Today came the first editorial on Søren Pind’s blog post. I guess this is the first public attempt to try to encourage the Danes to take matters into their own hands. But judge for yourselves.
And his translation:
Editorial: The Dangerous- - - - - - - - -
On facebook, Venstre’s [Ruling Party] Søren Pind has done a genuine and proper piece of journalistic work which others should have done a long time ago: He has succeeded in making people come forward under their own names and photos to tell about the problems they have experienced with young immigrant boys and men. Actually, he uses the same method — although on another matter — which was used by Berlingske Tidende when they won the Cavling Prize [highest journalistic prize in DK] by revealing how the police failed in many cases where people needed help.
And Søren Pind really drags some monsters out into the light. One problem especially is revealed which everybody who does not have teenage kids in areas with many immigrants has not felt: Teenagers cannot have a party in their home without having their house invaded by groups of immigrants who want to dominate by their intimidating behavior. Others are being threatened and beaten on the street, again by groups of young immigrants. And then there is the guy whose two blond girls age five and seven have to put up with sexual taunting…
The purpose of Søren Pind by encouraging people to tell about their experiences is to test whether a colleague (another politician) — whom he wants to keep anonymous — who has told him about his unpleasant experiences was a unique case.
Apparently Søren Pind also has another purpose. Namely to test whether the Hells Angels’ description of the behavior of young immigrant males in the so called “Jackal Manifesto” are correct. “What if Jønke is right?” Søren Pind asks on his blog.
To that there is only one answer: If these people, who tell about young immigrants attempting to gain respect by intimidation, are right, then we (that’s is all of us decent people who are by the way the great majority) must make them understand the hard way that we have no respect for them whatsoever.
And if the police are not capable of helping, then this must be done without them.
22 comments:
“If we don’t stop immigration to Malmö, we’ve only seen the beginning of this,” says researcher Aje Carlbom.
Give that man a Kewpie doll!
Three weeks before the police initiated their campaign, Attila Jensen decided about an equally exceptional measure at the fire brigade headquarters. [emphasis added]
He sounds like the right guy for the job!
“We have children, and these guys, those who are making trouble, are dangerous. We don’t dare to give you our names.”.
Remember folks, these are the COPS talking.
“A forgotten cause of the vandalism is the complex combination of culture and manliness in Rosengård. The boys are in a situation where different interests try to compete for their ideal of manhood.
Just wait until that "ideal of manhood" begins to include having sex with nine-year olds. If it was good enough for Mohammad ...
Aje Carlbom thinks the Swedish values come dead last in the competition for the attention of the boys.
Give that man the giant plush toy!
“If you seek acceptance for a multicultural, diverse society among the broad masses, you have to show that you are on top of the situation. Unless you do that, there will be an uprising against multiculturalism.”.
An "uprising against multiculturalism". You read it here first, folks. Isn't it about time that BOTH SIDES rose up against multiculturalism?
"In Sweden, many people show a immense tolerance toward the intolerance of the immigrants, but no tolerance at all for native Swedish intolerance. One can be tolerated, not the other. It is strange.”.
Quoth the lemming.
Drat, wrong article!
On the other hand, Zenster, that first line, with Malmö swapped out for your local western locale, is as appropriate as a comment here as in the proper article...
"Teenagers cannot have a party in their home without having their house invaded by groups of immigrants who want to dominate by their intimidating behavior."
And therein, gentle reader, lies the explanation to that decades-old mystery bugging us in France.
For several decades now, it has been an accepted fact of life in France that youths with an immigrant background, most of them Arabs, are discriminated against by nightclub bouncers.
It's one of the most common grudges in the "anti-racist" discourse : immigrants are, de facto, barred from nightclubs to a significant extent, and that's unfair.
It has even led up to legislation being enacted, which makes "testing" (a French word) acceptable as evidence in court in racial discrimination proceedings.
SOS Racisme, the oldest multiculturalist association (created by the Socialist party), regularly conducts such sting operations. It sends an Arab and a white couple, in a short succession, seeking admission to a nightclub. A bailiff is standing by, anonymously. If the Arab couple is rejected and the white one is not, it sues.
This has been the matter of regular and endless public discussion for ages, within policital circles and the media.
It has become accepted wisdom that nightclubs discriminate racially. Nobody denies this, at least in public.
And though, the one obvious question that comes to mind is never, ever asked by journalists or politicians : why do nightclub owners discriminate ?
I mean, they must be downright stupid, right ? They have the law against them, they have public opinion against them, they have tireless "anti-racist" hounds running circles around them, looking for the slightest pretext to drag them to court ; they are businessmen in search of customers, they need popular approval. So why do they keep on doing it ?
What's happening here ?
The reason the question is never asked is that everybody is supposed to know the answer : if nightclub owners discriminate against Arabs, it's because they are racist.
But what is "racism", exactly ? An irrational dislike, and therefore rejection of, some people on an ethnic basis ?
Or might it be, sometimes, a perfectly rational dislike of, and therefore rejection of, some people on an ethnic basis ? Based on the past and repeated behaviour of suchlike people ?
Now that the Danes have officially spilled the beans, now that it's undeniable that Muslim teenagers in Denmark have a worrying tendency to crash, uninvited, large gatherings of indigenous young people where sex is the aim of the game (since that's what a "party" is), making a perfect nuisance of themselves, harrassing girls and provoking boys, is it not reasonable to assume that Muslim teenagers in France, heirs to the same culture and mores, routinely make a nuisance of themselves in nightclubs (where sex is, similarly, the aim of the game), wreaking havoc among normally-behaved, indigenous customers ?
Of course it is.
Of course discriminating against such people is a perfectly rational and legitimate decision.
And that's precisely what the Pods don't want you to know. They are not asking the question, for fear they might get the true answer, and you might hear it.
Thanks to the brave Dane people for providing us with the truth.
if nightclub owners discriminate against Arabs, it's because they are racist.
Very well put!
To get rid of racial discrimination, I think we need to get rid of anti-discrimination laws.
Then anyone is legally free to discriminate against any other group, for whatever reason. Illegal behaviour, such as threats or violence, is still punishable under the law, of course.
The purpose of that is to provide the groups discriminated against an incentive to figure out just what they're doing wrong, and then correct their behaviour.
SOS Racisme etc. would then have to find some better use of their time than intimidating people with their stupid lawsuits.
Henrik R Clausen: To get rid of racial discrimination, I think we need to get rid of anti-discrimination laws.
Then anyone is legally free to discriminate against any other group, for whatever reason. Illegal behaviour, such as threats or violence, is still punishable under the law, of course.
My only caveat would be the usual one that applies to all government funded institutions. Those are not allowed to legally discriminate.
Past that, private enterprises are perfectly entitled to discriminate any way they see fit. If such discrimination is seen to be racist in nature, the general public is perfectly entitled to boycott said enterprise in protest of its policies.
If the general public approves of such discriminatory conduct, well then, it's hard cheese for those poor disruptive immigrants.
As to the Danish situation with Muslim hoodlums crashing parties. A private celebration needs to be held at a non-residential location where a large contingent of very well-muscled young men are kept secluded in a back room. They should await the appropriate signal and then emerge to wallop the living daylights out of any young immigrant thugs who show up and force their way inside.
The semi-conscious bodies should be stripped to their underwear, marked with indelible ink on the face, hands and torso using proper slogans and left in the opposite end of town for a brisk barefoot walk all the way home.
Oops, I left out the part about packing the thugs' clothing and shoes with crushed ice so that they are nicely chilled by the time their owners awaken.
That is some interesting thing.
"Teenagers cannot have a party in their home without having their house invaded by groups of immigrants who want to dominate by their intimidating behavior."
I've seen it happen here. Interesting enough.
That is quite an imagination you have there, Zenster!
"It's one of the most common grudges in the "anti-racist" discourse : immigrants are, de facto, barred from nightclubs to a significant extent, and that's unfair."
It's not unfair. Every house has its profile and every house must appeat to a given market segment.
Are there also not hundreds of insert-the-ethnic-minority-pretneded only clubs in France? Come on!
And, if they don't descriminate on the basis of race, they will start to do the same but based on "looks", with a lose definition of it.
Or worst, they will discriminate on monetary terms and the prices rise like hell.
Me and a vast majority of people are also descriminated from the top clubs, right?
Why can't then exist not top but somewhat above average clubs?
"Of course discriminating against such people is a perfectly rational and legitimate decision."
Okay, we are in perfect agreement.
The worst thing however is when next to one - or several - nice clubs opens... it does not even has to be a club, but just a low-cost, ethnic snack-bar that opens during the night.
It will soon be a magnet for the "ethnics".
Fortunetly enough, the owner of the nice night club manages to make business with the newcomer, but 'till then...
Zenster: A private celebration needs to be held at a non-residential location where a large contingent of very well-muscled young men are kept secluded in a back room.
The problem with that is that the immigrants will be back, with a hundred armed friends. Half-measures are not viable.
PapaBear: The problem with that is that the immigrants will be back, with a hundred armed friends. Half-measures are not viable.
Which is specifically why I designated a "non-residential" meeting place for such an event. The hoodlums would return the next day to an empty union hall or the like.
Meanwhile, police could be tipped off to be on the alert for several individuals with rather prominent permanent marker illustrations on their faces and hands.
Fear not though, we are in violent agreement. The commenting rules do not permit me to detail how these ruffians should really be treated. All I can say is that they would be fortunate to make it home at all, much less in one piece.
It's nice fantasizing about how one would get even with thugs. The methods described here, however, would land you in prison in most European countries. That is, if you're fortunate enough to escape the thugs' revenge in the fisrt place.
Also bear in mind that in many European countries, prisons are mostly populated with immigrants.
Your prospect, therefore, is as follows:
1. Assault by cultural enrichers.
2. If you dare strike back, revenge on a much larger scale.
3. Punishment through the legal system, with the aggravating circumstance of "racism". If the police searches your home and finds weapons, then you're a "fascist", and the penalty will be all the more severe.
4. Punishment in prison when cultural enrichers learn why you landed there.
Suggestions welcome. Armchair generals discouraged.
Robert Marchenoir: Suggestions welcome.
How nice. Now why don't you make a few of them yourself? I did my best to provide some sort of functional starting point.
It's your turn.
Well, Zenster, I'm not really sure that advocating illegal, physical violence and retaliation might be described as "nice" (although it would certainly be effective, up to a point), so you should know where you stand.
I'm afraid nobody has any realistic suggestions. Everybody who has pondered the problem seems to alternate between two possibilities : separatism in white enclaves populated with like-minded people, and civil war.
I've recently spoken with a 26 year old French blogger, a gentle, soft-spoken, educated guy, not the biker type. When I raised with him the bloodiest and less-PC hypotheses of El Ingles, he just said : the sooner, the better.
Of course, political solutions do exist : stop linking citizenship to birthplace, stop giving out social allowances to foreigners, deport foreign criminals, mass deport illegals, stop funding mosques, officially discourage Islam, embark into some New York style policing, encourage unarmed citizen vigilantism like in Italy, etc.
We tend not to be aware of the potential efficiency of such measures, because they've never been tried in Europe. But throughout the history of the United States, there were phases where immigrants returned in droves to their coutrny of origin, because they were discouraged to stay.
There are currently voices in Africa, admittedly marginal ones, campaigning against emigration to Europe, against foreign aid, against the welfare mentality, etc.
It's just that we don't believe European countries will take massively anti-immigration measures.
But we might be wrong. Look at what's happening in Denmark or Italy. Public opinions may swing. Right-wing parties are on the rise in Europe, and even some far-right ones. Natives still hold the majority, by far.
Sooner, rather than later, the immigrants cannot avoid overstaying their welcome.
They consume more in social services than they produce in taxes. In the very near future, their load upon the European welfare state will be unsupportable. At that point, things will get very ugly, and the multicultural elite will be the primary targets of people's anger.
The elite may try to hold things off by recruiting immigrants to suppress native anger, like the Iranian Basijis, but that will make the eventual explosion that much more violent.
The electoral victories of anti-immigrant parties like BNP points to the direction things will take as Europeans start realizing the fate that demographics have in store for them.
Robert Marchenoir: Well, Zenster, I'm not really sure that advocating illegal, physical violence and retaliation might be described as "nice" (although it would certainly be effective, up to a point), so you should know where you stand.
Face it, at present you are living in a failed state. More than any other country in Europe, France is headed towards becoming an Islamic country the soonest.
Your country's fertility rate is 1.8 and there is no historical record of a nation or culture ever recovering from such a low birthrate. Combined with the fact that French Muslims currently enjoy an 8.1 fertility rate and―barring mass deportation, internment or outright genocide―France as we know it will cease to exist in less than four decades.
Without doubt your government has betrayed you. It is using its state monopoly upon violence to oppress the indigenous French population while it cements the Eurabia pact with native-born blood.
All of the measures you mention: "stop linking citizenship to birthplace, stop giving out social allowances to foreigners, deport foreign criminals, mass deport illegals, stop funding mosques, officially discourage Islam, embark into some New York style policing, encourage unarmed citizen vigilantism like in Italy, etc." come up a day late and a dollar short.
I'm confident that you have read the superb contributions to this web site by El Inglés. Bearing that knowledge in mind, the path most likely to manifest will be one of near-anarchic violence.
The rough measures I suggest are a direct reflection of how European governments have almost totally abdicated their charter role of protecting native born citizens. Europe's citizens will have to take their countries back by main force.
While, for reasons of discretion, I do not expect you to openly admit as much here, there is little doubt in my mind that you understand well enough what is being said.
This short but highly informative video about Muslim Demographics says it all. French leaders have taken a viper unto its population's bosom and the venom is already flowing in your country's veins.
There are serpents whose venom is so fatal that, in the absence of immediate medical care, amputation of the affected limb is the only way to survive.
Your country is at a similar point. Even if you halted all immigration this very instant, Muslims would still overwhelm your native population in just a few more decades.
If France wishes to survive intact, it's Muslim population must be deported en masse without delay. The clock is ticking down to midnight for La Belle France and you have my deepest sympathies for the treason wrought upon you by your leaders.
You're wrong on one point, Zenster: French Muslim's fertility rate cannot be 8.1. It's certainly higher than the local women's rate, but 8.1 is pure fantasy.
That would mean that a significant number of women would have, say, 12 children, and that almost none would have only 3.
What is your source ?
Robert Marchenoir: What is your source ?.
The video that I linked to.
Here are some alternate figures:
If birthrate figures cannot be precisely computed, enough data exists to make educated estimates. Algerian women in France in 1981 had a fertility rate of 4.4 births per woman; in 1990, it had declined to 3.5 births. (Comparable figures for Moroccan women in France are 5.8 and 3.5; for Tunisian women, 5.1 and 4.2.).
Either way, once voting-age Muslims constitute more than 50% of the population, say hello to shari'a law.
Imagine winemaking being banned by law in France.
Imagine no more Cognac being made.
Imagine all of the haute couture houses being limited to stitching up niqabs and burqas.
Imagine Notre Dame being converted into a mosque.
Imagine the Louvre's collection of art and sculpture being systematically vandalized.
Imagine trying to make a decent pâté without pork caul.
Imagine pot-au-feu without a pig's ear or tail.
That is where your country is headed and, were I a Frenchman, there would already be some serious action being taken. Ironically, few nations on earth stand to lose so much at the hands of Islam as France does. The longer France takes to resolve this deadly threat to its national identity, the more likely mass bloodshed will figure in the equation.
Imagine the Louvre's collection of art and sculpture being systematically vandalized.
The nihilistic comic novel Naked Lunch by William Burroughs, written in 1959, describes exactly that. In the book Arab youths ransack the Louvre and throw acid on the Mona Lisa's face.
Burroughs also predicted suicide bombing, though in the book Arab terrorists hide the explosives in their rectums. I can't recommend anyone here read Naked Lunch as it's perverse in the extreme. When I was 15 years old I loved it.
Zenster : your last figures, quoted by Michel Gurfinkiel of Valeurs Actuelles, are probably closer to the truth.
They show that the 8.1 Muslim fertility rate in France, seemingly quoted by your video, is wrong. (By the way, "a video" is no more a source than "a book".)
The main sources for French demography are INSEE and INED. The former is the offical institute for statistics. The latter is also government-controlled, and is the main French research organisation specialised in demography.
Both of them, however, have consistently worked to obfuscate the degree and speed of replacement of the indigenous population by immigrants, with an obvious political agenda.
Those looking for independant and reliable authors would do well to read Jacques Dupaquier, demographer, historian and member of the Académie française, who created the Institut de géopolitique des populations with Yves-Marie Laulan, an economist.
They publish a journal. As far as I know, they have no web site.
Another reliable source is Michelle Tribalat. Although she is a scientist at INED, she is shunned by the establishment because she dares to differ from the pro-immigration, official mantra.
Jacques Dupaquier's research is regularly covered by Polemia, a conservative, web-only magazine :
http://www.polemia.com/article.php?id=1189
According to him, the fertility rate of indigenous women and immigrants of European descent may be around 1,7 (but, he says, there is no actual, hard data to support this, which tells you a lot about the political nature of statistics in France).
And the fertily rate of the French population of African and Turkish descent is around 3,4 (strangely enough, we have data for this).
Regarding the rest of your comment, you write well and would make a good orator. However, I already know all that, thank you very much. Please don't come to Newcastle and brag you've invented coal.
And I'm frankly suspicious of any claims on the line of "Were I a Frenchman, there would already be some serious action being taken".
You're an American ? Very well then ; why don't you take some serious action to tackle your dhimmi president Obama, and show us what you can do ?
And while I'm at it, your pot-au-feu recipe stinks : there are no pigs' ears in there.
Robert Marchenoir: Regarding the rest of your comment, you write well and would make a good orator.
Too late, I already do voice overs.
... your pot-au-feu recipe stinks : there are no pigs' ears in there.
Pardonnez moi, then what is your own preferred addition that will provide the cartilaginous body for the stew's broth? I have seen recipes that call for snout, tail, trotter or ear as required.
More to the point, I would rather endure a pig's minor appendage in my stew than suffer through a pâté whose terrine was not lined with pork caul. Non?
Post a Comment