Whilst you were busy with your turkey – or rather, with your Jihad on its remains – in Egypt more than 300 Muslims were brutally massacred in an attack planned with chilling cruelty. The attach happened in North Sinai, which happens to be near Israel.
Do you think that, therefore, the attack was perpetrated by, say, militant Jews coming from Israel? Or perhaps by the sparsely still existing Christians living in Egypt!
The brutal attack was perpetrated by, actually, Muslims; Muslims who are so fond of the “religion of peace” that they cannot tolerate the breathing of people, belonging to the same “religion of peace”, peacefully attending their own strange rites.
I seriously wonder what Islam would look like if it were a religion of war, strife, violence and massacre instead of a religion of peace. Would we see Muslims constantly massacring each other and, when they take a pause from it, trying to massacre Christians and Jews? Would we see them become such a force for evil that they surge to be the only inspiration of international terrorism? Would we see them engaging in genocide on a vast scale in mixed faith Countries like Nigeria, or in the brutal, systematic persecution and killing of Christians in Countries like Syria and Iraq as they descend to the most brutal enslavement of their own people, sharing their very same religion of (cough) peace?
That Islam be a “religion of peace” must be the most tragic joke, or rather willed and systematically pushed deception, of our time.
The last terrorist attack in London caused… 22 hospitalised people at last count. Knowing this Country, I suspect this includes everyone with a bruised toe.
I cannot but notice that, once again, the London population realises what an excellent work the security forces are doing, neutralising all but very few, and perhaps the most stupid attempts; which, being amateurish, can more easily be planned and executed fast, outside of the security radar.
Mind, though, that what is now sporadic terrorist violence, and can still be controlled, will be much more difficult to control when the number of Mohammedans grows and the episodes of violence become too frequent to be effectively controlled. Then it will be, at some point, open fight, and I am not sorry to say that the White Man will crush the posterior of the Brown Invader, as they have always done in the last many centuries.
Not without countless deaths, though, and widely spread violence. A violence we are attracting with our own stupidity, and which will make every suffering inflicted on us self-inflicted, and therefore amply deserved.
Terrorists are not what they used to be. The security services are doing sterling work. But you can't avoid civil wars simply with security services: when the tipping point has been reached, it's open, violent confrontation.
Often, in history, vast upheavals have been considered improbable merely years before they happened: the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil War are two well-known examples, right in the middle of Europe.
Our own stupidity might be preparing a horrible, possibly continental civil war for our children. A civil war I do not doubt we would win; but a completely avoidable one, brought on us by our own stupidity.
Look at how many headlines mention Islam!
One would think the attackers were just nervous because of the heat
The “Gateway Pundit” (recommended reading for Mundabor supporters) has an interesting article concerning the Polish Government. Their position is simple: you don't want Islamic terrorism? Don't import Muslims then!
This is, obviously, common sense. But it makes headlines in a time in which common sense flies out of the window because some overweight German bitch wants you to conform to the Merkelprinzip.
What the Poles got and Western Europe doesn't is this: Muslim immigrants and Islamic terrorism are like, erm, horse and carriage: you can't get one without the other.
Whilst it is certainly true that most Muslims are peaceful people, this is not the way to assess the degree of danger represented by a religion. You can be certain that among the Aztecs most people were peaceful, too, but theirs still was an extremely brutal, cruel, bloody religion.
Islam condones or encourages violence against non-Muslims. It does not matter that it sends ambivalent messages about being both bloody and peaceful: the aggressive, murderous component is there, and the more a Muslim is devout to his religion, the more likely he is to either condone or promote or put in act this violence. Islam also promotes the forced islamisation of a country and the subservience of the non-Muslims, even when they leave you alive.
This is particularly true of the Sunni (have you noticed that Muslim terrorists are, basically, always Sunnis?) because the Shia have, like Catholics, a doctrinal system condemning such acts, whilst the Sunnis are the sola scriptura people of the Muslim world. Unavoidably, some people will get the gist of the violent message of the paedophile so-called prophet and follow his commands to the letter. The more so as, being a sola scriptura types, they are really so dumb as to think they will get himself killed in the morning and screw girls in their porn paradise in the afternoon.
These are all elements we cannot expunge from Islam, because they are intrinsic to it. In the case of the Sunnis (the clear majority of the Muslims) terrorism is literally built in. In the case of the Shiah, the threat of forced islamisation is.
Every sane Westerner would therefore agree, if we lived in sane times, that Islam itself is the problem and the task of European Government must be to peacefully, but certainly, eradicate it. Even more obviously, he would agree that where there are no Muslims none must be imported.
This is common sense. But it appears Western Europeans hate common sense as they hate themselves (or better said, hate their Christian matrix), and they prefer to remain blind to a danger now developing at a faster pace.
To prevent is better than to repress. Every liberal would tell you that. Alas, when it comes to Muslims they want to have the problem first, thinking they will “teddy bear-away” it later.
Not happening, I am afraid. We will either wake up or end up with the ISIS ruling parts of Europe (not Poland, Hungary or Russia) at some point.
You see them at trains stations, or in shopping malls, or near tourist destinations. Armed policemen. This is historically unusual in a Country like England, where the policeman is often unarmed. But these ones sport not only pistols, but short-ish guns looking like rifles or carbines to me.
The weapons look the part, though the policemen don’t. They smile at children, make an effort to be extra friendly, and generally endeavour to look non-threatening to the populace. But the message is clear: I want you to feel reassured by my smiling, armed presence.
Your typical UK terrorist would likely not try to go on a shooting spree. Too risky to get the weapons and to provide for the necessary training (whatever they told you in the movies, shooting people ain’t so easy). Rather, they would use devices like trucks, cars, or bomb vests. No training needed, and the results are pretty much assured. Not much a rifle can do against it, either. It will stop the terrorist at some point, but only when said terrorist has mowed down a dozen or three according to the distance of the friendly policeman. As to the self-exploding bastards: when they’re up in the air, that’s it.
Yours truly observes the smiling, rifle-carrying policemen and cannot avoid two considerations:
- Either it is useful to have a gun or it isn’t. If it is useful I, as a law-abiding citizen, want to be free to carry one. If it isn’t useful, then the police should wear smiles instead of rifles. But you see, they do carry the rifles. It works, then.
- The willed, planned immigration of millions with a different religion from our own has caused this. This immigration was pushed by largely Labour governments, and by weak and stupid Tory Governments, in the Fifties to Seventies. It is clear that the aim was to de-Christianise England. Have an awful lot of Hindus, Sikh and Muslims coming in and at some point Christianity will cease to be the defining moral system of the Country, and the Religion Of Man will take its place. It worked, though I must say the so-called Church of England and our very own priests have helped a lot. But it also means to import the problems always linked to importing Muslims. Then where there are many Muslims you know trouble can’t be far away.
And this is where we are now, with smiling policemen sporting pistols and rifles I am not allowed to carry; because I cannot save my life on my own, you see, the job being forcibly contracted to a friendly professional who will likely arrive there to protect me after I am dead.
This Country is braced for a good dose of religion of peace. But it is a strong Country, and it will react at some point.
As to the Germans, God save them; though clearly they don’t deserve it in the least.
Turns out white collar natives are responsible for almost all of the violent crimes in Sweden.
Mainly accountants, bankers and lawyers. The percentage of crimes committed by dentist and medical doctors is also clearly on the rise.
The figures back up veteran Swedish police officer Peter Springare’s assertion that crimes he processed, which include rape, assault, violence against police, drug trafficking and murder, were almost exclusively committed by someone named “Bjorn” or a variation of that name and the culprits were invariably from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Danemark or Iceland.
If you don't believe me, click the link above and check for yourself.
I really think that we should do something against these people.
The attack in Manchester does have an element of novelty: that the Manchester Arena terrorists targeted children and teenagers. The Religion of Peace never ceases to surprise.
All the rest is identical: a tidal wave of sugary common places, always the same phrases, always the same official statements, always the same nonsense. As I write here, an idiot on Sky states “it does not matter who did it”. Go figure.
The root cause of the problem is not being addressed. Therefore, the problem will remain.
This time the dead are (for now) 22, and this is not only stolen lives, but broken families. Who knows how many they will be next time. That there will be a next time, there can be no doubt.
I look at all this not only with sadness, but with a clear perception of the historical processes that are happening: our Western institution have invited this cancer within themselves, and this cancer is now developing as it is designed to do.
Meanwhile, the praise of the multicultural society goes on unabated on all the major UK channels. It truly beggars belief.
The Metropolitan Police (also familiarly known as “Scotland Yard”) today revealed a new, in time 600-strong “rapid deployment force” created to deal with what we all know (but the Met won't say) is the threat posed by Muslim terrorists.
Well-armed, trained for urban warfare, and motorcycle mounted, the 600 are supposed to be there very rapidly after a terror attack has been launched.
Alas, at that point you and many others will be dead already.
In line with the slightly surreal exercise of training 600 to protect 7 million, the police has suggested that, in case of attack, we should firstly “hide”; and, if it does not work, “run”.
What a continent of pussycats we have become.
This would be the time for the British Government to make new laws making it far easier for the sound population to get a permit to carry, obviously looking closely into the background of the applicant. This would be the time to say to the people of London that in the same way they reacted to the threat of the Blitz all together, they should now all together react to the new Muslim threat and protect each other. The new enemy does not come from the sky, but from the nearest train station, the underground carriage, the double decker bus. It is necessary that the defence is as diffused as the threat is. The best and most immediate defence is always the one put in place by the people who are there, not the largely psychological measure of a motorcycle policeman arriving after you have been executed.
Nor can one say that this is too dangerous, London having too many Muslims. I can't imagine a single Muslim terrorist stopped in his tracks by the fact of not having a gun permit; but I can imagine a huge number of decent citizen prevented from defending themselves for the same reason.
A Country whose police force suggests to grown men to hide and run (I am sorry, dear wife and child; you are clearly not fast enough; but I will remember you fondly…) instead of arming, training and preparing themselves is a Country that emasculates his own people, reducing them to sheep to whom it is told the biker-mounted shepherd dog should arrive fast enough to save, hopefully, some of them.
A man has not only the right, but the duty to protect himself and those he loves. A government that does not allow him to do is a government that conculcates a basic human right of his citizen.
But hey, we will soon have 600 needles in a 7 million haystack.
I must say, for once Pope Francis is right. It is time for us to make an examination of conscience and look at the violence within our ranks.
Who among us was not shocked at seeing Catholic Fundamentalists burn poor, defenceless Muslims by the dozen?
Where are we, when fundamentalist Catholics behead poor Muslims, and put videos of it on Youtube?
Why there is no condemnation every time fundamentalists Catholics jump on a truck and kill 80 innocent people, or attack people on a train with a machete shouting “Christ is great”, or blow themselves up in the air at a music festival?
Why there is never a march made by Catholics not against “all violence” (which is generic and too easy), but specifically against Catholic violence: the beheading, the burning, the mutilations, the beating to death with a metal Rosary, and all those horrible things Catholics do (as Pope Francis reminded us) and no one ever dares to criticise?
Eh? Eh? No?
Now, you might say that Muslims kill people, too. I open my newspaper and read of the one or other Muslim who has, say, killed his wife, or girlfriend. But this is different.
These are people who commit a crime and happen to be Muslims; still, Islam is nothing to do with their crime. They were not motivated by their being Muslims. They did not commit their crime because they are Muslims, or to promote Islam! Islam is the religion of peace!
Instead, when Catholics keep beheading Muslims and shout “Christ is great”, they obviously do this just because they are Catholics! How can we not be appalled at all those beheadings, burning, throwing homos from roofs, mutilations, and all that stuff committed by Catholics, in the name of Christianity, every day?
Do the Hindus commit such acts? The Buddhists? The Shintoists? The Jews? The Muslims??
It’s only, and always, the Christians!
Pope Francis is right. We must stop being such terrorists!
Perhaps we should all convert to Islam?
If we did, then we would live in peace….
Cardinal Sarah has asked how many will have to die before Europe opens its eyes to reality. My answer to this is: very many, but Europe will most certainly open its eyes in time to avoid the worst.
We see here two forces at work: on the one hand, the desire to go on with the effeminate “peace and love” ideology with which one and a half generation of Europeans has been indoctrinated and which is so dear, warm and comfortable to them. On the other hand, reality.
The cognitive dissonance is making itself heard here and there, but still there is enough stupidity around for the majority of people to make excuses. Unavoidably, this will cause a worsening of the situation, until the high water of reality overcomes the dams of easy rhetoric and dear illusions of indefinite peace, without ever having to defend it.
We have a great advantage in the upcoming fight: that Islam is too savage a religion to allow for coordinated, disciplined mass deception. The scenario in which 100,000 Islamists behave like perfect citizens and patiently, orderly, silently wait for the day they start terrorising a Country all together is not realistic. Rather, the radicalisation will always lead to a number of uncoordinated, more or less spontaneous attacks. I doubt the ISIS could stop a 21 years old idiot lusting after his alleged 72 virgins. I even doubt they would want to. This is a religion of bloody savages, not of Machiavellian strategists. They will always prefer a massacre today to an attempted coup d'état in twenty years' time.
Every one who is slaughtered opens the eyes of one thousand who weren't. The process will be slow, but unstoppable. And as more and more gets slaughtered, more and more will open their eyes to reality and start voting accordingly. Slaughtered priests (and in time, unavoidably, bishops and cardinals) will cause an even greater awakening. There is no way anyone can stop this.
There there is the other aspect of uncoordinated, soontaneous attacks: they go against the wrong crowd. If the Islamists would decide to only massacre Christians, this would allow the army of atheists to keep deluding themselves. But they don't. They massacre perverts fifty at a time. They attack people in casual situations, like in a train. They attack masses celebrating purely secular feasts like Bastille Day in France. Soon, atheists and perverts will discover that Islamists attack them, too. Watch the rhetoric of “tolerance” whither and die, then.
Of course, this is not going to happen overnight. A huge wheel must be put in motion here, and an enormous inertia will have to be overcome. But once it has taken some speed, this is a wheel no Merkel, no Hollande and no Francis will be able to stop.
One can avoid getting to terms with reality only for so long. When the danger starts becoming acute, instinct will demand that once cheered fable are abandoned and reality embraced.
I am not sure if I am losing count but if I remember correctly, after the massacre in Nice we had the following:
In a peaceful Bavarian German small-ish city, a mad Mohammedam tried to hack a dozen people to death on a train.
In a beautiful German city, a deranged Mohammedan killed nine people and sent another twenty or more to hospital before sending himself to hell with the Akhbar-Express. A million+ city paralysed for several hours.
In a small Bavarian city, another Mohammedan on the vigil of having his ass kicked out to Bulgaria decided it was better to blow himself out in the air during a crowded open-air festival. Luckily, he was too stingy to buy the entry ticket. But hey, he could afford the smartphone on which he had his own jihad-mini video. Truly desperate, these “migrants”. One feels like crying.
Now, only two of the three had an obvious Islamist background; but… can you see a trend here?
And wait, I forgot! There was the other chap who chopped his own wife to pieces with a machete, in broad daylight, also in Germany, in the hours before the last attack (Anspach, in case you have struggled following). Was he Buddhist? Hindu? Jew? Christian? Alas, no prize for getting it right….
The machete guy would have made the news the entire day, if another Mohammedan madman hadn't stolen the scene. And by the by, where the heck do they get their machetes from?
I am almost afraid to visit the site of the ARD now.
However, if I did, I can't imagine I would read of some pious Catholic trying to hack a couple of dozen Muslims to pieces.
I wonder why?
It is all here, from the very voice of Vatican Radio.
The nuns have not been brutally murdered (together with many others) by Muslim fanatics, but by very generic “attackers”. Who might have killed the nuns, one would think, because… who knows?
Then the old man came out with the following pearl of wisdom:
Expressing his closeness to the religious Order, he said the nuns “gave their blood for the Church”’ and that they were not only victims of the attackers but also of “this indifference of globalization.”
The man was very possibly drunk. I can well imagine that one like him, after having drunk too much, would improvise in an incoherent way and, not entirely mindful of his own words, would stutter that “the indifference of globalisation” (we use British spelling here, just so you know…) might have had something to do with the brutal murder of 16 people by the hand of Muslim butchers. Which, mind, would still be less bad than to know that the man is, in fact, evil enough to exploit this tragedy to promote his own (drunken) agenda as he covers just another Muslim atrocity.
Not happy with having deflected from the real problem, the good man wants to give us… more of it. He praised the arrival of
“one hundred refugees who have already arrived in Italy and amongst whom there are minors, sick people, disabled people, war widows with children and elderly people”.
How moving. And how many of those are Christians? How many are neither minors, nor sick, nor disabled, nor widows? Why need even the minors etc absolutely need to be in Italy? is Turkey (paid by Italian money, even. I feel generous and full of solidarity) not good enough, or not safe enough?
With the same intervention, Francis has managed to cover Muslim atrocities as he wants to upload more of theproblem on us.
The man hates Christian Europe.
But then again, on this occasion he might have been simply drunk.
I read somewhere that when in Canada the percentage of children born out-of-wedlock reached 40%, a magazine gave the news a cover with the rather politically incorrect title of “A Nation Of Bastards”, or the like. Of course, the fact is true, but it is very insensitive to say the truth, and therefore such inconvenient truths should be rather ignored in favour of inclusiveness and sensitivity.
Some days ago the same percentage for the UK was announced, and it was (by memory) north of 47%, certainly abundantly in the Forties.
Inconvenient truths come to mind as to what a nation this here is, but in the case of England at least another phenomenon certainly plays a role: Islam.
The Mohammedans are of the opinion that a husband must be able to ditch his wife rather easily if he thinks it fit. I suspect it even applies to the wife, though in this case the temptation must be somewhat less frequent and far less strong. Still, the Mohammedan idea of the sacredness of marriage clashes a lot with the very feminist praxis of the tribunals of these isles, which actually share the conviction that not even pre-nuptial agreements must be allowed to come between a woman and the half of the assets of her husband once the marriage has proven itself for a while. Therefore, the number is probably so high also because a substantial number of Muslim children are officially
bastards born out-of-wedlock, whilst unofficially they are the product of a stable marriage of the heathen kind; heathen, yes, but far more stable than many marriages of their once Christian counterparts.
Another evidence of this is in the frequency of the name Mohammed, now the most frequent child’s name in Britain.
Contrarily to what the article states this fact has been known for years now, but the fact still remains: no boy’s name is as popular as Mohammed, or one of its many variations.
Therefore, this is a Country of and more… children born out-of-wedlock, who are in non irrelevant part belonging to a religion that will make them carry rather thick beard, and of whom some are destined to become, at least in their aspirations – may their wish not come true – specialists in brutal killings.
A country of bastards, many of them with future beards, some of them aspiring to beheadings.
This is Britain in 2014.