Thursday, 30 May 2013

The multicult thrives in the Netherlands, too, as the following article makes clear. But the commentary of Dutch Counterjihad activist E J Bron shows that there is also resistance to it.

These are not my translations, but come from a Dutch correspondent.

The British woman, who the perpetrator spoke to seconds after the gruesome murder in London, had asked him: what possessed him? And she proves it: ‘we all have the choice not to give in to the fear’, says Joris Luyendijk.

Who? Journalist, columnist of this newspaper, lives in London.

What? A terrorist does not kill many people, but sows fear in many.

Fear is a bad counselor, and after such a murder as Woolwich (London) - last Wednesday - I always keep one thing in mind: a terrorist does not want to make many people dead. A terrorist wants to make many people mad with fear.

Everyone can decide for him or herself whether the creeps with a machete, who had killed a British soldier, will succeed. The Jihadist terrorists have no army. And despite all their propaganda, the average Muslim still has nothing to do with them. But terrorists are trying to get at us where we can be really vulnerable: In our brain!

Unfortunately, I am quite used to attacks and violence; when I was a Middle East correspondent in East Jerusalem, a bus was blown up, several times, diagonally opposite our house. Once our neighbor found a hand of a victim in his garden.

Like other people who work in war zones, I have to deal with the question: how do you deal with fear that is released by seeing, through a camera, an obvious disturbed man with bloody hands shouting that no one is safe?

My answer: realize that you have a choice not to give in to fear. The most extreme example was given immediately after the attack yesterday. By a lady who held, in the best British tradition, her upper lip stiff and came up to the offender. She asked what he was planning and heard that the man now wanted to kill police officers. The woman told afterwards in an interview: I asked him if that was a reasonable thing to do.

Growling Tigers

Fear is a vital evolutionary reflex. But imagine what would had happened if they (people of today) were cavemen with a screen in their cave who see, day in and day out, images of growling hungry tigers and lions? That is the universe in which we are living now. We see frightening images and an essential part of our brain does not understand that these things are very exceptional and take place far away from us. In Israel, year after year, far more people died in traffic accidents than in attacks. But it does not feel that way.

The terrorists have cornered this part of our brain. That is our Achilles heel in an era of ubiquitous cameras and social and mass media.

That the perpetrators of Woolwich wanted to frighten us, makes them terrorists. But the ones who keep a cool head also have other questions afterwards: is this a psychopath grabbing an alibi for his bloodlust? Whether he really believes that the UK is at war and why he attacked a soldier? In the latter case, you must conclude that America has been exeuting opponents in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan in the same way for years. But that happens with drones and the perpetrators give no interviews afterwards.


Anyone who thinks that all aggression must be politically motivated makes the problem even bigger than it already is. And who ever thinks positively about terror encourages the latter too. But it's just so naive to think that yesterday's events are by definition independent of the foreign policy of the West.

And E J Bron's reply.

Joris Luyendijk contributes ‘cents in the church bag’ after the massacre on the streets of London. “What can we do to deprive terrorists of the lust to kill? There comes ‘insightful Joris’ with something original in mind.

Joris: “Fear is a bad counselor, and after such a murder as Woolwich (London) - last Wednesday - I always keep one thing in mind: a terrorist does not want to make many people dead. A terrorist wants to make many people mad with fear.
Everyone can decide for him or herself whether the creeps with a machete, who had killed a British soldier, will succeed.
The fact that the perpetrators of Woolwich wanted to scare us herein, makes them terrorists. "

Jesus Christ! What a level of pompous pseudo-intellectuality does this male reach here? By this frivolous coquetry, he responds to an attack on the West, on its own culture and its own people. He believes he is defending Western values. But the way he is choosing is not only frivolous and coquettish but also stupid. Of course there is an absolute correlation between the amount of victims a terrorist makes and the amount of fear he sows.

Joris goes further by playing the card of moral equivalence. That means: he will judge, without taking moral positions as such. This is the specialty of Luyendijk and his henchmen. They shall refrain from any moral judgment, but. . . . . . if the West is to be condemned, then they will be at the front.

In the vision of people who cherish the system of moral equivalence impeding someone is always wrong; even though you hinder in one case a murderer and in the other case an ambulance worker. It is very ‘cool’, because Joris is ‘cool’. Joris and his cronies would have said about the attempt on Hitler’s life in July 1944 : "Look. Murdering Jews is of course reprehensible, but the attack on Hitler is for sure not that nice too! What does Luyendijk say in this case?
Here it goes:

Joris: "(...)He really means ( the terrorist) that the UK is at war, and therefore he had attacked a soldier? In the latter case, you must conclude that America has been executing opponents in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan in the same way for years. But that happens with drones and the perpetrators give no interviews afterwards’

Does Joris say (mean) that the actions of Western armies are as terrorist as those of the Muslims who had cut off a man’s head in a street in London? Was Bouyerie, the murderer of van Gogh, a legitimate soldier Joris? The language of Luyendijk is very messy, but this is what I read and I do not see how you could interpret it differently.

"The perpetrators gave no interviews afterwards," said Joris, but in the West it is nevertheless true that the government is accountable to Parliament. So how is "no interviews" be explained?. What the hell it is all about?

The supporters of the ‘moral equivalence thought’ claim actually that they see no reason for choosing a side in the conflict between Islam and the West. This has consequences. For example: what should Luyendijk do when he meets an Islamic authority figure? Would he grant him the same authority as the one he grants to a Western cop? That would be consistent. But if Luyendijk will indeed act that way, he surely will be, with the greatest ease, an accomplice of Islamic attackers.
Would Luyendijk go to the police when he gets ‘the slightest smell’ of a planned attack? Or would he go around the corner to stand by in order to be the first journalist present? If Luyendijk is not going to provide direct services or an aiding hand (to the Muslim attackers), I would like to hear, why he would not do that?
Doesn’t he deliver, right now, by his idiotic perception, a very important service to the Muslim torturers and murderers?

The conception that judges acts as such, without looking at the background or context, is widely espoused in left-wing circles. Left wingers can not act differently, because they fail to see that NOT all cultures are equal to each other. Due to their distorted view they cannot get out of their beaks that the West, although not perfect, OBVIOUSLY had built the best society the world has ever seen. At the same time they eagerly devour the fruits of the West. If you talk to them on this inconsistency ‘of sawing the tree from which you eat’, their statement reads that "criticism" is a good thing to keep the tree strong. Yes, that's true. But there is a difference between conscientious, honest criticism and false deception. The claim that a soldier, who is firing a rocket in Afghanistan, is the moral equal of Islamic terrorist murderers is deceptive. And this deception is deliberately placed in position. Here a lie is willingly and knowingly told.

The situation is crystal clear. Islam is the global aggressor. And what an aggressor? There's no ethical brake on. That's unbridled cruelty and merciless violence. From the filthy civilization that Islam is, comes a smell of pus, pus and dissolution. Often literally; as one more Christian village is eradicated.

Also in London the situation was clear: Two Muslims have killed a man on the street and their motive was pure Islamic aggression against a non-Muslim. "But it was a soldier!" say the left wingers then. "And he was in Afghanistan!" Yes, but why was he in Afghanistan? That was a response to Islamic aggression on 9-11 which came to us. This strategy, in which left wingers blame Western violence, is very easy to see through. It is a reversal of cause and effect. Which left wingers constantly do. You see it very clearly when it comes to Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Left wingers are whining than about "roadblocks" but refuse to wonder why those roadblocks were erected.

A third issue that stands out among people, to whom Joris Luyendijk is a hero, is that they are hyper critical toward the West and that they are almost completely blind to failures elsewhere and certainly failures in the Islamic world. That those people do not hang themselves for shame is the thing that surprised me most of all.

So what we have here?:

1. Moral equivalence: the act in itself is assessed without regard to motive, situation etc..

2. Reversal of cause and effect: a response to aggression is seen as initial aggression.

3. A hypercritical attitude towards the West and an extreme indulgence regarding the crimes of Muslims.

Those three degenerate in a disgusting notion that reads: We, Westerners, are much worse than Muslims everywhere and guilty. All suffering on earth is the fault of the West.

Maybe Luyendijk was drunk, or he was hit by the poisoned atmosphere in England. He works for The Guardian. A paper which holds the point of view that essentially there is nothing wrong with Islam. No, the Western attitude toward Islam is wrong! The Guardian came out yesterday with a great article that clearly stated that the entire Muslim community of England is doing everything to stop Islamic terrorism. That's just downright fabricated. But The Guardian hates the West and hold for that reason a lot of Muslims. I in turn nurture a fierce hatred of The Guardian and all the left junk that looks like. The world is there to forgive.

Dear readers: I suffer from murder fantasies regarding the authors of these publications. I wish upon reading this fashionable gibberish of Luyendijk from deep in my heart that Luyendijk may be the next passer-by that will be attacked by a machete, a large butcher knife and a gun. Then Joris will just says: "I am not afraid! You're only a terrorist if I'm scared! So what you are doing is futile!"


Anonymous said...

Muslim and African Third world immigration is a disaster for the Western countries. But the muslims didn't open the gates. European governments opened the borders. There are powerful zionist and jewish interests that are in favour of mass immigration into Europe and America. The zionists control Hollywood and the media in America and elsewhere and the powerful jewish organisations are publishing reports demanding the ban of righwing anti-immigration parties in Europe. Of course, thats a double standard. They never criticise Israel about its restrictive immigration policies.

Coach said...

The real culprit is Peter Sutherland - head of Immigration for the UN. Sutherland was head of the WTO, head of Goldman Sachs and head of BP among other things. He considers himself as part of the elite "world government". The UN pushes for mass Immigration in Europe to undermine national homogeneity - to destroy the nations so that their vision of world government can be realised. I would like Sutherland to experience the same fear that he is inflicting on the population of Europe. Nobody whants his world government and nobody elected this pseudo-elite filth.

Georgina said...

The terror is not caused by the terrorists, much as they would like to feel successfull. The true terror comes from the British government.

Living in London in the 1970s, I often saw crowds of people calmly leaving an office building because a bomb had been planted. Underground trains blown up, attack scares etc.
The British people were calm and dignified and refused to allow the IRA to cause them fear.

But back then, the British government did not arrest people for saying that it was a "bloody shame those bastards wrecked the cricket match with their threats". There was no media cover up of the aims of the IRA. Nobody pretended that the perps 'didn't really represent the IRA'.
And anyone saying that "people planting bombs or threatening to do so should be arrested", were not called 'racist' or threatened in the streets of London.
No, the British are not afraid of islamic terrorism, we are afraid of British denial of islamic terrorism, and the determination of the PowersThatBe to deny us the right hate it.

Anonymous said...

Mass muslim immigration began when the EU, to keep the price of oil down, agreed with the Arab League to accept these immigrants. I believe it was the Venice agreement in the early seventies when the price of oil was soaring and the Common Market, as it was then, let themselves be blackmailed by the Arab oil exporters.. Cheap oil for mass immigration - if we had known then what we know now we would all have bought bikes!

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

That's one of the many claims made in Bat Yeor's book Eurabia that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Muslim immigration was well underway before then. Its expansion in the years afterwards was just the snowball effect from what had preceded it. And most Muslims entering Europe weren't Arabs, much less Arabic language teachers as Yeor absurdly insinuates. In Britain the Muslims were mostly Pakis, in Germany mostly Turks.

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews