course or gain ascendancy. Within such a time period will emerge either sufficient anti-Muslim resistance or Islamic nuclear arms that will sway the situation.

KGS :increased drive in getting Muslims integrated into their host societies

Thank you, KGS. I needed a good belly laugh today. Rather than the redundancy it ought to be, Muslim integration is an OXYMORON. Such a notion rates right up there with Arab unity and Islamic honor.

Mass deportations, and ....genocide no matter how far fetched, are NEVER AN OPTION.

While, clearly, I cannot speak for El Inglés, likewise can I be assured that neither he—nor anyone else who takes him seriously—regards “deportations, and …genocide” as an “OPTION”. Far more likely, all of it is seen—much like I do—as an inevitability!

They are not an option at all.

Again, who said anything about “options”?

It’s more than safe to say that the vast majority of people here DO NOT regard genocide as an “option”. I should hope to think that a huge percentage of GoV participants regard any Muslim holocaust as abhorrent but—just the same—consider it as something that Islam will force into bringing about just as surely as the sun will rise. Remember:

ISLAM WOULDN’T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY.

KGS said...

Hi Zenster, glad I could provide you with a "belly laugh", but unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.

I'm sure that intergration is the best of scenarios, correct? Void of puritanical jihadist influences, the minority Muslim population of the Finnish Tatars, have indeed intergrated as have Finnish Jews.

So there is tangible, documented proof of Muslim intergration as being acheivable. Enforcing the laws already on the books as well as stiffening the spine towards appeasing sharia inspired demands, are more than enough means to enforce their conformity to western morals and rules of law in a democratic, pluralistic Europe.

I still disagree that such a far fetched topic of "how Europe could possibly descend into implementing another final solution" is worthy of debate and discussion. I just happen to believe that it will never come to that...period.

But one thing is clear, the discussion of such a possibility happening is not the same as condoning or approving of such a thing. The LGF crowd with Charles leading the way, have done a great injustice to Ingles and both the Baron and Dymphna by insisting that is was. He's a clever liar.

He (Charles) has engaged in a rumur mongoring and smearing campaign against the GOV, has even leveled the charge of Facsism against them (GoV)....and it stinks.

Zenster said...

KGS: But one thing is clear, the discussion of such a possibility happening is not the same as condoning or approving of such a thing. The LGF crowd with Charles leading the way, have done a great injustice to Ingles and both the Baron and Dymphna by insisting that is was. He's a clever liar.

He (Charles) has engaged in a rumur mongoring and smearing campaign against the GOV, has even leveled the charge of Facsism against them (GoV)....and it stinks.


This much we can most certainly agree upon.

Bilgeman said...

Dymphna:

"An interesting reunion, but please confine it to about 5 paragraphs or so. For someone with astigmatism, it's difficult to scroll and read. Plus, it's not polite to use inside jargon whilst speaking in the midst of outsiders. It excludes...though I will say I enjoy the delight you seem to experience in each other. Just do it by email, okay?"

Sorry, D. I've "known" the Cunnel since he was a Cap'n and I was a Pollywog.

In those days, it was the Michigan Militia and the Blue Ridge Hunt Club everyone was buggin' over.

And the reason we hold each other in such high regard is that we've never, ever exchanged e-mail addresses...(The Big Computer in the basement of the Eff Bee Aye would short circuit and meltdown if we did...and THEN where would we all be?).

As to the Cunnel's and your's point: I think The Bicyclist has some sort of "stature" now that he "has to maintain".

In short,(hahhaha!), he's being co-opted into "MSM-think"...so having a bunch of pee-kyool-yur Europeans doing "Thought Experiments" is something that he "can't afford" and must throw brickbats at.

Too bad, really, back in the day he wasn't all hung up on who was a Lizard and who wasn't.

ole said...

Let's not waste too much time arguing whether predicting an earthquake might encourage it to happen.
Il Ingles has kicked a fat holy cow in its A... ubs! ehhh BEHIND .
When really important events occur in history ,they often surprise allmost everyboddy.Last time , was the fall of the Sovjet Union.
I do not suffer from the illusion that any of us can guess what will be the future of Europe.
Some tendencies seems clear though: Inside Europe Islaam is winning a political battle ,while it is LOOSING military confrontations almost everywhwre else.
Therefor our best strategy must be to somehow change the nature of the political batle into something that would be more like ,or "mimic" the nature of a military conflict.
This might partialy happen by it self as Gaza-size muslim-only areas starts to apear around major cities in Europe.
So, when this happens, it might be a good idea to try to understand why Ariel Sharon chose to give Gaza its independence : When dealing with muslims ,the smart thing to do is often to give them just enough rope to hang themselves. When given the MILITARY possibility, they can be counted on 100% to shoot themselves in the foot.
Or ,in other words, it would be in our best long-term interrest if defacto independent muslim mini-states would be the home of the big majority of european muslims , because then,later on , WAR would almost inevitably happen ,leading to scenarios 1+2+3 as descibed by Il Inglese.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dymphna
RE: Communications, Effective and Otherwise

“ An interesting reunion, but please confine it to about 5 paragraphs or so. For someone with astigmatism, it's difficult to scroll and read.” -- Dymphna

Sorry about that. It’s just the way I am.

By the by....I’m astigmatic myself.

RE: Various Terminologies

“ Plus, it's not polite to use inside jargon whilst speaking in the midst of outsiders. It excludes...though I will say I enjoy the delight you seem to experience in each other. Just do it by email, okay?” -- Dymphna

Sorry about that too. But there’s more to life than what each of us perceives. That’s why I read a lot. In order to learn how to communicate with people from different backgrounds.

If you don’t understand a term/acronym/whathaveyou I mentioned, feel free to contact me by whatever means you deem appropriate in order to learn what I was talking about.

RE: LGF and Religion

“ Pelto (if it was you, I've lost track), what you say about Chazzer and religion is most interesting. One time in early 2006 or so, while visiting his site I stumbled across a little quote, waaay down the page, sitting on the sidebar all by itself. This may be a paraphrase: "There is nothing worse you can do to a child than bring him to church."” -- Dymphna

I’m certain that a LOT of people think that way. Too bad.

“ It was such an amazing aphorism that I pondered it for awhile. Having been a CPS worker, I can think of three or four dozen worse things to do to a child. I've seen them.” -- Dymphna

That’s too bad too. I’ve seen a lot of bad things that people can do to children. And I am continually reminded of the warning given about how it would be....

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” -- Matthew 18:6

Unfortunately, for them, lots of people don’t quite grasp that business.

“ Now maybe some brilliant hacker sneaked in and put that up on LGF. Who's to say? At any rate, when I went back the next day, I couldn't find it. I could be wrong, but Chaz presents as one of those people who is allergic to organized religion. A few of my friends are like that. They give me books proving how damaging religion is.” -- Dymphna

I can’t speak to that as I did not see the incident there. But I usually only visit LGF once or thrice a day.

As for how ‘damaging’ Religion is....

....well....I suspect that some empirical proofs would be in order. Personally, I think a good staff study would provide an excellent spring-board for the merits of some religious beliefs vis-a-vis others.

“ Some people are simply indifferent. I figure they're missing the god gene and that's okay. In his autobiography, Sartre said that he met God once when he was nine and that the meeting didn't go well; they didn't like each other. I can see why. No one wanted Jean Paul when he was a kid; he was a superfluous person. Anyway, they never spoke again.” -- Dymphna

I suspect that Sartre, as well as some other religiously significant people, met someone. But it wasn’t God. Nor any of His reps. Rather, they met members of the other camp. Met some myself on occasion. Rather interesting experiences. However, you CAN discern between the two camps. It’s just a matter of having a firm ‘footing’, i.e., on a Rock.

My firm-footing came from two incidents in which I nearly left this venue for whatever awaits me beyond; (1) plummeting out of a black-night sky with a malfunctioning parachute and (2) in a ‘snit’ with an 18-wheeler at interstate speeds. In both instances, that ‘still-small-voice’ was screaming in my mind’s ear what I should do to remain in this venue....to tell this tale. Since then, I’ve learned to ‘pay attention’. And, how to deal with those characters from the other camp.

“ Others are much more invested than indifferent. They *need* to convince you of their orthodox atheism. I flee them as quickly as I do the Jehovah Witnesses who come to the door.” -- Dymphna

As I said (immediately above), there are some “religiously significant people” who have been badly mislead. Like the ‘children’ (further above).

Not allowing Mormons back into the house, after the earlier experience in which they visited and I had something race through my local area network destroying lots of tech hardware.....within 12 hours. Might be that the resident ghost....for all I know. But I’d rather not have to spend that much money again.

RE: Coming Full Circle

“ Hmmm...I just took you to account for being wordy. I'll have to work on that.” -- Dymphna” -- Dymphna

Not to worry. Being ‘wordy’ is an important part of effective/efficient communication. Especially when dealing in English.” -- Dymphna

But it IS a great tie between your opening and closing remarks.

Did we learn something?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God is alive....and Airborne-Ranger qualified. -- some Army Chaplain at the Airborne School Chaple, Benning School for Boys]

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Bilgeman
RE: Dymphna

"An interesting reunion, but please confine it to about 5 paragraphs or so. For someone with astigmatism, it's difficult to scroll and read." -- Dymphna

“Sorry, D. I've "known" the Cunnel since he was a Cap'n and I was a Pollywog.

In those days, it was the Michigan Militia and the Blue Ridge Hunt Club everyone was buggin' over.” -- Bilgeman

It HAS been a ‘while’, hasn’t it. Time does fly when you’re (1) having fun and (2) getting older.

“And the reason we hold each other in such high regard is that we've never, ever exchanged e-mail addresses...(The Big Computer in the basement of the Eff Bee Aye would short circuit and meltdown if we did...and THEN where would we all be?).” -- Bilgeman

Actually, your cred went sky-hi when I encountered another member of my unit who suffered from GWS. He’d been an LT in 1st Cav and took the shot. He’s one of the more fortunate.....he’s just ‘as hairless as a new born baby’; happened within weeks of that shot.

“As to the Cunnel's and your's point: I think The Bicyclist has some sort of "stature" now that he "has to maintain".” -- Bilgeman

I think you’re onto something there. The indicators point that way. And maybe he should take a [pardon my ‘french’] sabbatical to think this matter through. Seriously, as some Wag put it, “What does it profit a man, if he should gain the whole world while losing his immortal soul?”

“In short,(hahhaha!), he's being co-opted into "MSM-think"...so having a bunch of pee-kyool-yur Europeans doing "Thought Experiments" is something that he "can't afford" and must throw brickbats at.” -- Bilgeman

Again....I think you’re pretty much on target here. However, I council D and der Baron not to get the proverbial ‘big head’ on this. They could well fall into the same pit/prat fall.

“Too bad, really, back in the day he wasn't all hung up on who was a Lizard and who wasn't.” -- Bilgeman

He could recover. If pride hasn’t become the biggest part of his psyche.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Pride ruined the angels. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

P.S. I’ve given up on referring to myself as a ‘conservative’. I’ve found they’re just as bloody-minded, i.e., murderous, as the so-called ‘liberals’.

I’m calling myself a christian, politically, from now on. [Note: However, I’m well aware what a shambles a number of so-called ‘christians’ have made of THAT term.]

Dymphna said...

Ok, Mr. Pelto. Points taken.

At dinner last night I was telling my husband and son about your comments and the conversation wandered into military lingo and which branch of the service had the best lines.

It brought back many fond memories of my short years as a Marine Corps wife...you know the old saw: "if the Corps wanted you to have a wife they would have issued you one."

Fortunately for my first son he came into this world at Cherry Point on Nov 14th. Had it been the 10th, he would have been saddled with "Gung Ho" for his middle name and would have even more to forgive me for.

I think the USMC has the most creative cussers of them all. I heard words I'd never encountered before. Being a sheltered convent girl, the only other word I had for the male appendage (besides the real one) was "weenie." I was utterly amazed at the multitudinous variations.

I recalled a few favorite memories of those years I think I'll save them for Neighborhood of God, but I must mention this one:

My Marine's mos was aircraft electrician. He would refer a lot to what he called a "fire warning b*tch". This puzzled me. Was there a woman on board the plane whose sole job was to whine if there was a fire warning alarm going off?

My ex looked at me strangely and explained that any necessary repair was called a "b*tch." Oh.

Then there was the time we were playing bridge with our next door neighbors and they got into a knife fight over a poor bid. He was a jarhead, she was an Indian. It figures.

Exciting times they were. And I got a broad education...so to speak.

That's all. At ease, Mr. Peleto. Carry on...

islam o' phobe said...

KGS,

Mass deportations are always an option. They happen in the MideEast all the time. Also they figure prominently in European history.. the Hughenots, the Reconquista.

Consul-At-Arms said...

Back in the bad old days of the Cold War, various governments employed many hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of academics and intellectuals to think about and plan for fighting, surviving and even winning the horror that is a nuclear war.

This essay has caused an uproar in some quarters, notably at LGF. It should. It spells out what Ralph Peters has been warning us about even as he's spared belaboring the details.

I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/04/re-surrender-genocide-or-what.html

Conservative Swede said...

KGS,

Shunning away from mass deportations is exactly what would lead to the genocidal scenario (I cannot predict who will kill whom, but there will surely be mass killings).

Are you prepared take this on your responsibility?

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

If we don't assimilate them, or deport them, we will become a police state barely (or not quite) reigning in the anarchy.

White Christians who have not turned into Dhimmis will turn into vigilantes, and the state will go after them (for usurping the power of the state) harder than they will go after the muslims (for merely killing other civilians, or for just killing cops, which liberals don't really like anyway).

It will always come down to the question of will we let it go so far that we fail to punish muslims justly our of fear of retaliation or accusations of racism (the Brits gave some traitors less than 5 years just a week ago), thus encouraging them, while at the same time putting cameras on every street corner. Disarm the people, and viola-police state.

deadbambi said...

While I find the LGF blog infantile in many ways, and I find Charles Johnson to be a malignant narcissist, I have no personal history with that blog and have never posted there. I did create a little post on my blog here here to honor Charles in his diatribe against Lionheart - because what Charles did was wrong.

However and most unfortunately, I also find that his criticism of GoV in calling this a haven for Nazis to be accurate, although I doubt we come to this conclusion for the same reasons.

I'm sorry to take this position and I know with every fiber of my being that Dymphna and Baron are not Nazis nor Anti-Semites, but many of their commenters are.

I guess since this blog is Eurocentric, it has become extremely apparent to me that many Europeans still hate Jews - even after they killed almost the entire Jewish population of Europe. I guess that just wasn't enough for them.

As long as "people" like Conservative Swede and Alphonse are given free reign to spew their "Jews are destructive" crap without retort by the forum's owners on each and every occasion that views like that are spewed (afterall, you do have jobs and lives outside blogging - where would you find the time?), I have to conclude that this forum does indeed serve as a haven for Anti-Semites, despite the fact that the owners themselves are not.

It doesn't mean I won't come here - unless the owners don't want me to criticize their blog and be on it at the same time.

From my experience, men who have views like Swede and Alphonse toward Jews sincerely believe that there is only so much pie out there, and if a Jew is taking a big slice, that means there is less pie for them. I guess this is a result of socialist indoctrination. They don't realize that they can just bake more pies.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Free speech is free speech. :)

your pie analogy is spot-on, though. The idea of the zero-sum game is compelling for social engineers but it doesn't fit reality all too well since there's always some more dirt to farm and some more iron to dig out of the ground.

Baron Bodissey said...

Bambi,

I share your distaste for anti-Semitism. I think in this case you are not reading Conservative Swede closely enough (I can't be sure about Afonso, however, because I'm not always entirely certain what his formulations mean).

CS is clear: he objects to the fact that any criticism of any behavior of any Jews is attacked by many (even by people on the right) as "anti-Semitism". This standard is not applied for any other group, except possibly for American blacks.

I won't presume to speak about the motivations behind what Conservative Swede says; he can do that for himself.

But he is fair and clear in what he writes: he objects to preferential treatment being given to Jews as an ethnic group when criticism is aimed at them.

CStanton411 said...

KGS: I'm sure that integration is the best of scenarios, correct? Void of puritanical jihadist influences, the minority Muslim population of the Finnish Tatars, have indeed integrated as have Finnish Jews.

What you cite is, by far, an almost singular exception to the rule. Please examine the following numbers and consider how they show an overwhelming tendency for Muslims to eradicate host cultures and minorities alike:

----- Begin Excerpt -----


WHAT ISLAM ISN’T Dr. Peter Hammond

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

----- End Excerpt -----

Your Finnish example only shows that Muslim assimilation is possible, not probable or feasible. Furthermore, those previous numbers clearly show the erosive nature of demographic-style "slow jihad". Literally—in almost every case—once the Muslim minority population reaches over a mere 2%, jihad begins.

So there is tangible, documented proof of Muslim integration as being acheivable. Enforcing the laws already on the books as well as stiffening the spine towards appeasing sharia inspired demands, are more than enough means to enforce their conformity to western morals and rules of law in a democratic, pluralistic Europe.

Unfortunately, the current circumstances in Europe are the exact opposite of what you prescribe. Instead of “stiffening the spine”, there has been an endless parade of jellyfish appeasers posing as political or legal officials. Their cumulative effect has been to legally enforce non-assimilation and neuter “rules of law in a democratic, pluralistic Europe”. It is precisely this situation which makes El Inglés’s projections of such importance. Nowhere are there any significant attempts by European Muslims to truly assimilate. This is especially so amongst the more radicalized second or third generation immigrants. If there were such attempts, things would not be at a crisis stage as they are today. Nor is there the least glimmer of hope that European Muslims will undergo any change of heart that will lead towards better integration with their host cultures. The above numbers clearly demonstrate that.

I still disagree that such a far fetched topic of "how Europe could possibly descend into implementing another final solution" is worthy of debate and discussion. I just happen to believe that it will never come to that...period.

Please share with us what sort of facts you base your belief upon. Do you even have any, or is your belief actually just a feeling that tells you, "it can't possibly be this bad"? I maintain that silence regarding such topics will allow matters to continue their slide towards the edge of precipitous change. These are the “discontinuities” that El Inglés referred to. What’s more, they are already of such prominence in Europe’s current socio-political sphere that any aversion to discussing them only facilitates the most negative of outcomes.

Even more fearful and damaging is the current trend of making all such discourse part and parcel of "hate speech" or "stirring up religious hatred". Europe's increasing curtailment of Free Speech is hastening these exact disasters. How can the worst-case scenarios be avoided if they are not first clearly identified and then brought into open discussion? Declaring such ugliness as unthinkable—and not to be considered—allows it to remain unforeseen and provides fertile ground where the most un-thought-of and horrific outcomes can take root.

Consider that—if such discussions as this became far more common—European Muslims might take heed and begin to moderate their attempts at imposing shari’a law. Or, they might at least grasp it as a warning and begin abandoning countries where they have worn out their welcome. In either case, it’s long past tea for the West to be firing some unmistakable warning shots across Islam’s bow. One or two centuries ago, Islam’s boat would already be holed at the waterline with its life rafts being sunk by enemy fire.

Zenster said...

The CStanton411 post is mine.

Baron: (I can't be sure about Afonso, however, because I'm not always entirely certain what his formulations mean).

Phew, so it's not just me who’s given up on his pages of meandering rigmarole.

Archonix: The idea of the zero-sum game is compelling for social engineers but it doesn't fit reality all too well since there's always some more dirt to farm and some more iron to dig out of the ground.

While resources are never infinite, neither has this planet come anywhere near exhausting them. That said, the Zero Sum Game (i.e., In order for someone to gain, someone else must lose), remains one of socialism, communism and liberalism’s most favored tools. By such lights, America can only have achieved its economic success by stealing the resources of third world nations. The Zero Sum Game is used to justify redistribution of wealth (another favorite socialist preoccupation), and serves as the preeminent club with which to bash capitalism.

Someone here needs to cobble up an essay that identifies the Zero Sum Game, along with The Big Lie and Moral Inversion (e.g., how the Palestinian terrorists came to identify themselves as “victims”) for the favored socialist, terrorist and liberal tools that they are. Multiculturalism, Cultural Relativism, Transnationalism and a host of other exceptionally poisonous mindsets all rely rather heavily upon such methods and need to be exposed for once and all time.

deadbambi said...

Baron,

Swede said , "Jews are destructive." No further explanation required. He stated that not as a citation from someone else, but as his opinion.

Saying Jews, a group almost completely wiped out in Europe 63 years ago, ask for special treatment is an hilarious proposition. In what way do Jews request special treatment? Please don't murder us? Please don't put swatiskas on our synagogues? Please don't trick our young men into dates only to leave them to die a week later while tied to a tree? Please judge us individually since we're not all the same? Please don't think we're all rich? Please don't think we all have big noses? Please don't think we murder Christian babies for matzo?

Shall I go on? What a preposterous statement.

Dymphna said...

dead bambi--

I didn't see that remark, but i know from experience that Conservative Swede says more than his prayers.

THere are more than 70 comments on this post so I will have to do a Control F and locate the sentence. It will be deleted.

If Jews are so destructive, then why do they outnumber everyone else in the Nobel Science Dept?

I love CS, but there are times...

Dymphna said...

I did a global search and that phrase doesn't show up. Can you tell me which post it's on, pls?

Zenster...

I don't understand Afonso,either. One thing I do know is not to call him ALfonso, but beyond that, given my astigmatism and ADD, and Afonso's brave attempts at English I haven't the foggiest. He's probably violating all our rules and I don't even know it.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I recall the post but I can't remember where it is... he said that jews were destructive in a majority protestant society. He also said catholics are destructive in majority protestant societies. I disagreed on both counts because I can see that it isn't true. There are jews and catholics living here, have done for centuries, and they aren't being destructive. The only people around here being destructive are the muslims.

Deadbambi, you're right to ask the question, do jews ask for special treatment? The ones I know don't. But... there is definitely the jewish equivalent of Al Sharpton out there. There are jews who get noisy and pushy and use anything they can portray as anti-semetism as an excuse for more socialism and multiculturalism - more interference, basically. They're like any other noisy leftist, be they black, white, jewish, chinese, native [whatever] or anything hyphenated. They just happen to be jewish.

I don't understand the obsession with jews and "jewish interests". The jewish lobby is no bigger than any other lobby and it acts in exaclty the same way as any other lobby: it lobbies! Why this is wrong, I have never been able to figure out, but for some people it just... ehh. They seem to think that jews must have some sort of special jew money they throw around at everyone to make them march to their tune... but how is that different from, say the business lobby or the oil lobby?

Also, why catholics? Why not anglicans? Perhaps it's because the worse an anglican will do is put too much sugar in your tea, wheras a catholic might... um... well, give you a nasty stare and burn you at the stake. And a jew? Well obviously they'll lend you money at an extortionate rate. Because, y'know, they're jewish.

Rationalism goes out the window sometimes.

deadbambi said...

CS's post:

"It's never a good idea for any nation to have a large and/or influential minority with a clearly separate identity, a distinct ethnicity. This applies to Jews, but also e.g. to Catholics in Protestant countries. Jews and Catholics, as groups, typically act constructively in their own countries, but destructively in other people's countries. (So no surprises here, nothing new under the sun, everybody acts as expected.)"

Alphonse's (did I spell his name wrong?) response:

"My main point regarding Jews is that they should not be treated differently than any other ethnic group. Not as especially bad and evil, not as especially good and protected. This is such a simple truth, still almost nobody gets it right. Jews get people to go nuts one way or the other."

Amén Conservative Swede!

and

" It's never a good idea for any nation to have a large and/or influential minority with a clearly separate identity, a distinct ethnicity."

Amén again!

"This applies to Jews, but also e.g. to Catholics in Protestant countries. Jews and Catholics, as groups, typically act constructively in their own countries, but destructively in other people's countries."

What the hell!!!

Yes, I would agree that Jews are "distructive". But Christians? How are Christians distructive? Uuooowww, I see! Northern Ireland! There was a problem between Catholics and Protestants! Ooops, maybe you forget that that religious difference comes from an ethnic difference. Catholic=Irish and Protestant=English, more Anglo Saxon.

deadbambi said...

Graham - lol!

Well don't forget - we can also cut off your oxygen supply with our big Jew noses that suck up all the air. In one breath - one Jew can asphyxiate a small country - don't cross us or else! Gee, I wonder why the Holocaust victims didn't think of sucking all the air until they were in the showers - they could've rendered their Nazi attackers unconscious and made a run for it.

All kidding aside, I have yet to notice any Jewish Al Sharptons. Mind giving me an example of a loud, pushy Jewish voice asking for special treatment?

islam o' phobe said...

Blogger scrilla said...

russia is the only hope for europe.


Could you please elaborate on this?

What is "Occupation" said...

From the expulsions from England & Spain

I am much in sympathy with the Jews but I do not accept that murder and expulsion are the same thing and you seem yo be conflating the two.

In this particular instance (Islam in Europe) expulsion would be the moral thing to do as it would prevent bloodshed and save potentially millions of lives.

the europeans have a history that cannot be washed away...

The Holocaust has not been forgotten or airbrushed out of European history. You should talk to a Korean or a Chinese national about post-war Japan to see what washing away history really looks like.

all because europe flushed it's jews 60 years ago...

I don't see how this is directly related to the mass influx of Muslims.

islam o' phobe said...

And trust me, as jew, I know Europe & I KNOW the Islamists...

I do not trust your knowledge or judgement in this area.

If you truly knew the Muslims you wouldn't be calling them "Islamists".

Also I don't like the way the Holocaust is always assumed to be the fault of "Europeans".

Call me rash but I think Germany, Austria and Italy (and Croatia) deserve a disproportionate share of the blame.

Also, millions upon millions of Gentiles died at the hands of Germany.

VinceP1974 said...

I'm reading a book on history of 20th century now. War of the World.

When it comes to killing Jews there is more than enough guilt to go around.

islam o' phobe said...

When it comes to killing Jews there is more than enough guilt to go around.

Certainly.

But does that necessarily mean that because a Jew was lynched in Alabama in the 1920s that the US is automatically as guilty of anti-semitism as Nazi Germany? Surely not.

Russia is far guiltier of murderous Jew-killing than Norway or Ireland (both of which saved some Jews from a horrible fate). But because the latter are "European" countries does their right to defend themselves against genocide become illegitimate because, as we all know, the Holocaust was perpetrated by "Europeans"?

Or what about Britain? They won the war. But they're still "European".

Baron Bodissey said...

Deadbambi --

I must have missed that one when it went by. It doesn't make sense to me, the idea that Jews are destructive in other countries.

I've met CS, and he doesn't behave like an anti-Semite. In person he is sober and humane, but in his posts he likes to provoke. I also know that he has demonstrated support for Israel. So he's not a straightforward anti-Semite.

One thing you'll notice if you read his stuff long enough is that he seems to hate Swedes at least as much as any other group.

As Dymphna pointed out earlier, he's a "Party of One".

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Mind giving me an example of a loud, pushy Jewish voice asking for special treatment?

Sure. Chomsky, or any other JINO. Maybe not as loud as Sharpton, but just as pushy and just as bad for everyone. The irony is that people like Chomsky, people who have essentially divorced their heritage, are held up as evidence of some grand Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Never mind that they're usually the first to call Israel a racist apartheid state... and the first to shout anti-semetism when they're criticised in a way they don't like, just like Obamarama and Rev Wright are screaming about racism right now.

Conservative Swede said...

Deadbambi claims that I say that "Jews are destructive" and implies that I'm an anti-Semite. But if we are going to make such an oversimplified summary of of what I said, then it would be "Jews are constructive". I'm pointing out and stressing how Jews are not different from any other ethnic group. My whole reasoning is based on that. This is what makes it alien to other people since all other reasoning about Jews is either based on anti-Semitism or fear of anti-Semitism. Jews make people get bent out of shape. Deadbambi is no exception.

What I wrote that Deadbambi reacted to was that "Jews and Catholics, as groups, typically act constructively in their own countries, but destructively in other people's countries." This is something that makes Jews perfectly normal. Is pointing out that Jews are perfectly normal anti-Semitic? What I wrote is a compliment to Jews and Catholics; what lies inherently in that sentence is how Jews and Catholics are much more constructive than Protestants. The Protestants are generally the real destructive ones. They are destroying their own countries.

But of course to anyone who is a liberal Utopian who live under the delusion that ethic groups do not really exist (unless in the context of a "hate crime") and dream about all nation states being dissolved etc., then any mentioning of the existence of ethnic groups, acting as groups and promoting their self-interest, is seen as pure evil.

A parallel is the influx of Mexicans in America. I consider the Mexicans the morally superior ones. They are vital and act in their self-interest. Much more sound than the immoral Americans who act suicidally, and destroy their own country. I tried to communicate this view to Lawrence Auster, but he didn't seem to accept it. He seem to agree with me about the Jews though. Read what he's written recently about Daniel Pipes for example.

Conservative Swede said...

he's a "Party of One"

If I join up with the Chinese I will be a billion.

Dymphna said...

conservative SWEDE --

The Chinese are smart and ambitious. They're also xeonphobes.

You think they gonna let a white boy like you do anything but take orders?

Even if they have to stand on a chair to do it, those guys will beat you bloody.

Better learn Chinese, dear heart. And practice bowing deeply. Think Confucian and be inscrutable.

Conservative Swede said...

Dymphna,

The Chinese are disciplined and business minded people. Watch how they build their very strong networks in our countries in a very peaceful and constructive way. The Chinese octopus is business minded. The way forward would be in finding a good deal to offer them. They are operatively way more rational that any other ethnic group today.

But never mind, I just wanted to write a sentence where I said "I will be a billion" :-)

I liked you description of me as a "Party of One", and I got inspired...

Dymphna said...

CS--

Many Asians have that business instinct. However, in the case of the Chinese it comes without a sense of obligation to its consumers.

England was that way until the Puritans became honest brokers and left all the other businesses in the sand. People *had* to give fair value to survive.

The Chinese have that lesson ahead of them and their demographics won't help atall, atall, if what they sell marked as food can kill you.

Now in addition to checking the labels for nutrition, people are looking for country of origin.

Walmart is hurting because of China's perfidy. And China's solution? Kill the manager.

And you admire these people whose souls have been murdered for millenia.

You nuts, boy.

Actually, you may be a Continent of One.

Sodra Djavul said...

Here's an idea I floated at another blog, and have had time to refine:

Jews are the only ethnic/national/racial group on the planet who have no tie to a historic homeland (at least until 1960 or so). This was the case for the past 2000 years.

I don't think anyone who considers the abbhorent behavior of someone like Aliza Shvartz, or numerous other left-wing Jewish activists, to be destructive of society should be labeled with the brush of anti-Semitism. Here is where I and Charles Johnson (PBUH) disagree.

Deadbambi, United States soldiers fought and died to liberate Germany and free the Jews from the concentration camps. We lost 400,000 young men. That is about 100x we've lost fighting both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you invoke Hitler when you stub your toe stepping out of the bathroom, it cheapens the memory of every young man who fought that war.

And we're annoyed.

- Sodra Djavul

deadbambi said...

Graham - Chomsky is not advocating for any Jewish anything. He's advocating against Jewish everything. That's a poor example. He'd actually be the opposite of the type of example I'm looking for.

I don't know who JINO is so he can't be that loud. Who is that?

Sodra,

Just because a left-wing Jew annoys you doesn't give you the right to paint all Jews with that brush. Secondly, the US soldiers who HELPED liberate the camps were wonderful - thankfully the American President finally quit ignoring the Jews begging to be let into America and did something to help them over there (Roosevelt turned boats of Jews away - sending them back to their deaths).

Sodra, lets assume you have brown hair. Now lets assume that you say something annoying. Does that give me the right to say all brown-haired people are yada yada yada? No. Same logic with your Jewish analogy. Get over your hatred of Jews or I'll give you a real reason to hate us :)

deadbambi said...

Graham -

I need a little more clarification of your comments. How have Jews been destructive in countries that are not their own? Are you attempting to say that Jews in countries other than Israel are not in their own country?

deadbambi said...

Sorry - not Graham - Conservative Swede I meant.

Sodra Djavul said...

Deadbambi,
That would be appropriate if it weren't for the preponderance of the evidence.

For only 1/100th of the population, your people sure do seem to cause a lot of trouble. Waging lawsuits on Christmas, aborting your fetuses in the name of art, and basically attacking every form of traditional values, be it prayer in schools (atheist Jew) or the pledge of allegiance.

I don't hate you. I'm annoyed by many of your fellow kin.

- Sodra

deadbambi said...

For only 1/100th of the population, your people sure do seem to cause a lot of trouble.

Enough said. Your last post is a prime example of why LGF actually has a right to say this blog hosts Anti-Semites.

I'd could say your people, white Christian males, have caused your fair share of troubles, Sodra, but I'm not such an ignoramus that I paint all white, Christian males with the same brush. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that there is a commonality between all white, Christian males beyond a shared religion and a shared appearance. Get it, yet?

There is plenty of pie to go around, Sodra!

Dymphna said...

all right, y'all. Lay off. Quit goading dead bambi. Have you no manners?

Jews are over-represented at the top of just about everything -- medicine, science, the arts, literature, etc.

Give it a freaking rest. Buncha goyim.

Dymphna said...

Besides, though she won't tell you, d. bambi was involved with helping a Brit who needed asylum from the speech police. She went out of her way to help.

So you Boy Scouts stop it.

Dymphna said...

come to think of it, he was a deeply devout evangelical Christian, too. And a conservative.

Absolutely none of those appellations apply to dead bambi, but it didn't stop her from being generous and kind.
___

We've just about reached "knocking heads and taking names" here, guys.

deadbambi said...

No Dymphna - they're a bunch of Anti-Semites :)

deadbambi said...

Okay - I'm up way past my bedtime. All this Jew talking has made me tired.

I haven't talked about Jews this much since - never.

VinceP1974 said...

I am so sick of hearing the words: racist, sexist, anti-semite, homophobe, islamophobe, bigot, xenophobe, nativist, misogynist, intolerant

Dymphna said...

@VinceP1974

I am so sick of hearing the words: racist, sexist, anti-semite, homophobe, islamophobe, bigot, xenophobe, nativist, misogynist, intolerant

You're right. The ad hominems slowly filled the room. We need to do something about this.

I myself used xenophobe (to describe Chinese). I'll have to think of another way to express their dislike of outsiders, which they are quite open about.

The jewish stuff got out of hand. It was like a virus...

Thanks for the heads up. And the one being taunted has gone to a deserved rest...When I'm not so tired I'll have to examine this thread...strange.

But there are lots of strong feelings abroad tonight. And with good reason.

VinceP1974 said...

Dymphna: I was just ranting in general. I haven't been following the comments in detail.

I've been coming to your great blog going back to the days where the articles would get a comment or two and even back then I thought half the regular commenters were crazy..and I still think so :)

And that's ok. I value the principle of letting people express their opinions freely and openly.

I think some people's hyperfocus on the "evils of the Jews" (a concept I certainly don’t agree with) is nutty as hell, but what really irritates me is when the PC Thought Police feel compelled to start flinging the labels around.

I think it's pretty obvious who's spouting Anti-Semitic crap, I don’t need some busybody (not you) to clutter things up to show how capable they are of recognizing the obvious.

latté island said...

There are different types of criticism of Jews. Some is straightforward anti-semitism, and some is somewhat justified and even helpful, regardless of the motivation.

Although Jews aren't the only people causing trouble by being liberals and supporting immigration and Islam, Jews are most at risk from this behavior, and therefore I'm as concerned and offended as some of the less philosemitic folk on this blog, you know who you are.

Being complacent and in denial about the very Jewish ACLU, Green Party, and other toxic groups, doesn't serve Jewish survival or truth itself, for that matter.

As for the accusation that Jews are destructive in other people's countries--look at how some Jews behave in Israel! Jewish Israeli surgeons do reconstructive surgery on the hands of suicide bombers. Jewish Israeli hospitals give Muslims blood transfusions with Muslim blood only, because Muslims won't accept Jewish blood. A recent GoV post reported on African Muslim refugees being welcomed in Israel. Many commenters here thought that was a good idea. I didn't. And on and on.

Until we Jews get over our codependence toward every lowlife in the world, we will always be bullied. If I were an Israeli hospital administrator, not only would I tell Muslim patients to take whatever blood they're offered, I wouldn't even treat terrorists. I'd let them bleed to death.

I think I'm in the minority among Jews. If there were more Jews with my attitude, the Palestinians and their Eurotrash enablers would've STFU'd long ago and the world's bullies and conspiracy theorists would be going on about the Zoroastrian bankers.

Bilgeman said...

Uhhh, gang...

How did this discussion veer into Judaism and Anti-semitism?

IIRC, it was the possibility of the EU,(or it's component parts), funding government studies to determine how many MUSLIMS one can stuff into a boxcar that El Ingles was speculatively contemplating as a worst-case scenario.

Not Jews.

After reading where this comment thread has ended up, I can sorta see why The Bicyclist and his ilk get all wacky stoopid when someone even mentions "Genocide".

Maybe they're afraid that it'll happen again...just out of habit.

If I was American Indian or Armenian or Tutsi, that kind of think would REALLY piss me off.

Baron Bodissey said...

I must say that it bothers me that everything devolves to talking about the Jews, even when Jews have nothing to do with the original topic. There are so few Jews left in Europe that their effect on the coming events is not significant.

Yet some people feel compelled to obsess about them. I can't read anyone's motives, but it does bother me.

So why not change the topic back to the original one?

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dymphna
RE: Great!

““Ok, Mr. Pelto. Points taken.” -- Dymphna

When can we get Charles to say thinks like that?” -- Dymphna

“RE: Dinner Conversation & Quips” -- Dymphna

“At dinner last night I was telling my husband and son about your comments and the conversation wandered into military lingo and which branch of the service had the best lines.

“It brought back many fond memories of my short years as a Marine Corps wife...you know the old saw: "if the Corps wanted you to have a wife they would have issued you one."” -- Dymphna

Personally? I think the Corps does the best. The Army is too strait-laced and the others too politically correct. Whether there is a difference between the Army and the others.....it only lies in how willing they are to get themselves into deep kimchee.

“Fortunately for my first son he came into this world at Cherry Point on Nov 14th. Had it been the 10th, he would have been saddled with "Gung Ho" for his middle name and would have even more to forgive me for.” -- Dymphna

Interesting inference. However, being an Army puke, it escapes me. My first daughter was born at Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg. I got called in by CHAMPION RADIO, as I was out on an operation at the time my 1st wife went into labor.

Stormed into the ER in battle-dress, camo and weaponized; to find out she was still at home. Had an MP sign for my weapons and another drove me to my off-post quarters.

“I think the USMC has the most creative cussers of them all. I heard words I'd never encountered before. Being a sheltered convent girl, the only other word I had for the male appendage (besides the real one) was "weenie." I was utterly amazed at the multitudinous variations.” -- Dymphna

The Corps does have some lurid speakers. And crazies too. If we ever meet face-to-face, ask me about water-towers and Recon Marine wannabees at Jump School.

“I recalled a few favorite memories of those years I think I'll save them for Neighborhood of God, but I must mention this one:

My Marine's mos was aircraft electrician. He would refer a lot to what he called a "fire warning b*tch". This puzzled me. Was there a woman on board the plane whose sole job was to whine if there was a fire warning alarm going off?

My ex looked at me strangely and explained that any necessary repair was called a "b*tch." Oh.” -- Dymphna

To that excellent anecdote, allow me to provide you with the acronym for BITCH....

Boys
I’m
Taking
Charge
Here

I think a ‘fire’ could claim that right. Then again, in the civil sector, there’s always....plumbing.

“Then there was the time we were playing bridge with our next door neighbors and they got into a knife fight over a poor bid. He was a jarhead, she was an Indian. It figures.” -- Dymphna

Why am I suddenly reminded of an afternoon on Bragg. I was a company XO of the batt HHC. My clerk came back from lunch and I asked if anything was going on.

He replied, there’s some guy bleeding to death on the back steps that lead to the medic platoon’s CP, i.e., Battalion Aid Station.

So, I got up and walked down the hall to see what was going on.

Sure enough. There’s SSG Bean, the guy who threw me through a juke box at Camp Natural Bridge [West Point] one Summer duty tour, with his gut slit open. The 91C is trying to hold him together. The PA, a great Nam vet who escaped from the VC after an ARCLIGHT came through, is slapping in the face and yelling, “Stay with me BEAN!”

Look inside the Aid Station and one medic is on the phone. Meanwhile another rushes out the door with a PRC-77 and a smoke grenade; heading for the brigade parade ground, to bring in the Medivac.

Things looked to be pretty much under control.

There was a trail of blood and stuff between the door step where the action was taking place and the company barracks next door.

Over THERE, the XO, my neighbor in on-base housing and the company first shirt were in the process of disarming another SSG who’d stuck my old ‘friend’ over some silliness. I knew him too, from my days when he was the company clerk and I the company armorer.

“Exciting times they were. And I got a broad education...so to speak.” -- Dymphna

Don’t we all....if we just know where to ‘hang out’.

“That's all. At ease, Mr. Peleto. Carry on...” -- Dymphna

Thank you, ma’m....

Out here.....

Chuck(le)
[You haven’t lived until you’ve almost died.]

Dymphna said...

Chuck(le)-

Oops. Didn't know I was talking to an officer,sir. Sorry, sir.

Me mither was not happy that I set my cap for this particular enlisted man, considering the #s of available officers and NAVCADS who made a real living, but you know how flighty girls can be...

One guy I'd dated, an XO of a DDE in Mayport (I'll bet they're not even around anymore), and a USNA ring-knocker of the first order, disdained me for my downward mobility. Navy coffee is the pits.

As for Fort Bragg, my brother was 82nd Airborne up thre. He came to see us at Cherry Point and was flabbergasted that women could walk around the base unescorted with no fear. He was a medic and an MP at various times. It made me laugh that he went to Confession before any jump. But now that I think of it, I'd have done confession and a novena or two and carried a rosary going out that door. Ewee!

But you know we're boring everyone here...talk about being OT. That used to be a real no-no on GoV...I think I'm still in shock from the recent unpleasantness.

Well, it beats the socks offa all the xenophobia, etc.

Conservative Swede said...

Dymphna,

Many Asians have that business instinct. However, in the case of the Chinese it comes without a sense of obligation to its consumers.

You don't see that in Europe. Would things really be that different in America? Or is it that Dymphna is rather anti-Sinitic?

Walmart is hurting because of China's perfidy. And China's solution? Kill the manager.

And you admire these people whose souls have been murdered for millenia.


First of all "admiring"? I'm not admiring China any more than I'm admiring Hillary Clinton. I'm both cases I'm left astonished with the conclusion that they are the best options left. China is the only remaining empire, that is vital and strong enough to seriously oppose Islam.

Secondly, about the "murderous" Chinese. Well, describing China trough the prism of Mao is like describing Europe through the prism of Hitler, or Russia through the prism of Stalin, or Japan through the prism of Hirohito.

Conservative Swede said...

Baron,

I must say that it bothers me that everything devolves to talking about the Jews, even when Jews have nothing to do with the original topic.

I'm now discussing the Chinese with your wife. Hope it's not a problem.

There are so few Jews left in Europe that their effect on the coming events is not significant.

Yes, this is the point I always put forward whenever someone reflexively anti-Semitic comes up. However, in a much farther future -- after the discontinuity described by El Inglés -- I expect that multiculturalism will have been thoroughly discredited and that no other ethnic group will be accepted to have high positions in a society [However, I also expect Western ethnic groups to have merged into larger entities]. And that Jews will no longer have a special status, and will be treated just the same as the others in this respect.

I wrote a article about my cultural psycho-analysis of the roots of Western anti-Semitism a year ago:
Jewish God, anti-Semitism and Oedipus Complex

Reading this, and also my exchange in the comments with "politisktinkorrekt" will provide more insights into my way of reasoning about Judaism, Jews and our relation to them.

Yet some people feel compelled to obsess about them. I can't read anyone's motives, but it does bother me.

As I pointed out earlier, Westerners generally fall into two categories: i) obsessive anti-Semites, and ii) those who have an obsessive fear of anti-Semitism. This time it's the second category that has been obsessing the most.

deadbambi said...

Baron, I find it disturbing too that I feel obligated to constantly speak out in defense of Jews against some really unbelievable accusations in threads that have nothing to do with Jews. You can thank Sodra for the first post that brought it to this. Baron, the reason your posts end up getting so Jewified is because you do have so many Anti-Semites participating in this blog - LGF is not wrong in that.

Vince, if everyone in this blog were as brilliant as you, then there wouldn't be comments about Jews being destructive in lands that aren't theirs. What's obvious to you, or me, isn't obvious to all.

Latte, I agree with you and I feel that there are many Jews who are putting everyone in danger by their alliances, political views, and self-hate. However, when you put that spotlight only on the Jews, you are perpetuating the blame of Jews for things that many are doing. Does the fact that Jews are doing this when we have the most to lose piss me off - of course - but to solely speak about the Jews or Jewish liberals or the "Jewish ACLU" or the Jewish Atheists is a slippery slope.

VinceP1974 said...

Bambi, you must have very little regard for the intellegence of people on this blog, that you think that we need you to highlight every occurance of a comment you are offended by.

deadbambi said...

lol @ swede

I've merely responded to a flurry of anti-Semitic posts that occurred as comments on this thread - something I did nothing to initiate or further. You guys just spewed your spewage and I responded.

I wrote a article about my cultural psycho-analysis of the roots of Western anti-Semitism a year ago:
Jewish God, anti-Semitism and Oedipus Complex

Reading this, and also my exchange in the comments with "politisktinkorrekt" will provide more insights into my way of reasoning about Judaism, Jews and our relation to them.


Swede, you wrote the above and you want to claim you're not Jew obsessed? Your description and the title of your article sounds like you're studying orangutans in the jungle.

I'm a busy person and I've wasted enough time with this. I hope the Jewhaters who participate in this blog eventually see the errors of their ways, or in the alternative, I hope a Jewish banker forecloses on your homes, a Jewish collector repossesses your cars, and your Jewish insurance agent reams you hard with a nice high premium on your homeowners' insurance and then doesn't pay out on claims - at least then you'd have good reason to complain about the Jews.

deadbambi said...

Vince, why are you being confrontational with me and why are you so put out with the fact that I oppose anti-Semites and I'm vocal about it?

Shouldn't you be more concerned that there seem to be quite a few people who participate in GoV who espouse anti-Semitic views? Instead of bashing me - since you're of such superior intelligence - perhaps you could come up with a creative way to diffuse the anti-Semitic beliefs some of these commenters have? It would be much more productive don't you think?

Conservative Swede said...

O-bambi,

Swede, you wrote the above and you want to claim you're not Jew obsessed? Your description and the title of your article sounds like you're studying orangutans in the jungle

You read the title of an article and can then conclude that the author is "Jew obsessed" -- impressive!

And not only did you read the title, you read the two-sentence description of the article -- really impressive. You truly rise above the orangutans.

PS. Something about you make you remind me of Epamonidas.

deadbambi said...

No, Swede. It was the article, coupled with your posts, that bring me to the conclusion that you're Jew obsessed.

The original post had nothing to do with Jews, yet you, Sodra, and Alfonse felt a burning need to interject Jews into this conversation.

You are what you are. You may as well embrace it.

Conservative Swede said...

O-bambi,

No, Swede. It was the article, coupled with your posts, that bring me to the conclusion that you're Jew obsessed.

And I suppose you read my posts as carefully as my article - lol!

The original post had nothing to do with Jews, yet you, Sodra, and Alfonse felt a burning need to interject Jews into this conversation.

Sodra brought it up. I wrote exactly one answer to this. ... until you turned up and started obsessing about "the Jews".

Why is a much shorter off-topic exchange between me and Sodra, including Jews, such a big deal, when nobody reacts to the longer off-topic exchange between me and Dymphna about the Chinese.

Yes, the exchange involving Jews was very short (3 comments), until the truly Jew obsessed commenter entered the thread: Deadbambi.

deadbambi said...

Swede - you are what you are and I am what I am.

My people have been indiscriminately murdered, scapegoated, demonized, and so forth for millenia - and it always starts with the type of dialogue in which you, Sodra, and Alfonse engaged. That's just the way it is and I will not sit quietly as you and others of your ilk make inane generalizations about Jews. You can believe that your discussions of Jews come from an intellectual basis - but you'd be mistaken.

Jews who sit idly by in the presence of Anti-Semitic discourse amongst pseudointellectuals are the same types of Jews who didn't think the Germans would actually put them in a cattle car and gas them en masse. Yes, I'm invoking the Holocaust, something else people of your ilk seem to really resent.

When Anti-Semitism disappears, then we'll stop invoking the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades, our enslavement by Egyptians, etc... Until then, get used to hearing it.

Thank G-d Jews know how to fight now. It'll make us a lot harder to pick off when that time comes again, and it will. The climate is ripe.

If you don't want backlash from your negative comments regarding Jews, even three comments worth, then don't make them.

As sick and tired as we are of Jews who undermine our own survival, we're also sick and tired of people like you who cry foul if a Jew challenges you on your statements that are intellectually dishonest and baseless. You can us histrionic, hypersensitive (and we can be, but justifiably so), but in doing that, you've again avoided explaining the basis of your comments. In response to my criticisms of your comments, all you've done is complain about me instead of trying to demonstrate why you're right and I'm wrong.
You've actually used the Muslim tactic of diverting the challenge given to you by attacking the character of the person who questions you and your comment.

You can joke with Dymphna about the Chinese - but it doesn't eliminate your very serious comments regarding Jews in earlier posts.

I find it really funny, actually, that people are so angry that I'm standing up for the Jews as they're being skewered by others in these comments. If you go back through the thread, you'll notice that I didn't jump in until it was well into full gear. I didn't even comment until the 27th, three full days after this post originated.

Charles Johnson is smiling, Swede, because you, Sodra, Alfonse and a few others continue to prove him right on this issue.

I bet if I started generalizing about Christians this whole blog would be in an uproar. I've actually played this game in the past in which I respond to anti-Jewish statements by ridiculing the Christians. You should see how many of me-types there are when Christians are the objects of ridicule.

Bye for now :)