(04-04-2016 07:46 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Two things you will notice as time goes on.

1: The French will always strike, they will get attacked and they will surrender
2: Muslims and illegal migrants will stay on point and will not defer from their chosen path. This path being the one we have witnessed over the years.

My bets are on the Muslims and migrants. The French will need a revolution of sorts to change their fate and right now they're more interested in acquiring mistresses, cucking their husbands with illicit children, getting fat off of EU subsidies, annoying the roast beefs, agreeing with Germany on everything, drinking wine.

France has beautiful countryside and nice towns but that'll only last as long as France keeps its migrant populations to the larger towns and cities. I don't see how their economy can survive so many leeches if the EU goes bankrupt.

Agree. I used to had hope thinking that the rebellious nature of the French represents hope, but in fact it represents a woman's nature. They will bitch about anything and everything and go on strike as long as nobody does anything. But when they get attacked brutally they clam up, keep silence and go back to their place.

Its like with a woman. Give her a beta cuck and she will complain, bitch and refuses sex. Give her an alpha and a few spanks and she goes back to the kitchen. No wonder people always refer to France as "her".

I think that the writing is on the wall for western civilization. Europeans have become too cucked to do anything about their own future, and in the end they will disappear quietly into the night. Eastern Europe might hold on for a little while, but they're suffering demographic troubles of their own, as well as westernizing. Top that off with the fact that Islam will be right outside their borders, and it looks like Eastern Europe has the odds stacked against them. I don't think Europe is going to come out of this intact.

Meanwhile, in the US, Hillary Clinton will probably be elected president this November.

I realize this is blasphemy in the Trump thread, but the Trump train does seem to be slowing down. Rumors of a brokered convention seem very possible, if not probable. Trump's statement on abortion very well may forfeit him the general election, given that abortion is something that is sacrosanct to modern women. I agree with Samseau, however, in the sense that business as usual is going to come to an end in one way or another after this election cycle. If Trump wins (the less likely outcome) we might start rolling back some of the damage that has been caused to the US and the west. Even then, it might only wind up delaying the inevitable. If Hillary wins, everything that has been happening for the last decade or so will be amped up times ten. Open borders, more welfare, more attacks on men and tradition. What comes after that, I don't know. Civil/Race war? Collapse? WWIII? Or perhaps the US will go the way of western Europe, and just cuck itself into oblivion. One way or another the west's dominance of the world is coming to an end, and we will see it end in our lifetimes.

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article153...ragen.html

Quote:There is a track in which Air France has high hopes. On April 17, the French airline takes flights from Paris to Tehran on again, eight years after they were interrupted. Ever since the United States and the EU in mid-January lifted the sanctions against Iran, more and more tourists and business people interested in the Near Eastern country.

But now the official reopening of the route will be overshadowed by the protests of several unions. They oppose the proposed headscarf mandatory for the female crew of Air France with flights to Iran. This is an attack on personal freedom of employees, they argue.

The airline stewardesses, but also pilots instructed in an internal memo to observe the applicable laws of Iran and related dress code in Tehran. "The women have during the flight of trousers, a jacket and wide when leaving the aircraft wearing a scarf, the hair concealed," said Christophe Pillet of the cabin crew union SNPNC. "Every day we have calls from anxious flight attendants who tell us that they want to wear a headscarf."

Other airlines such as Lufthansa or Austrian Airlines, which already fly to Iran, the headscarf-duty followed also, it was for Air France. Moreover, the Group's internal dress code see the possibility to impose certain restrictions if that is necessary. As stated in the case of Iranian laws that require women to wear headscarves in public.

The headscarf requirement was already in force, as Air France had previously flown to Iran, the company said. For flights to Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, the female crew must also wear a headscarf when leaving the hotel.

In France itself since 2011 applies a ban on the wearing of body and facial veils such as the burqa and niqab in public. The wearing of religious symbols such as skullcaps, headscarves and crucifixes in schools is banned in France since 2004 - for students, teachers, parents who accompany their children there. The flight attendants of Air France would have to wear a headscarf, takes left politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon. "They are French citizens. French people are free and belong to a secular state."

Welcome to the Muslim Overlords. Remembers me about the case where the Italians did cover their statues for the Iranian people. Or in Germany, in Bavaria when they remove crosses for the rich customers from Saudi Arabia.
Its nothing different then be an Instagram whore that eat shit from rich saudi perverts. Western people lost their values, they destroy their own culture for the sake of money and justify it with tolerance.

I love my country but I hate the state. The more and more this stuff goes on, I guess I belong to those 20 % that already went to an internal exile.
Even more when I read crap like this:

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/artic...-sein.html

Quote:With a young, veiled woman in a global advertising campaign, the Swedish fashion giant Hennes & Mauritz (H & M) had made in September stir. Although Maria Idrissi, the 23-year-old model, only a few seconds can be seen in the spot and it actually comes to recycling in the message ("There is no rule in the fashion except one: reuse"), the campaign of Muslim women was perceived worldwide as liberation. The social networks were running hot. Muslim women cheered that they might finally be dressed chic and still "correct". No one has raised the question at this time, at least not according to whether it is actually ethically, to support the oppression of Muslim women in this way. But known it about about money, not about conscience.

The trend is in any case towards the hijab. Could wear veils soon the new trend? H & M is far from the only company that wants to conquer this lucrative market and the new clientele: The Japanese company Uniqlo sold in their London shops long hijab. Last year, DKNY has a Ramadan collection presented because Muslim women like to renew for the Eid al-Fitr at the end of Ramadan traditionally the wardrobe.

The British company Marks & Spencer even offers a full-body swimsuit for Muslim women who really covers everything, only the face, hands and feet, he can freely. 62,95 euro cost of this "Burkini", a neologism of burqa and bikini. "A sign of openness", the British department store defended.

The Italian fashion house Dolce & Gabbana goes further. "Abaya" is the latest collection, which bespoke luxury for rich Muslim offers: long, flowing coats dresses made of expensive fabrics, fits to veil for the hair. "Islamic fashion" is the new technical term. "Behind this of course puts an ideological and also a financial interest," notes the French sociologist Frédéric Monneyron. The brands discover a huge market: in 2019 its volume is estimated to 443 billion euros, twice as much as, 2013.

I feel that all this stuff bring me to a boiling point. Nothing that I like.

http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article15...acken.html

Quote:After sexual assault on two children in a water park in Wismar Schwerin prosecutor requested arrest warrants for the suspects.

The 19-year-old is said to have both 8 and 13 year old girl compelled by force to submit to sexual acts per se, a spokesman for the prosecutor said on Monday.

According to police the Syrian immigrants had approached the two children on Sunday and had slipped together with them on the water slide. Then he had taken the victims to the buttocks, the girl touched inappropriately, they pulled up and clasped. he also kissed on the mouth, the younger child.

Minister turns in

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Interior Minister Lorenz Caffier (CDU) demanded to exhaust the criminal opportunities quickly and in full.

"Who wants to take the right to asylum under the Basic Law to complete, must also respect all other articles of the Basic Law," he explained. "And for that very purpose entails that the man is not superior to the woman, and including, of course, the right to physical integrity and self-determination."

The penalty must be followed on the heels emphasized Caffier. "Otherwise, we would send a wrong signal to the world, and it could be understood as an invitation to commit further offenses."

The suspect is well known. According to the prosecution, in early February he made sexual acts on a 14-year-old girl and have paid her for it.

Is there a reason that they call all brown foreigners "Syrians"?

Or are Syrians really like this. I just find it hard to believe that is the case. I know that in Canada we are fortunate enough to get as immigrants and refugees the "top tier" but for fucks sake pedophilia is just too much for my brain to handle.

The Syrian/Lebanese/Jordanians I have met seem to be the furthest type of person to condone this, let alone partake in it.

I am just baffled at the moment.

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/a...lheim.html

Quote:A dispute among asylum seekers in Bonn killed one. According to police on Monday, three people attacked each other on Sunday evening before a refugee shelter in Muffendorf district. Here, a 32 year old man was killed by knife wounds. Two suspects, aged 26 and 30 years were arrested.

The investigation on the conduct and the background were indeed still ongoing, police said. It must be clarified, among other things, whether one or both men were armed. So far there had been in the property no major incidents.

Also in a refugee accommodation Bielefeld a man has been injured after an argument between two applicants. According to police on early Saturday morning a 27-year-old should have hit and stabbed with a knife on a 24-year-old male victim. The younger man was slightly injured and was able to escape to a resident of the accommodation. The neighbour called the police. Then the victim was treated in a hospital. The offender is still on the run.

All this stuff happen on a daily basis but beside the local news you mostly don't see it. Even when its in a big newspaper, you need to have an interest and watch this topic. Normal citizens will only get a little piece of this stuff. They live in the illusion that those that warn about the negative effects are fanatic right wing neonazis. Because the Propaganda is still strong.

(04-04-2016 12:58 PM)Laner Wrote:  Is there a reason that they call all brown foreigners "Syrians"?

Or are Syrians really like this. I just find it hard to believe that is the case. I know that in Canada we are fortunate enough to get as immigrants and refugees the "top tier" but for fucks sake pedophilia is just too much for my brain to handle.

The Syrian/Lebanese/Jordanians I have met seem to be the furthest type of person to condone this, let alone partake in it.

I am just baffled at the moment.

They name the nationality now. After cologne they named it that it had be guys from Morocco and Algier. Normal the description is "southern looking" or "Mediterranean" but it seems like they release whats on the documents. If they are really Syrians, who knows. More then 70 % arrive with no papers and just say they are Syrians because Syrians get mostly accepted as refugees. There are even videos out there from northern African guys that learn a few phrases in Syrian-Arab to pretend to be Syrian. We should be more tolerant and bring in Sharia law. Cut of the hands of thieves and shoot paedophiles in the head. I guess we just need to do it at 10 to 20 people. Then order is restored.

(04-04-2016 12:11 PM)Parzival Wrote:  They destroy their own culture for the sake of money and justify it with tolerance.

That's a brilliant quote Parzival - really summarizes it all in one simple sentence. Yours?

Yes. I share it under Creative Commons for non commercial use with attribution of me - Parzival.

This seems like the best place to post this: Munk debate series featuring Louise Arbour and Simon Schama vs. Nigel Farage and Mark Steyn, the motion being, "Be it resolved, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...".

The pro side jumped right into the UN globalist platitudes; they both smirkingly laughed at the cons' "obsession with sex" (36:05)when citing rape statistics; Steyn's fiery rebuttal is a thing of beauty (38:25).

Link: Munk Debate

Love it when Steyn refers to Arbour as a "transnational bureaucrat".

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/...migration/

The arrogance of these people really knows no bounds.

Germans have to pay for the privilege of being demoralized and telling them that "migrants can do whatever they want."

(04-04-2016 08:52 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 07:46 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Two things you will notice as time goes on.

1: The French will always strike, they will get attacked and they will surrender
2: Muslims and illegal migrants will stay on point and will not defer from their chosen path. This path being the one we have witnessed over the years.

My bets are on the Muslims and migrants. The French will need a revolution of sorts to change their fate and right now they're more interested in acquiring mistresses, cucking their husbands with illicit children, getting fat off of EU subsidies, annoying the roast beefs, agreeing with Germany on everything, drinking wine.

France has beautiful countryside and nice towns but that'll only last as long as France keeps its migrant populations to the larger towns and cities. I don't see how their economy can survive so many leeches if the EU goes bankrupt.

Agree. I used to had hope thinking that the rebellious nature of the French represents hope, but in fact it represents a woman's nature. They will bitch about anything and everything and go on strike as long as nobody does anything. But when they get attacked brutally they clam up, keep silence and go back to their place.

Its like with a woman. Give her a beta cuck and she will complain, bitch and refuses sex. Give her an alpha and a few spanks and she goes back to the kitchen. No wonder people always refer to France as "her".

I think the immigrants should start wearing British flags, drinking like British football fans and importing British food and Carlsberg. Oh and opening British pubs in the heartland of France.

If anything gets the French people up in arms its the British. Imagine if British people burned the French flag, tossed out French wine, cheese and fashion. Banned French food from the capital and declared frogs and snails a national treasure to be protected through an EU initiative.

A levy on frogs and snail farms I say!

You'd have those little French bastards lining up at Calais to have a go.

All this is so depressing, revolting, enraging, humiliating, I've just lost hope that Europeans will ever do anything, we'll disappear under demographic forces in a few years as the utterly stupid and pathological altruistic politically correct beings we are. Our ancestors would be ashamed and spit on us if they ever knew what we became.

(04-04-2016 05:09 PM)ed pluribus unum Wrote:  This seems like the best place to post this: Munk debate series featuring Louise Arbour and Simon Schama vs. Nigel Farage and Mark Steyn, the motion being, "Be it resolved, give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...".

The pro side jumped right into the UN globalist platitudes; they both smirkingly laughed at the cons' "obsession with sex" (36:05)when citing rape statistics; Steyn's fiery rebuttal is a thing of beauty (38:25).

Link: Munk Debate

Love it when Steyn refers to Arbour as a "transnational bureaucrat".

Mark Steyn is a god.

Quote: The central Roman state collapsed because the migrants forcibly stripped it of the tax base which it had used to fund its armies, not because of long-term 'organic' transformations.
Source: bbc.co.uk
Fall of the Roman Empire,

Spin this anyway you like, there will be a lot of growing pains with the migrants.

(04-04-2016 05:09 PM)Libertas Wrote:  http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/...migration/

The arrogance of these people really knows no bounds.

Germans have to pay for the privilege of being demoralized and telling them that "migrants can do whatever they want."

Days after body parts are still being found in Brussels, Germans are told that they are the past and to be tolerant and welcoming.

That video made me sick.

(04-04-2016 05:09 PM)Libertas Wrote:  http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/...migration/

The arrogance of these people really knows no bounds.

Germans have to pay for the privilege of being demoralized and telling them that "migrants can do whatever they want."

That's a weekly " comedy" night show.

It's used for propaganda and has one of the strongest Internet presences for German TV.

The host shows the tendencies of younger Germans and is one of the reasons why I started to despise former friends.

Imagine a crowd of your closest friends at a party standing in front of a TV with that show. You think they are intelligent, open minded, but aware of themselves and society .. The shown pictures.. Everyone is attentive, laughing : they celebrate and admire the show.. and you just watch them in disbelief and disgust. Now you know they are total degenerates and imbeciles.

That day happened last year with different pictures.. With obvious lies.

(04-04-2016 09:45 PM)tomtud Wrote:  Quote: The central Roman state collapsed because the migrants forcibly stripped it of the tax base which it had used to fund its armies, not because of long-term 'organic' transformations.
Source: bbc.co.uk
Fall of the Roman Empire,

Spin this anyway you like, there will be a lot of growing pains with the migrants.

Interesting. Lessons of the past should not be forgotten.
Worth a read http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/rom...e_01.shtml

(04-05-2016 04:20 AM)PowerGame Wrote:  That's a weekly " comedy" night show.

It's used for propaganda and has one of the strongest Internet presences for German TV.

The host shows the tendencies of younger Germans and is one of the reasons why I started to despise former friends.

Imagine a crowd of your closest friends at a party standing in front of a TV with that show. You think they are intelligent, open minded, but aware of themselves and society .. The shown pictures.. Everyone is attentive, laughing : they celebrate and admire the show.. and you just watch them in disbelief and disgust. Now you know they are total degenerates and imbeciles.

That day happened last year with different pictures.. With obvious lies.

The fight against right wing believes and so called Nationalist and Racist is trendy. One one side you stand up for something good. Even if it is just some likes at Facebook. You are one of the good guys. You feel progressive and rebellious but you are part of the mainstream. You are the system. You are the one that cut down other believes and points of views. Your agenda is Tolerance and who do not agree with you, is an intolerant, racist fascist. And you don't risk anything because all your hip and trendy friends, even the media is behind you.

Those people really believe that there is a die hard group of people that are just racist and want bring back the 4. Reich. By label everyone as a racist, fascist or Nazi, you just use code words to silence people that disagree with the mainstream agenda. The reality is, there are other opinions out there that are based on facts and maybe with a different conclusion, but by far not the one, those people make up for themselves.

Its a joke when you get the label of a Nazi or racist but when you talk with those people you know they just repeat their indoctrination.

A preface: Andrew McCarthy is an appalling cuck. Dan Simmons, whose site I found the following on, has become an even more appalling cuck despite whanging loud on the bell of Islamic war for ages. Those things aside, this made for very, very interesting reading:

Quote:Islam—Facts or Dreams?
February 2016 • Volume 45, Number 2 • Andrew C. McCarthy
Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Institute


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 24, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

In 1993 I was a seasoned federal prosecutor, but I only knew as much about Islam as the average American with a reasonably good education—which is to say, not much. Consequently, when I was assigned to lead the prosecution of a terrorist cell that had bombed the World Trade Center and was plotting an even more devastating strike—simultaneous attacks on the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the United Nations complex on the East River, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters—I had no trouble believing what our government was saying: that we should read nothing into the fact that all the men in this terrorist cell were Muslims; that their actions were not representative of any religion or belief system; and that to the extent they were explaining their atrocities by citing Islamic scripture, they were twisting and perverting one of the world’s great religions, a religion that encourages peace.

Unlike commentators and government press secretaries, I had to examine these claims. Prosecutors don’t get to base their cases on assertions. They have to prove things to commonsense Americans who must be satisfied about not only what happened but why it happened before they will convict people of serious crimes. And in examining the claims, I found them false.

One of the first things I learned concerned the leader of the terror cell, Omar Abdel Rahman, infamously known as the Blind Sheikh. Our government was portraying him as a wanton killer who was lying about Islam by preaching that it summoned Muslims to jihad or holy war. Far from a lunatic, however, he turned out to be a globally renowned scholar—a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium. His area of academic expertise was sharia—Islamic law.

I immediately began to wonder why American officials from President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno on down, officials who had no background in Muslim doctrine and culture, believed they knew more about Islam than the Blind Sheikh. Then something else dawned on me: the Blind Sheikh was not only blind; he was beset by several other medical handicaps. That seemed relevant. After all, terrorism is hard work. Here was a man incapable of doing anything that would be useful to a terrorist organization—he couldn’t build a bomb, hijack a plane, or carry out an assassination. Yet he was the unquestioned leader of the terror cell. Was this because there was more to his interpretation of Islamic doctrine than our government was conceding?

Defendants do not have to testify at criminal trials, but they have a right to testify if they choose to—so I had to prepare for the possibility. Raised an Irish Catholic in the Bronx, I was not foolish enough to believe I could win an argument over Muslim theology with a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence. But I did think that if what we were saying as a government was true—that he was perverting Islam—then there must be two or three places where I could nail him by saying, “You told your followers X, but the doctrine clearly says Y.” So my colleagues and I pored over the Blind Sheikh’s many writings. And what we found was alarming: whenever he quoted the Koran or other sources of Islamic scripture, he quoted them accurately.

Now, you might be able to argue that he took scripture out of context or gave an incomplete account of it. In my subsequent years of studying Islam, I’ve learned that this is not a particularly persuasive argument. But even if one concedes for the purposes of discussion that it’s a colorable claim, the inconvenient fact remains: Abdel Rahman was not lying about Islam.

When he said the scriptures command that Muslims strike terror into the hearts of Islam’s enemies, the scriptures backed him up.

When he said Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law was established throughout the world, the scriptures backed him up.

When he said Islam directed Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as their friends, the scriptures backed him up.

You could counter that there are other ways of construing the scriptures. You could contend that these exhortations to violence and hatred should be “contextualized”—i.e., that they were only meant for their time and place in the seventh century. Again, I would caution that there are compelling arguments against this manner of interpreting Islamic scripture. The point, however, is that what you’d be arguing is an interpretation.

The fact that there are multiple ways of construing Islam hardly makes the Blind Sheikh’s literal construction wrong. The blunt fact of the matter is that, in this contest of competing interpretations, it is the jihadists who seem to be making sense because they have the words of scripture on their side—it is the others who seem to be dancing on the head of a pin. For our present purposes, however, the fact is that the Blind Sheikh’s summons to jihad was rooted in a coherent interpretation of Islamic doctrine. He was not perverting Islam—he was, if anything, shining a light on the need to reform it.

Another point, obvious but inconvenient, is that Islam is not a religion of peace. There are ways of interpreting Islam that could make it something other than a call to war. But even these benign constructions do not make it a call to peace. Verses such as “Fight those who believe not in Allah,” and “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war,” are not peaceful injunctions, no matter how one contextualizes.

Another disturbing aspect of the trial against the Blind Sheikh and his fellow jihadists was the character witnesses who testified for the defense. Most of these people were moderate, peaceful Muslim Americans who would no more commit terrorist acts than the rest of us. But when questions about Islamic doctrine would come up—“What does jihad mean?” “What is sharia?” “How might sharia apply to a certain situation?”—these moderate, peaceful Muslims explained that they were not competent to say. In other words, for the answers, you’d have to turn to Islamic scholars like the Blind Sheikh.

Now, understand: there was no doubt what the Blind Sheikh was on trial for. And there was no doubt that he was a terrorist—after all, he bragged about it. But that did not disqualify him, in the minds of these moderate, peaceful Muslims, from rendering authoritative opinions on the meaning of the core tenets of their religion. No one was saying that they would follow the Blind Sheikh into terrorism—but no one was discrediting his status either.

Although this came as a revelation to me, it should not have. After all, it is not as if Western civilization had no experience dealing with Islamic supremacism—what today we call “Islamist” ideology, the belief that sharia must govern society. Winston Churchill, for one, had encountered it as a young man serving in the British army, both in the border region between modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the Sudan—places that are still cauldrons of Islamist terror. Ever the perceptive observer, Churchill wrote:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. . . . Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

Habitually, I distinguish between Islam and Muslims. It is objectively important to do so, but I also have a personal reason: when I began working on national security cases, the Muslims I first encountered were not terrorists. To the contrary, they were pro-American patriots who helped us infiltrate terror cells, disrupt mass-murder plots, and gather the evidence needed to convict jihadists. We have an obligation to our national security to understand our enemies; but we also have an obligation to our principles not to convict by association—not to confound our Islamist enemies with our Muslim allies and fellow citizens. Churchill appreciated this distinction. “Individual Moslems,” he stressed, “may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen.” The problem was not the people, he concluded. It was the doctrine.

What about Islamic law? On this topic, it is useful to turn to Robert Jackson, a giant figure in American law and politics—FDR’s attorney general, justice of the Supreme Court, and chief prosecutor of the war crimes trials at Nuremberg. In 1955, Justice Jackson penned the foreword to a book called Law in the Middle East. Unlike today’s government officials, Justice Jackson thought sharia was a subject worthy of close study. And here is what he concluded:

"In any broad sense, Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge—all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire—reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law."

Contrast this with the constitution that the U.S. government helped write for post-Taliban Afghanistan, which showed no awareness of the opposition of Islamic and Western law. That constitution contains soaring tropes about human rights, yet it makes Islam the state religion and sharia a principal source of law—and under it, Muslim converts to Christianity have been subjected to capital trials for apostasy.

Sharia rejects freedom of speech as much as freedom of religion. It rejects the idea of equal rights between men and women as much as between Muslim and non-Muslim. It brooks no separation between spiritual life and civil society. It is a comprehensive framework for human life, dictating matters of government, economy, and combat, along with personal behavior such as contact between the sexes and personal hygiene. Sharia aims to rule both believers and non-believers, and it affirmatively sanctions jihad in order to do so.

Even if this is not the only construction of Islam, it is absurd to claim—as President Obama did during his recent visit to a mosque in Baltimore—that it is not a mainstream interpretation. In fact, it is the mainstream interpretation in many parts of the world. Last year, Americans were horrified by the beheadings of three Western journalists by ISIS. American and European politicians could not get to microphones fast enough to insist that these decapitations had nothing to do with Islam. Yet within the same time frame, the government of Saudi Arabia beheaded eight people for various violations of sharia—the law that governs Saudi Arabia.

Three weeks before Christmas, a jihadist couple—an American citizen, the son of Pakistani immigrants, and his Pakistani wife who had been welcomed into our country on a fiancée visa—carried out a jihadist attack in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people. Our government, as with the case in Fort Hood—where a jihadist who had infiltrated the Army killed 13 innocents, mostly fellow soldiers—resisted calling the atrocity a “terrorist attack.” Why? Our investigators are good at what they do, and our top officials may be ideological, but they are not stupid. Why is it that they can’t say two plus two equals four when Islam is involved?

The reason is simple: stubbornly unwilling to deal with the reality of Islam, our leaders have constructed an Islam of their very own. This triumph of willful blindness and political correctness over common sense was best illustrated by former British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith when she described terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.” In other words, the savagery is not merely unrelated to Islam; it becomes, by dint of its being inconsistent with a “religion of peace,” contrary to Islam. This explains our government’s handwringing over “radicalization”: we are supposed to wonder why young Muslims spontaneously become violent radicals—as if there is no belief system involved.

This is political correctness on steroids, and it has dangerous policy implications. Consider the inability of government officials to call a mass-murder attack by Muslims a terrorist attack unless and until the police uncover evidence proving that the mass murderers have some tie to a designated terrorist group, such as ISIS or al Qaeda. It is rare for such evidence to be uncovered early in an investigation—and as a matter of fact, such evidence often does not exist. Terrorist recruits already share the same ideology as these groups: the goal of imposing sharia. All they need in order to execute terrorist attacks is paramilitary training, which is readily available in more places than just Syria.

The dangerous flipside to our government’s insistence on making up its own version of Islam is that anyone who is publicly associated with Islam must be deemed peaceful. This is how we fall into the trap of allowing the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamic supremacist organization, to infiltrate policy-making organs of the U.S. government, not to mention our schools, our prisons, and other institutions. The federal government, particularly under the Obama administration, acknowledges the Brotherhood as an Islamic organization—notwithstanding the ham-handed attempt by the intelligence community a few years back to rebrand it as “largely secular”—thereby giving it a clean bill of health. This despite the fact that Hamas is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, that the Brotherhood has a long history of terrorist violence, and that major Brotherhood figures have gone on to play leading roles in terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

To quote Churchill again: “Facts are better than dreams.” In the real world, we must deal with the facts of Islamic supremacism, because its jihadist legions have every intention of dealing with us. But we can only defeat them if we resolve to see them for what they are.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. A graduate of Columbia College, he received his J.D. at New York Law School. For 18 years, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, and from 1993-95 he led the terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Following the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the Justice Department’s command post near Ground Zero. He has also served as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and an adjunct professor at Fordham University’s School of Law and New York Law School. He writes widely for newspapers and journals including National Review, PJ Media, and The New Criterion, and is the author of several books, including Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotages America.

(04-05-2016 06:27 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  in many parts of the world

In all parts of the world more like, with the singular exception of places where muslims are less than 1% of the population.

(04-04-2016 08:52 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 07:46 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Two things you will notice as time goes on.

1: The French will always strike, they will get attacked and they will surrender
2: Muslims and illegal migrants will stay on point and will not defer from their chosen path. This path being the one we have witnessed over the years.

My bets are on the Muslims and migrants. The French will need a revolution of sorts to change their fate and right now they're more interested in acquiring mistresses, cucking their husbands with illicit children, getting fat off of EU subsidies, annoying the roast beefs, agreeing with Germany on everything, drinking wine.

France has beautiful countryside and nice towns but that'll only last as long as France keeps its migrant populations to the larger towns and cities. I don't see how their economy can survive so many leeches if the EU goes bankrupt.

Agree. I used to had hope thinking that the rebellious nature of the French represents hope, but in fact it represents a woman's nature. They will bitch about anything and everything and go on strike as long as nobody does anything. But when they get attacked brutally they clam up, keep silence and go back to their place.

Its like with a woman. Give her a beta cuck and she will complain, bitch and refuses sex. Give her an alpha and a few spanks and she goes back to the kitchen. No wonder people always refer to France as "her".

When I think of France I think Richelieu, Louis XIV, Napoleon. I think Fourier, Voltaire, Laplace. France was the uncontested jewel of western civilization until very recently. Fiver or so years ago I read an article about a german boy who moved to france and how weak and wimpy the boys seemed to him there. What happened to France?

http://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.de/20...pe-on.html

Dialogues on the death of Europe: On the necessity of prejudice

Quote:Owen: Today I’d like to talk about prejudice. Can we all agree that the dismantling of prejudices that we’ve seen in recent decades and years is a good thing?

Gregor: Not at all. I think it’s been catastrophic.

Owen: Catastrophic? How so?

Gregor: You could argue that a people really is just the sum total of its prejudices. So this “dismantling” of them, as you call it, is just a dismantling of a people’s identity.

Owen: Oh come on. The Germans are still the Germans. They still have love their beer and sausages even if they’ve learned to be more tolerant. Their prejudice wasn’t any essential element of their identity. It was an just irrelevant surface accretion, of no intrinsic value, like barnacles on a boat.

Isabel: Well I don’t think many of the “New Germans” love beer and sausages. The intrinsic value of the old prejudice was that it would have kept the non-beer-and-sausage-loving “New Germans” out.

Owen: So you’re now arguing that prejudice has practical value, utility, rather than merely what we might call aesthetic value as a component of a people’s identity?

Isabel: Yes. And the dismantling of prejudice, as you describe it, really just means the totalitarian repression of its overt expression. It means sending people to prison for saying the wrong things, hounding them from their jobs and so on. It involves a loss of freedom, subjecting people to harm and fear. It is not cost-free. It injures human well-being.

Owen: I acknowledge that. But the benefits outweigh the costs, in my view.

Isabel: The benefits of prejudice outweigh its costs in my view.

Owen: By why would we need prejudice? How can you seriously say that prejudice produces benefits?

Gregor: The world is too complex to work out everything from first principles every time. We need instincts to guide us to the right answer.

Owen: So we should act just like a horde of wild animals, abandon reason, let ourselves be driven by instinct alone?

Isabel: These are refined instincts.

Owen: What do you mean by that?

Isabel: Refined by millennia of experience, culture, the history of our ancestral community. They have passed the test of time.

Owen: But if that’s your criteria, the mere venerability of age, you could say that a bunch of cannibals on a Pacific island somewhere should go on eating people, because their “refined instincts”, which have “passed the test of time”, inherited from their “ancestral community”, tell them to do so.

Gregor: But their society is not successful compared to other societies, such as our own. You’re obsessed with universalism. I’m not trying to erect “do what your ancestors did” as a universally valid principle of conduct. I’m saying it makes sense us, for Europeans, because our societies have demonstrably been successful in offering freedom, prosperity and the potential for self-fulfilment to the people who live within them.

Owen: So those of us who have the good fortune to be born in these “successful societies” and, presumably, belong to these societies by descent, should simply follow our “refined instincts” and forget about using reason as a guiding principle for our action?

Isabel: There’s something to be said for that. Reason is an imperfect guide. Instinct, prejudice, often takes us to the right answer where reason fails.

Owen: Why is reason an “imperfect guide”?

Isabel: Our reason can only operate on the basis of our knowledge. And our knowledge is limited. Here’s an analogy. Let’s say we tried to terraform Mars or some other planet. All of our best scientists got together, spent years, decades even, studying the issue, and brought all of our accumulated knowledge to bear on it. They would attempt to construct a vastly complex ecosystem, so they’d map out a food chain that was intended to be sustainable. Animal A eats this plant, Animal B eats Animal A, this bird eats this insect and so forth. After making this extraordinary effort, we’d actually try and install the ecosystem, introduce the different species, make it work. Of course it would almost certainly fail, and probably very quickly. Why? Because a system like that is too complex for us to understand. However great our knowledge is, it isn’t great enough. There are things we don’t know and we don’t know that we don’t know them. However detailed the plan was, there would be some subtle thing that escaped the scientists’ understanding: some tiny microbe that performed some vital function in the food chain, perhaps, whose absence then caused the whole thing to unravel.

Owen: That’s a bit abstract. Can you give me some examples of instinct taking us to the right answer where reason failed?

Gregor: Looking at the 20th century, we can see the intellectuals got it wrong, time after time. They were entranced by Communism, multiculturalism, state interventionism in the economy, the European Union. Each time the clever people made catastrophic misjudgements, the instincts of ordinary, unintellectual people acted as a restraining influence upon them.

Isabel: I think the ideology of Equality, or the religion of Equality as I put it, offers us a very clear example of it. These ideas were minted in the mid-18th century. So scientific knowledge is still in a fairly primitive state. This was about a century before Darwin expounded his theory of evolution. Some of the intellectuals who spawned these ideas didn’t even believe in basic biological inheritance.

Owen: What do you mean by that?

Isabel: They didn’t believe that parents passed their characteristics on to their children! They thought that everything arose from lifetime experiences, that all difference was socially conditioned. So you have this bunch of intellectuals who alight on the idea that “People are all the same”. I mean really they’re just concerned about the social and economic unfairness within a specific society. Some people have to pay taxes. Some people are exempt. But rather than just focus on these specific grievances, they feel impelled to express their discontent in grandiose, universalistic terms. So “People are all the same” becomes this religious dogma that governs the society they help bring into being. And this dogma forms the basis of the multicultural experiment in Europe. “Even if the brown people coming in will have a few rough edges, after the first generation, they’ll be just like us, except for the colour of their skin”, said the multicultists. Because “People are all the same”, right? But we now know that isn’t true.

Owen: How do we know that?

Gregor: We could read the newspapers (laughs). But I know you love to disregard practical realities.

Isabel: Take the emotion of empathy as one example. Since the time this experiment began in the late 40s and 50s, we have acquired important scientific knowledge about the emotion of empathy. We now know that empathy is unconsciously regulated by genetic affinity. We instinctively empathise more greatly with people of our own race. This has been shown in scientific experiments. They hook people up to equipment that can monitor their brain function. We know which part of the brain regulates the emotion of empathy. Then they make people watch pictures of other people suffering. And they found that the “empathy circuits” in the brain fire more when the people suffering are of the same race as the person watching. This is an unconscious instinct, not a choice.

Gregor: What you call prejudices have been honed by millions of years of evolution. For them to have persisted for so long and become as widespread as they have, they must have had survival value.
Isabel: Exactly. They must in some way have facilitated the reproductive success of the tribes that practised them.

Owen: OK. How does, say, prejudice against homosexuals, which is virtually universal, have any kind of utility? It’s just senseless cruelty and barbarity.

Isabel: I beg to differ. Consider it in evolutionary terms. One tribe competing against other tribes. Numbers matter. How many spearmen can you bring to bear?

Gregor: How much cannon fodder have you got for the wars?

Isabel: Right. Homosexuals, if allowed to openly indulge their proclivities without shame, aren’t going to be making any contribution to maintaining the tribe’s population, are they? But if homosexuality is deprecated or harshly punished, the homosexuals are more likely to repress their instincts, form heterosexual partnerships to keep up appearances and, in the end, produce offspring, albeit half-heartedly.

Owen: So you’re actually justifying prejudice against homosexuals?

Isabel: It depends what you mean by that. I don’t know if I’m justifying it. I’m saying it has evolutionary utility. A tribe that practises this “prejudice” will likely prosper more greatly than a tribe that doesn’t practise it, other things being equal.

Gregor: When we talk about prejudice, what do we really mean? You, the Equality ideologues, call it hatred. But that’s deceitful. Prejudice is really just “expectations formation”. We are constantly forming expectations about the people and things we come across in life. It would be impossible to navigate the challenges of life without doing that. Anyone who had switched off this process of expectations formation would have been wiped out by evolution long ago. Even the much less brutal challenges of the modern world would probably prove fatal quite quickly.

Isabel: If I see an unknown negro, I immediately form expectations about him based on his generic characteristics. Of course, this is done for the most part unconsciously. Describing it in this way makes it sound like a deliberative process. Based on information I’ve previously acquired about negroes, I would probably form the following expectations about him. He is much more likely than average to be a violent criminal, to be of below average intelligence, to be unemployed, to be physically fit, to be nurturing some grievance against Europeans, to support left-wing political parties, restrictions on free speech and immigration policies that will alter the demographics of my society to the disadvantage of Europeans.

There is no hatred involved in this picture of probabilities that I form in my mind. Nor is there any conclusiveness to it. At every point, I acknowledge that this individual negro may depart from this group-based statistical norm. Any individual can sit anywhere on the vast spectrum of human variation. The question is whether the prejudice is based on accurate information. Does this informal set of probabilities that I have automatically assigned to the negro conform to the known facts, or is it grounded in fantasy?

Owen: But don’t you acknowledge that these expectations have in the past often shown to be wildly wrong?

Isabel: How so?

Owen: Well, take prejudice against negroes in the past. You may claim that you acknowledge the possibility that negroes can be extremely intelligent. But in the historical record we can see plenty of examples of people who considered negroes to be a lower form of life, incapable of equalling the higher, intellectual achievements of European man.

Isabel: This is true. I freely acknowledge that this process of expectations formation occasionally misfires. And the expectations come to be refined or even, in some cases, confounded by experience. It doesn’t follow from that, however, that the process of expectations formation has no useful value or should be shut down completely, even if that were possible, which it isn’t.

Owen: Surely we should strive to judge people by their own individual merits rather than engage in “expectations formation” based on their generic characteristics.

Gregor: Of course we should. And we do. When I have enough knowledge about someone as an individual, I judge them as an individual. But there are many contexts in which we don’t have that degree of knowledge.

Owen: Such as?

Gregor: Most contexts really. Whenever we come across unknown people in real life, or some new politician appears on the scene, we virtually never have complete or even comprehensive knowledge about the other person. Prejudice is just a tool for managing uncertainty.

Isabel: It’s really just a set of predictive algorithms, and we would be lost without it.

Owen: I honestly can’t believe this. In my view, the triumph over prejudice that we have seen in Europe over the last few decades is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. I find it incredible that obviously intelligent people such as you can see it as a bad thing.

Gregor: Owen, the jihad attacks we’re now seeing routinely, the “new normal” as they put it; the tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of British children who have been enslaved, raped and tortured by the new brown-skinned “Britons”; these are the practical results of your “triumph over prejudice”. Prejudice was the guard at the frontier. Prejudice was the sentinel on the wall. You took it away. With catastrophic consequences. This is what happens when your fine, philosophical abstractions collide with reality. And yet you cling to them even after the collision has taken place.

Isabel: We’ve just had a few minor scrapes so far. The real collision is yet to come.

^ "You're obsessed with universalism."

Truth about every socialist and communist in history.

Quote:When I think of France I think Richelieu, Louis XIV, Napoleon. I think Fourier, Voltaire, Laplace. France was the uncontested jewel of western civilization until very recently. Fiver or so years ago I read an article about a german boy who moved to france and how weak and wimpy the boys seemed to him there. What happened to France?

DISCLAIMER: I can only speak from my experience, which is Paris and metropolitan France.

A) Economically, France is a huge fucking Ponzi scheme, taxing the productive people to death to pay for the unproductive.

This article explains it better than I can:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-next.html



C) Militarily, France is already well on course to repeat history with the Roman empire: the foedoerati (barbarian mercenaries fighting for Rome) is almost half of the French army now, if not more. I've not seen one single squad of trooper or gendarme that doesn't have women, black and muslim in it. Ironically, the best military unit is the Foreign Legion....

French attitude to military glory is a huge case of "history is written by the winner". Napoleon is universally despised by the left and some of the right, because, despite the glory, he lost in the end. The humiliation and damage the French suffers are irreparable. There was a source that states that French gene lost 5 inches of height because most tall, strong soldier served as grenadier and were the first to die.

After their defeat and subjugation during the Franco-Prussian War, then losses at WWI, then WW2, then their defeat in Vietnam, the French have been universally convinced that war is wrong and lead only to defeat and humiliation. All the noble martial pursuits are shunned or at best, relegated to recreational. Even here most practitioner are non-ethnic French.

This ties in with the culture to severely weaken masculinity in France.


B) Culturally, the very same people who you cited contributed somewhat to France's downfall. French are known for its philosopher, authors and artits, but that was at the time when pursuing these was an exclusive and noble pursuit? Now? It's the fucking national major. Every Charline and Sophie that you would love to day game, are sitting on a bench in jardin des Tuileries reading Simone de Beauvoir during her 10th year at university after switching from Modern literature to Arts History. Her boyfriend that you will cuckold is François the hipster who loves drinking wine at midnight and protesting against discrimination during the day.

The noble pursuit of the soul has become a disease affliction, a perversion of the past. Every fucking hipster you know is a Phd candidate on his 7+ year doctorate, citing Foucaut on how the government oppresses you, while forgetting that Jean Jacques Rousseau, the man who wrote the social contract, explicitly states that in order for a society to work both the state must protect property rights and cultural integrity of the landowner. Apparently these hispters count themselves among "landowners"

French women, well persuaded that she is superior to man because Enlightenment and stuff, promotes and encourages this perversion of masculinity. This leads to an interesting phenomenon: in French, beta gets laid. I was discussing this with another RVF the other day, and concluded that this must be the reason. French girls get off of being able to control a man and feel powerful, so beta orbiter game actually gets you laid.

Of course, being women, they are still naturally attracted to alpha men (which are mostly migrants nowadays). Hence why its quite common to see black men groping girls in clubs with impunity. You'd be surprised with the number of hot chicks with black gangster dudes here.

All the other advantages in France promote the idea of luxury and complacency: good food, good wine, easy sex, long vacation days.

Not to mention that the flower of chivalry and enlightenment is seeing a decline in their intellectual. I dont agree with everything in this article, but it does paint a general picture of how intellectualism in France nowadays is a lot of mental mastubation. All theory that seves no purpose. Even sociology, France's social science of pride, is now championed by the USA, who takes a much more practical approach to it.

http://www.politico.eu/article/decline-o...y-history/

=====================


All of this are not necessarily bad but it sure aint good for building a strong resistance either. Personally I enjoy staying here because this is the perfect place to "enjoy the decline". If the world is going down, and it would in Europe (USA too when Trump loses), might as well have the most fun before it does. Then get the fuck out.

You’ve clearly been spending way too much time in Paris, in my opinion.

This would apply to any second-tier city as well, actually. In the larger cities you’re mostly going to be stumbling on students, civil servants, bullshit artists, journalists, lawyers etc.



In the place where I live, the only guy who’s got a PhD is the local general practitioner, rugby jocks get laid the most and pork is the vegetable of choice. I’ve only been to Paris twice in my life and I don’t really like the culture (or lack thereof) there. That place never really stroke me as ‘home’.

I see where you're coming from though, all the issues you alluded to must be dealt with immediatly or it will be too late.

Quote:C) Militarily, France is already well on course to repeat history with the Roman empire: the foedoerati (barbarian mercenaries fighting for Rome) is almost half of the French army now, if not more. I've not seen one single squad of trooper or gendarme that doesn't have women, black and muslim in it. Ironically, the best military unit is the Foreign Legion....



Careful here, as I know from relevant personal experience that a lot of military personnel come from our oversea territories and as such are not of recent migrant stock.



I grew up in a military town, most of my childhood friends are military brats and I’ve never seen a huge black/muslim presence. I don’t think they’re a significant threat anyway. I’m much more wary of all those white leftard teachers brainwashing our kids into submission every single day. 



In some places there have been clashes (small battles!) between troopers and ghetto arabs (http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/l...303.html). I know a lot of men that are/were involved in our military and they don’t like invaders, trust me on this.

Quote:
There was a source that states that French gene lost 5 inches of height because most tall, strong soldier served as grenadier and were the first to die.


However the French gene pool has been rejuvenated by Poles, Italians, Spaniards and the Portuguese etc since.

Interestingly enough, your post has a very French undertone to it. Just saying