(11-01-2015 12:56 AM)Mr. Brightside Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 11:55 PM)flightofdeath Wrote:  Homosexuality is rampant in countries where Christianity is dominant. And by the looks of it the next wave will be that of incest. So would you say that Christianity encourages such behavior?

Is homosexuality rampant, or is it just tolerated? Muslim countries like Pakistan are the largest consumers of gay online porn.

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2...n-pakistan

You missed the point. I'm sure you are right about those stats. But these days, is it accurate to judge a religion/ideology by what it's followers do?

Let me get this straight. Catholic cardinals touch little boys and are ousted from office with the Vatican condemning their practices. People go bananas and prominent intellectuals of the day want the entire institution dismantled. The system is overhauled and transparency is implemented, with accusations and scandals falling sharply after the fact. The church pays three billion in restitution.

Afghan warlords keep harems of little boys they abduct from villages with the blessings of their religious leaders and people question whether they should be allowed to criticize a whole religion based on the practices of those who are openly endorsed by their religious leaders.

On a broader spectrum, sharia law itself doesn't seem to have a minimum age for marriage, so if you can get it approved by an official you can marry a nine year old girl and have it done in a mosque.

Strange times we live in.

(10-30-2015 11:47 PM)Mr. Brightside Wrote:  Just a reminder that some in power were predicting this for a long time.

British MP Enoch Powell's infamous Rivers of Blood speech from 1968 is a great example, the highlighted sections of which I believe are relevant to the theme of immigration today.

Quote:The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.
Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

An interesting post Mr.Brightside.

Enoch Powell is a very controversial figure in England. The popular view today is that he is a 'racist', he is painted as an anachronistic person who was stuck in the era of the British Empire(which ended between 1918 and 1945, roughly), yet he was a very prominent politician during the post WW2 era, right up until the 70s and 80s. He was still able to get voted in to Parliament after he left the Conservative Party.

If you mentioned Powell today most people will insist he is a racist, but very few will have properly read his famous speech. I don't think it is racist at all, it isn't discriminatory. It merely points out that forcing people of different cultures to live together is going to cause conflict. That's the same conclusion many of us here have come to, and many other observers elsewhere see the same thing happening. I really think it is inevitable.

Powell would be vindicated if he was to go to an English city like Bradford, or read about the terrible scandal of Rotherham. Bradford is a no-go area for many white people now, and it is rife with crime and depravity. We already know about Rotherham, and we should also remember that Rotherham is not an isolated case, there are other English towns and cities where the same thing has taken place.

Powell was more in touch with the people than the average politician cared to be. But it couldn't stop the establishment machine rolling forward towards it's globalist goal.

Watch him in this interview, that took place during the UK referendum on whether to join the EEC(European Common Market). He correctly states that the people of the UK will lose their sovereignty, and that they are unaware of the objectives of the EEC. At that time we were told that it was simply a trade agreement between Euro nations. Powell correctly states that it was actually the death of the nation state(a political concept that originated in Europe).
https://youtu.be/H4OWslOroaw?t=267

(10-31-2015 11:55 PM)flightofdeath Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 11:04 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Islam is a poison of the mind - educated enclaves in Canada which were partly selected for skills and aptitude and NAMALT arguments don't prove anything.

You should better go and study your religion in detail and also take a good hard look at what is happening in those wonderful countries like Afghanistan (children regularly used as sex toys) or Saudi Arabia (30% drug addicted youth up to 18, ton of homosexual activity due to repressed normal human sexuality).

Homosexuality is rampant in countries where Christianity is dominant. And by the looks of it the next wave will be that of incest. So would you say that Christianity encourages such behavior?

Christianity isn't dominant in the West. Islam is more dominant in Saudi Arabia than Christianity is in Europe and I have heard from several Europeans who worked in Saudi Arabia than 70% of men lose their virginity to another man.

(11-01-2015 02:43 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 11:55 PM)flightofdeath Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 11:04 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  You should better go and study your religion in detail and also take a good hard look at what is happening in those wonderful countries like Afghanistan (children regularly used as sex toys) or Saudi Arabia (30% drug addicted youth up to 18, ton of homosexual activity due to repressed normal human sexuality).

Homosexuality is rampant in countries where Christianity is dominant. And by the looks of it the next wave will be that of incest. So would you say that Christianity encourages such behavior?

Christianity isn't dominant in the West. Islam is more dominant in Saudi Arabia than Christianity is in Europe and I have heard from several Europeans who worked in Saudi Arabia than 70% of men lose their virginity to another man.

The homosexuality in Saudi Arabia (though for most it's actually prison sexuality there) is just as with the Catholic priests an offshoot of repressing sexuality itself.

Many folk don't know that Catholic priests right until the 14th century could have had wives and it took sometimes centuries before wives were eliminated. In many churches they had housekeepers who were effectively their mistresses. The church simply did not want to pay the children of priests any inheritance or money. In those times that would have been mostly land.

Priests often do these things out of long-time repression. The same repressive system is prevalent in the sharia countries. Even the Afghani child boy sex slaves can be explained by that shitty doctrine since female "honor" is so utterly convoluted there. This practice however can be explained by the religion itself just as the Vatican's decision to prohibit priest marriage contributed to the child abuse scandals. The only difference is that the general population of Christianity is not affected by it and priests/the church gets punished for it.

In Islam - every bloody man is affected by it with only the richest blokes being able to import escorts at any cost.

A religion always has to be judged by what their followers do IF THOSE DEEDS WERE STRONGLY INFLUENCED BY THAT RELIGION. We can easily go through the Talmud and correctly claim that taking that book seriously would breed a contempt for the goyim, make you cheat and steal from the goyim with impunity. There is a certain disdain and supremacy instilled via those books.

In Islam the Quran (which is to be read from the back since the latest statements supersede and annul the earliest ones) is chock-full with violence, barbarism, pedophelia (marriage from age 0, consumation at age where "she can take it"), honor killings etc. Also living by the example of Mohammed alone would make you into an Afghan warlord. Frankly based on the book it's a small wonder that most Muslims are such great people. It is actually a sign of the goodness in humanity, that they won't be swayed too far by that evil.

Finally I might add is that those Muslims whether in Saudi Arabia or the ones living in the West are not really happy, when trying to live according to the Quran. It's actually a sign of deep unhappiness to be so upset about caricatures, demand change by the West, enforce sharia. It's simply the spreading of unhappiness all around. It just gives them a fake sense of power and that is why they do it - and they feel that they are good Muslims because of it. Meanwhile their subconscious awareness is not buying any of their religious bullshit. They see that the West is having a much better lifestyle, better infrastructure, superior science and technology, they even get to have sex with promiscuous women and enjoy their lives much more. They also see the lack of success of the Muslims living in the West - they are not leading the Western countries via being superior in education, discipline and resolve - Jewish people and Asians excel, but not them.

So essentially they may bullshit themselves all they want that they are actually superior. Everything they see tells them otherwise. Inwardly they know that it's inferior to the West and that is even more puzzling as they see Western countries also be objectively degenerate.

two super good news form Switzerland:

Swiss Ban Muslim Prayer Towers





Swiss Member of Parliament Warns of Islamic Invasion





Perfect for my 1000th post, I have not planned this way but...

proto-SJWs wishing death and harm upon Enoch Powell at Exeter University in 1968

In many ways not much has changed. The establishment has become more effective at controlling the narrative. Today UKIP are branded racist bigots for wanting a points based immigration system.

It's the classic methodology we see throughout our culture today: If you disagree with us you are <insert pejorative>.

(11-01-2015 03:06 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 02:43 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 11:55 PM)flightofdeath Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 11:04 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  You should better go and study your religion in detail and also take a good hard look at what is happening in those wonderful countries like Afghanistan (children regularly used as sex toys) or Saudi Arabia (30% drug addicted youth up to 18, ton of homosexual activity due to repressed normal human sexuality).

Homosexuality is rampant in countries where Christianity is dominant. And by the looks of it the next wave will be that of incest. So would you say that Christianity encourages such behavior?

Christianity isn't dominant in the West. Islam is more dominant in Saudi Arabia than Christianity is in Europe and I have heard from several Europeans who worked in Saudi Arabia than 70% of men lose their virginity to another man.

The homosexuality in Saudi Arabia (though for most it's actually prison sexuality there) is just as with the Catholic priests an offshoot of repressing sexuality itself.

Many folk don't know that Catholic priests right until the 14th century could have had wives and it took sometimes centuries before wives were eliminated. In many churches they had housekeepers who were effectively their mistresses. The church simply did not want to pay the children of priests any inheritance or money. In those times that would have been mostly land.

Priests often do these things out of long-time repression. The same repressive system is prevalent in the sharia countries. Even the Afghani child boy sex slaves can be explained by that shitty doctrine since female "honor" is so utterly convoluted there. This practice however can be explained by the religion itself just as the Vatican's decision to prohibit priest marriage contributed to the child abuse scandals. The only difference is that the general population of Christianity is not affected by it and priests/the church gets punished for it.

In Islam - every bloody man is affected by it with only the richest blokes being able to import escorts at any cost.

A religion always has to be judged by what their followers do IF THOSE DEEDS WERE STRONGLY INFLUENCED BY THAT RELIGION. We can easily go through the Talmud and correctly claim that taking that book seriously would breed a contempt for the goyim, make you cheat and steal from the goyim with impunity. There is a certain disdain and supremacy instilled via those books.

In Islam the Quran (which is to be read from the back since the latest statements supersede and annul the earliest ones) is chock-full with violence, barbarism, pedophelia (marriage from age 0, consumation at age where "she can take it"), honor killings etc. Also living by the example of Mohammed alone would make you into an Afghan warlord. Frankly based on the book it's a small wonder that most Muslims are such great people. It is actually a sign of the goodness in humanity, that they won't be swayed too far by that evil.

Finally I might add is that those Muslims whether in Saudi Arabia or the ones living in the West are not really happy, when trying to live according to the Quran. It's actually a sign of deep unhappiness to be so upset about caricatures, demand change by the West, enforce sharia. It's simply the spreading of unhappiness all around. It just gives them a fake sense of power and that is why they do it - and they feel that they are good Muslims because of it. Meanwhile their subconscious awareness is not buying any of their religious bullshit. They see that the West is having a much better lifestyle, better infrastructure, superior science and technology, they even get to have sex with promiscuous women and enjoy their lives much more. They also see the lack of success of the Muslims living in the West - they are not leading the Western countries via being superior in education, discipline and resolve - Jewish people and Asians excel, but not them.

So essentially they may bullshit themselves all they want that they are actually superior. Everything they see tells them otherwise. Inwardly they know that it's inferior to the West and that is even more puzzling as they see Western countries also be objectively degenerate.

I've finally got round to reading Steve Pressfield's book The War of Art, which I seem to remember was recommended somewhere around here. Besides the discussion of how one's life purpose can be detected by the amount of resistance your psyche puts up to pursuing it, Pressfield makes a deep observation about fundamentalism: it's the resort of the hopeless. It is the belief that one's group has "fallen" in some way, and it's a belief that by getting back to "fundamentals" that one will restore the glory of one's earlier days. Islam has basically been falling into a hole since the late Middle Ages or so. Whatever the "glories" of Islamic philosophy and science, they were overtaken literally hundreds of years ago by the West and the Far East.

One other point about homosexuality, though -- its presence in the West is evidence that Christianity is not dominant. For the better part of two thousand years sodomy was condemned by church and state (which admittedly were intertwined to a large extent) and consequently rightly repressed. Had it persisted they'd likely still be in the shadows or be the province of the corrupt and highly placed within church and state. Western legal and religious prohibitions against homosexuality have only fallen in the past hundred years -- Oscar Wilde was prosecuted successfully for sodomy in 1895 and the term of imprisonment that followed broke him physically. Coincidentally the dismantling of those prohibitions has resulted in the occurrence, rise, and now, prevalence, of homosexual culture in the West.

For weeds to rise, you have to stop using weedkiller, and you have to stop pulling out the weeds when they appear.

(11-01-2015 05:04 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I've finally got round to reading Steve Pressfield's book The War of Art, which I seem to remember was recommended somewhere around here. Besides the discussion of how one's life purpose can be detected by the amount of resistance your psyche puts up to pursuing it,

Can you clarify - does he claim that the psyche actually resists the path of your life purpose? Or the opposite? I'll have to look into that book.

Victory for Akif Pirincci. His lawyer threatened the big media companies. Many media companies acknowledged that they have lied.

Here the one from Spiegel Online one of the biggest liars against Akif Pirincci. Note that the commentary is off for long time regarding these topics for being afraid of the critics.

"Anmerkung der Redaktion: In einer früheren Version des Textes hieß es Pirinçci deute an, es gäbe auch andere Alternativen mit "Politikern umzugehen, die bereit sind Flüchtlinge aufzunehmen". Das stimmt so nicht. Gemeint waren die Deutschen, denen die derzeitige Integrationspolitik der Regierung nicht passt."

Spiegel Online acknowledged that Princci ment that the government wants to send the anti-foreigners into the kz´s not the opposite.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/akif-piri...58742.html

These newspapers already made the changes on their websites:

"Laut den Anwälten hätten die "Südwest Presse", das "Schwäbische Tagblatt" und das "ZDF" Unterlassungserklärungen abgegeben. Auf den Webseiten von "NDR", "Kieler Nachrichten", "Hannoverscher Allgemeiner" und "Spiegel online" tauchen Widerrufe auf."

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/a...n-vor.html

(11-01-2015 05:22 AM)Bill Wrote:  Victory for Akif Pirincci. His lawyer threatened the big media companies. Many media companies acknowledged that they have lied.

...

Spiegel Online acknowledged that Princci ment that the government wants to send the anti-foreigners into the kz´s not the opposite.


http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/a...n-vor.html

Yeah - but even their "correction" statements are filled with new propaganda, that anti-immigration activists are responsable for all violence - burning of asylum housings etc. I guess Pegida is repsonsible for the rise in rapes as well. But I forgot - there is no rise in rape or crime.

Of course the mainstream would love to throw us all into concentration camps. They are a worse lot than the Nazis. They want us to throw into reeducation camps, because we don't see the glories of all their multi-cultural paradise.

I will truly laugh when their beloved migrants turn out to be violent fanatics and the feminist rape statistics actually become true. In the US it's 1 to 2200 women. Maybe they do get their 1 in 5 statistics in 30 years and it will be a surprise that those poor oppressed ones are doing it. I guess islamophobia made them do it.

(11-01-2015 04:07 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  two super good news form Switzerland:

Swiss Member of Parliament Warns of Islamic Invasion





Perfect for my 1000th post, I have not planned this way but...

Great speech from the country of pure democracy (direct democratic involvement by a fire-arm owning citizenry).

I have mentioned the example of Kosovo many times on this forum. It cannot be repeated enough, the Serbian loss of its most holy province by demographic change and the establishment of an Islamic gangster state by the bomb of NATO is the dress rehearsal for the rest of Europe.



The source of the migrant change-agents and soulmates?

Why its:

Late to the party but anyone who defends the Muslim World today by referencing the Golden Age has to contend with the issue that Europe completely blew everyone away once that classical knowledge re-entered its control.

I would even contend that Europe's ascendancy was foretold in the 1100s when the first Gothic Cathedral was constructed. All of those are marvels of architecture.

(11-01-2015 06:07 AM)Eskhander Wrote:  Late to the party but anyone who defends the Muslim World today by referencing the Golden Age has to contend with the issue that Europe completely blew everyone away once that classical knowledge re-entered its control.

I would even contend that Europe's ascendancy was foretold in the 1100s when the first Gothic Cathedral was constructed. All of those are marvels of architecture.

Easy retort to their BS:

Past performance does not indicate future resuults.

(11-01-2015 05:18 AM)RawGod Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 05:04 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I've finally got round to reading Steve Pressfield's book The War of Art, which I seem to remember was recommended somewhere around here. Besides the discussion of how one's life purpose can be detected by the amount of resistance your psyche puts up to pursuing it,

Can you clarify - does he claim that the psyche actually resists the path of your life purpose? Or the opposite? I'll have to look into that book.

As I understand it so far, he characterises your "lower nature" as resisting the pursuit of things that will advance your development as a human being. Procrastination, for example, is one such force, as are addictions or attempts to distract yourself in many different forms. I'm still working my way through it, but he does make the explicit suggestion that the amount of resistance you feel to a particular pursuit you have -- e.g. your own fear, or procrastination, or avoidance of writing that great first novel -- is a direct indicator of how important that pursuit is to your growth as a person. If something isn't important to you, you don't feel any resistance from the psyche in taking it up.

It's a similar message to the one that Brian Tracy puts up: that self-discipline is how you grow. It's a similar message to the message Josh Waitzkin puts up in his book The Art of Learning - that pain happens at the point of growth (EDIT: Actually, I think the wording was, in fact, that growth happens at the point of resistance!). This is certainly true even at the fundamental physical level, with weightlifting: the building of muscle does not occur without the tearing of muscle tissue and new muscle fibers growing to make the body stronger.

Thus far the book strikes me as distinctly Red Pill. It's well worth a read, particularly given who the preface was given by - Robert McKee, the author of Story and hands-down my favourite author on teaching how to write fiction. (EDIT: Of course, that's because McKee basically restates and updates Aristotle's Poetics, but that's by the by.)

Pressfield's fiction also comes highly recommended: Gates of Fire is allegedly suggested to college students engaged in studies of Ancient Greece for its sheer thoroughness and verisimilitude for how we think Hellenistic Greece operated day to day.

(11-01-2015 03:06 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  religion always has to be judged by what their followers do IF THOSE DEEDS WERE STRONGLY INFLUENCED BY THAT RELIGION.

Not if those deeds are based on an utter misinterpretation or ignorance of that religion. Just because someone is born into a religion doesn't make them knowledgeable about that religion.

(11-01-2015 03:06 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  In Islam the Quran (which is to be read from the back since the latest statements supersede and annul the earliest ones) is chock-full with violence, barbarism, pedophelia, honor killings etc.

You have made this claim repeatedly. Any particular verse of Quran that you are referring to?

I apologize if this post is a duplicate, but I haven't followed every page of this thread.

The following post is taken from The Anonymous Conservative's website. AC is a friend of Vox Day's, and they've both taught me so much about rhetoric. The article is heart-breaking, and AC's rhetoric is vicious and angry to match.

(Italics represent quotes from an online news article. Non-italics represent AC's words. Bold print is my own emphasis.)

Quote:“But under sharia, this rape culture also impacts upon Swedish women as they are “infidels” and, as such, are — according to Allah’s teachings — sanctioned targets for rape by Muslim men. Such an Islamic belief system has born witness to a drastic increase in rapes in Sweden — more than a thousand fold — since first opening its doors to Muslim immigration."

Some estimates are that at the current rate, 1 in 4 Swedish girls today will be raped at some point. Bitter liberal women probably don’t care because rape almost always is inflicted on the pretty and happy girls, to ruin their happiness. But if you have a pretty happy daughter it wouldn’t surprise me if their chance is more like 1 in 2 or higher, especially after you factor in the refugees.


Here’s another “interesting” fact. Not only does it appear that the Swedish government may be trying to prevent its citizens from knowing the truth by not collecting data and calling all rapists “Swedish men,” it passed a law in December of 2014 making it a CRIME for citizens to criticize the government’s immigration policies and/or “insulting” immigrants."

If I lived in Sweden and had a daughter, this alone would be grounds for going Breivik, and taking out as many leftists as I could. If and when that place blows after the collapse, I’d expect it to be a powder-keg.

Rape is a rabbit phenomenon – it is a search for an easy dopamine rush without cost. It is also notable that it is only tolerable to rabbits – conservatives would never stand for this. r-selected women, from an evolutionary standpoint, would be well advised to seek to rear rapist children. In an r-selected society that tolerates rape, rape is a highly successful reproductive strategy, so it wouldn’t surprise me to find that r-selected women are programmed on some level to seek out the likelihood of being raped, and support conditions that will get them raped.

I would suspect if you could register the level of offense at being raped, conservative girls would genuinely find rape traumatic. Judging by the left’s lack of outrage at the Muslim rape situation I would assume leftist women at the least are not bothered by being raped, and in many cases may even enjoy rape, probably viewing it as some Fifty Shades-esque adventure that they can later claim outrage points over, as they rear the rapist children who will eventually rape others and carry their genes forward.

The more you observe the left, the more contemptible they appear and the more you realize they cannot be reasoned with, bargained with, or lived with – they can only be destroyed.

Apocalypse cometh.

Quote:Enoch Powell is a very controversial figure in England. The popular view today is that he is a 'racist', he is painted as an anachronistic person who was stuck in the era of the British Empire(which ended between 1918 and 1945, roughly), yet he was a very prominent politician during the post WW2 era, right up until the 70s and 80s. He was still able to get voted in to Parliament after he left the Conservative Party.

If you mentioned Powell today most people will insist he is a racist, but very few will have properly read his famous speech. I don't think it is racist at all, it isn't discriminatory. It merely points out that forcing people of different cultures to live together is going to cause conflict. That's the same conclusion many of us here have come to, and many other observers elsewhere see the same thing happening. I really think it is inevitable.

Powell would be vindicated if he was to go to an English city like Bradford, or read about the terrible scandal of Rotherham. Bradford is a no-go area for many white people now, and it is rife with crime and depravity. We already know about Rotherham, and we should also remember that Rotherham is not an isolated case, there are other English towns and cities where the same thing has taken place.

Powell was more in touch with the people than the average politician cared to be. But it couldn't stop the establishment machine rolling forward towards it's globalist goal.

Yes, he was indeed "more in touch with the people than the average politician cared to be", but in the worst kind of ways, as there is strong evidence of him being a child abuser:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/u...03957.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...42235.html

(11-01-2015 07:40 AM)flightofdeath Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 03:06 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  In Islam the Quran (which is to be read from the back since the latest statements supersede and annul the earliest ones) is chock-full with violence, barbarism, pedophelia, honor killings etc.

You have made this claim repeatedly. Any particular verse of Quran that you are referring to?

Quran 5:33 Wrote:"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran 8:12 Wrote:"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran 8:67 Wrote:"It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran 9:5 Wrote:"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Quran 18:65-81 is the theological basis for Islamic honour killings, citing a parable that does not appear in any Jewish or Christian version. In it Moses supposedly meets someone who has "special knowledge", that is, someone who justifies their previous inexplicable actions (explicitly the killing of a firstborn son) by some resort to God.

Quran 30:60-62 Wrote:"If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

48:17 Wrote:"There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom."

Just in case anyone was planning on saying jihad is a "spiritual struggle." Blind, sick, and lame men are not exempted from spiritual battles. They're exempted from military service because they can't physically fight.

The Hadith -- the commentaries on the Quran, and seen with similar authority -- are even more severe.

Quran 33:50 Wrote:"O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; "

This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this "revelation" was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad's hedonism.

Quran 33:51 Wrote:You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased"

This is in reference to a situation in which Muhammad's wives were grumbling about his preference for sleeping with a slave girl (Mary the Copt) instead of them. Accordingly, Muhammad may sleep with whichever wife (or slave) he wishes without having to hear the others complain... as revealed in Allah's literal and perfect words to more than a billion Muslims.

Quran 4:24 Wrote:"And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."

Allah apparently permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle.

The Hadith -- again, commenataries on Muhammad's life and no more deniable to a Muslim than the Quran is -- confirms Muhammad's first wife was 9 years old when he married her.

Muslim 8:3460 Wrote:"Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?"

Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead of opting to fondle a child.

^Ironic given that Mohammed's first wife was a rich older Christian woman. He was monogamous until after her death.

(10-30-2015 05:57 PM)Libertas Wrote:  How are things on the ground there? Will the cuck PM face repercussions? Feel free to answer in the invasion thread.

Yes he will because people are extremely mad at him both over the economy and over the spineless SJW approach to the migrant crisis, but that doesn't mean Croatia will be saved or close its borders. Most of his votes will go to the cuckservatives who will uphold the same policies, only with a slightly different rhetoric.

It's somewhat hard to say what exactly will happen, because with the extraordinary danger from the Living Wall party, the entire establishment and media has banded against it, and thus only publishes full-blown propaganda, which is all over the place and extremely inconsistent (except for pretending that the Living Wall doesn't exist, of course). For example, this is the first election cycle in history where there are no prime-time evening debates on main channels. There have also been no internet polls on major news portals, a sharp turn from the poll-happy nature of previous cycles.

Obviously, this is because when you do run an internet poll, you get this:

   
(Living Wall is the large yellow bar)

Obviously, internet users vote differently from non-internet users, and old people vote differently from young people. When a major (though strongly left-leaning) news portal finally ran a Facebook-verified poll yesterday, we got this:

   

1st from the left is the ruling party (SDP, also called "Koalicija Hrvatska raste"). They're SJWs, fanatically devoted to feminism, gay rights, open borders, virtue signalling, EU and NATO. Our PM Zoran Milanović comes from this party.
2nd from the left is the opposition party (HDZ, also called "Domoljubna koalicija"). They're cuckservatives, doing the same things as SDP despite being supposedly "Christian", "Conservative" and "moderately right". Our President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović comes from this party.
3rd from the left is the Living Wall party (ŽZ). They're a red-pill centrist party whose programme can be found in my signature, and absolutely refuse an alliance with any of the other parties.
4th from the left is the Most party. They're cuckservatives #2, whose only selling point is that they're supposedly less corrupt than cuckservatives #1 (HDZ). They will gladly collaborate with either SDP or HDZ and push the same policies.

The rest are insignificant minor players or no-names, who have a hard time getting more than 2% of the vote (the threshold is 5%).

It is very hard to predict if this poll is representative of the real state of affairs. I'd personally say that it's quite accurate, except for the fact that SDP's share will be slightly lower (28%) and HDZ's share will be slightly bigger (28%).

Either way, the likely result is that even with Most's support, neither SDP nor HDZ will have enough of a share in the parliament to rule. Since they would all rather commit suicide than betray their big money globalist masters by giving in to ŽZ's demands, there is only one option remaining: a "national unity" HDZSDP coalition. This will only expose their fraud further, since it will confirm what ŽZ has been saying all along: that these two parties are both puppets of the big money, and the other small parties are nothing more than HDZSDP's satellites.

I have attended some of ŽZ's events, stands and leaflet distribution events (since the party is far too poor to pay for billboards and TV and radio ads like HDZSDP does) and seen that they do also have sizable support from middle-age and old people who are not on the internet, including small business owners. They have also received support from various celebrities and general Ante Gotovina, the most famous (retired) military person in Croatia and the War of Independence.

Thus, their share will probably not be much lower than the one shown in the above poll. However, it will also probably not be higher than that, since Croatia is not yet sufficiently economically destroyed (things need to get at least as terrible as in Greece) and the level of 20-year brainwashing and ideology is far too high to be discarded so quickly.

Let's wait and see, the elections are in one week!

Yesterday in Poland, during a Wroclaw-Lech Poznan soccer game, the following, huge banner was on display (the painted words mean, When Islamist plague floods Europe, let's stand up to defend Christendom... but by the way, note that one of the painted boats comes from a non-islamist sub-saharan area, so, it's not exclusively an "islamism" problem)



And remember, a few days ago, Lech Poznan supporters boycotted their first "Europa League" game, due to UEFA’s decision to donate 1 euro of every sold ticket to "refugee" "charities". Not one euro of our money should go to SJW treacherous organizations!

....

Meanwhile, UK foreign minister Philip Hammond has just admitted (giving a speech in Bahrein) that the UK, during tens of years, had minimized islamism and migrants' threat, because of the multiculturalism mantra.

Part of his speech:
"In the name of multiculturalism , we have tolerated and even welcomed ideas, a pattern of behavior and activity of organizations that sowed division"

(09-29-2015 04:04 AM)flightofdeath Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 05:33 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  Multiculturalism YES

Quote:A Muslim father in Germany has admitted to strangling his 19-year-old daughter to death after she was caught shoplifting condoms to be with her boyfriend.

Actually, it is not part of culture nor is it any kind of custom. It's nothing more than a crime of passion. Committed out of anger at disobedience and the potential shame it could bring to the family. No one actually believes in the righteousness of the act, not even the ones that commit it. And only a select few actually commit it.

FightofDeath - you are obviously a Muslim who even picked a name that has death-cult Jihadi undertones.

You defend honor killings as "crimes of passion".



   

The individuals doing it don't see it as wrong, but as regrettable since their daughter obviously did not leave them any choice.

I don't think there is a place for you here if you totally deny the actual Muslim undertones or justifications in the Quran of honor killings.

The Christians don't fear criticizing their church, priests, the Vatican, the pope and even the bible. It's only Muslims who get their mental panties in a bunch whenever anyone hints to the fact that their political war-doctrine is the farthest thing away from a religion of peace.

(11-01-2015 02:40 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

USS ISIS.

Recent news:

Germany will have 20 million Muslims living there in 2020 - even if the flow is somehow stopped within 2 years, then the family members pulled by all the migrants will let the current 5.6 mio. Muslim population swell to 20 million. That means that 20% of the population will be Muslim and they will start making demands, no-go zones and sharia zones will be created everywhere.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6793/g...on-muslims

Quote:"We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law." — From a leaked German intelligence document.

"We need to be clear that there must be limits and quotas for immigration -- we cannot save the whole world." — Markus Söder, Finance Minister of Bavaria.

"The migration crisis has the potential to destabilize governments, countries and the whole European continent. ... What we have been facing is not a refugee crisis. This is a migratory movement composed of economic migrants, refugees and also foreign fighters" — Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

"Meanwhile, refugees are still heading into Germany -- at a rate of around 10,000 a day. ... The decade after Ms. Merkel first came to power in 2005 now looks like a blessed period for Germany, in which the country was able to enjoy peace, prosperity and international respect, while keeping the troubles of the world at a safe distance. That golden era is now over." — Gideon Rachman, Financial Times.

Yeah - European state that was created to help out the local population who might fall on hard times now is being misused by any hick coming over:

Quote:Addressing an expo in Nuremburg on October 14, Brandl warned that untrammeled migration will entail heavy costs for German taxpayers and may also lead to social unrest. He said:

"A four-member refugee family receives up to 1,200 euros per month in transfer payments. Plus accommodation and meals. Now go to an unemployed German family man who has worked maybe 30 years, and now with his family receives only marginally more. These people are asking us whether we politicians really see this as fair and just."

_______________________________________________________


Here a funny picture of "Syrian refugees" wating in Kabul, Afghanistan for their travel to Germany:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/10/thousand...um=twitter




_________________________


Here also a good article on the current movement:

Quote:STUNNING WARNING: WAR COMING TO EUROPE
'Unavoidable' that Muslim uprising, European reaction will clash 'outside accepted political channels'

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/stunning-warn...y5jTRMD.99

Quote:Author, WND columnist and anti-Shariah campaigner Pamela Geller thinks it is already too late. Asked if she thought it would come to civil war in Europe, Geller told WND, “Yes, I do.”

She’s not alone.

“If the European political establishment maintains its stranglehold on power, it seems unavoidable that Islam will continue to build a political presence that will ultimately lead to Muslim uprisings and a European reaction outside of accepted political channels,” said G.M. Davis.

Davis, a Stanford Ph.D. and the author of “House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World,” believes the only way the problem could be solved peacefully is through “an effective anti-Islamic political movement” taking shape in Europe “within a generation.”

The situation in Europe already seems to be spiraling out of control. Austrians are stocking up on weapons, and intelligence analysts warn of an imminent terrorist attack in the United Kingdom.

Meanwhile, European governments are cracking down on their own populations, even as tens of thousands of Muslim men are marching through the countryside like an invading army.

Davis argues if mainstream political forces are not able to quell the continuous influx of Muslim migrants into Europe, “grassroots organizations” will take up the “defense of Europe.”

He told WND: “They would be acting in defiance of their respective governments, which could spark wholesale abandonment of those governments by their populations. We saw this in Communist Eastern Europe in 1989-91 with the key difference being that violence would be very much widespread [this time].”

Diana West, a WND columnist and the author of “The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization,” says the real enemy Europeans face isn’t invading Muslims. It’s their own governments.

She explains: “These governments have rejected their own most basic responsibilities to safeguard and perpetuate their own peoples, religions, native cultures, law, public safety, homelands – everything except the One World ‘multicultural’ (read: non-Western) ideology. It’s staggering to behold this overt rush to abandon sovereignty and everything else for globalist prerogatives. Their template, Marxist in origin, is perhaps best described as ‘forced diversity.’”

West charges states such as Germany and Sweden are “in effect overthrowing their own peoples.”

However, she believes civil war is unlikely, because Western governments have too many repressive tools at their disposal.

“These are already surveillance states bristling with mechanisms of coercion and enforcement,” she observed. “I am afraid, ultimately, capitulation is more likely to be the more common reaction in nations already hosting growing and new Islamic blocs.”

West chronicled how the “subversive Marxist conditioning of so many past decades” have prepared Europeans for life in a post-Western society. Although some Germans have even been evicted to make room for refugees and terrible costs have been imposed on native Europeans, West summarizes their reactions as “docile overall, helpless.”

She believes Europeans are “very upset, but not full of any of the kind of fire that you might expect – or hope for.”

The relative passivity is a product of Europe’s bloody history and Christian religious background, she said.

“The natural tendencies of Christian and post-Christian Europeans are peaceable; the sorts of ideologies that led to such copious bloodshed during the last hundred years hold little appeal, which is one of the reasons that it is so hard for Europeans today to face the reality that they are under attack again by such an ideology,” Davis stated.

“The situation with Islam that seems to be unfolding suggests what happened with the rise of communism and Nazism: because no one wants to face the possibility of having to use force to suppress such an ideology – and force is an undeniable possibility – then no one will recognize the nature of the problem itself.”

The result is a Europe essentially doomed to inaction by its own democratic practices until it is too late.

Davis grimly observed, “Any defense of Europe will have to be democratic in the sense of being popular, but it seems increasingly unlikely that such a defense can be mounted within established political channels or be peaceful.”

Geller believes European elites have all but made it illegal for Europeans to oppose their own dispossession.

“[Opponents to Muslim migration] would have used peaceful and democratic means, and still would, but those means are increasingly closed off to them by the elites,” she told WND.

The battle lines for future struggles in Europe are already being drawn, both in neighborhoods and between nations. Davis argues Muslims are already creating communities that operate as autonomous zones separate from the larger European society.

He told WND: “Already we have seen a tendency throughout Europe for Islamic communities to dominate certain urban areas and to apply pressure to the native inhabitants to move away. Muslims are hardly the first immigrant group to do this, and there are divisions within Muslim communities themselves, but the complicating factor is invariably the political nature of Islam itself, which understands its mission to rule territory for Allah and subordinate all other legal, religious, and social norms.”

The result could be outright military conflict with the cities of Europe itself.

“As Muslim communities grow and become more politically established, they will attract more Muslims from elsewhere and push away more natives, thus encouraging a cycle of separation and division,” said Davis.

“I believe, in time, this is likely to degenerate into some form of civil war. Where the battle lines will ultimately be drawn is anyone’s guess, but at this point it looks as though they will run through many of Europe’s urban centers.”

...

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/stunning-warn...y5jTRMD.99

Obviously I don't share some of the opinions who foresee a Muslim sharia Europe. Yeah - good luck with that, when the military is utterly white and would wipe them out at one command - even if they make up 50% of the European population.