Thursday, 1 August 2013
This posted is prompted by reading the two articles (here and here). In the first Douglas Murray distances himself from the EDL. In the second, John Ware, of the Jewish Chronicle, reflects on a disagreement between David Aaronovitch and Douglas Murray on the usefulness of the concept of Islamophobia.
Aaronovitch sees a parallel with antisemitism: Jews wouldn’t want the term antisemitism dumped just because it is sometimes misapplied, as it often has been by Jews in response to legitimate criticism of Israel.
True. Yet there are several differences between antisemitism and (authentic) Islamophobia. The former is entirely irrational, the latter reactive.

This isn’t the primary purpose of this article, but I’m no longer going to let remarks like this pass without comment. Kevin Macdonald’s books have convinced me that antisemitism is very often not entirely irrational. Instead, it is very often a reaction to Jewish actions. When Poles developed antisemitic sentiments in response to Jews using their high intelligence and entrepreneurial skills to dominate whole sectors of their economy, favouring the economic interests of other Jews and systematically excluding or discriminating against gentiles, their antisemitism was reactive, not ‘entirely irrational’. When east Europeans developed antisemitic sentiments in response to the overwhelmingly disproportionate Jewish role in Communism, their antisemitism was reactive, not ‘entirely irrational’. When modern Europeans develop antisemitic sentiments in response to the disproportionate Jewish role in promoting multiculturalism, immigration and Islam, their antisemitism is reactive, not ‘entirely irrational’.

What hovers over all of these discussions is the concept of “mindless bigotry” and the terror of being lumped along with the supposed mindless bigots which haunts the thoughts of those members of the elite who dare to dare to depart, however slightly, from the consensus of their peer group that immigration is a good thing and Islam a religion of peace.

This idea of anathema, of a line that separates the good and decent people among us from the mindless, frothing, savagely, even demonically, evil mob is one that dominates our society and is accepted by just about everyone.

Almost all critical discussion about Islam or immigration centres on whether the critics are on one side of the line or the other. A commenter on this blog accused me the other day of being “part of the problem” because he had decided I was on the wrong side of this line, a conclusion he had reached because I declined to delete a comment that used the word ‘nigger’.

Even among Islam-critics and immigration sceptics, the validity of this concept of the anathema line is almost undisputed. They only disagree about where exactly it should be drawn, insisting that they are on the right side of it. But the truth is that anyone who accepts this concept is “part of the problem”, not me.

Historians of the future will be mystified about how this concept came to be so widespread in our society. After all, the notion that there are significant numbers of people who go around motivated by ‘demonic evilness’ is a very strange one. It resembles the Christian concept of heresy from the Middle Ages or something from a fantasy novel like Lord of the Rings. It is amazing that it should have come to dominate debate on the most important issues of the day in the world’s most advanced democracies, in societies supposedly characterised by science and reason.

It is this idea of the anathema line that is responsible for the islamisation of Europe and the European Genocide more generally. Fundamentally, it is an expression of political prejudice. And as the history of the 20th century showed us, political prejudice is far more toxic than racial prejudice. Far more people were murdered in the mass exterminations resulting from political prejudice than racial prejudice in the last century.

Multicultists and xenophiles accuse immigration sceptics or Islam critics of being divisive. But it is their political prejudice that is the true divisiveness. It has destroyed the natural unity of their own ancestral kin groups, opening them up to conquest by alien peoples. The islamisation of the continent is just a secondary effect of this “moral civil war” that they have gratuitously unleashed on their own kind.
People like Douglas Murray disgust me, even though much of what he says about Islam is correct. He is obviously someone who has grasped, just as much as the visitors to this blog have, that Islam presents a profound threat to our way of life. But he retains his sneering attitude towards the ‘bigots’ and ‘racists’ who, he claims, are motivated by prejudice or ‘mindless bigotry’.

But let’s think about this. Britain has been undergoing colonisation by Muslims for around 60 years or so. Many intelligent, cerebral people, including probably Douglas Murray, have concluded that it represents the greatest threat Britain has ever faced. But to reach that conclusion, these cerebral people had to read dozens of books, hundreds if not thousands of newspaper articles, and had to spend lots of time thinking about this problem, re-examining their own received ideas and reflecting on the vast amount of data that has been accumulated about the effect the non-European colonist populations are having on Europe.

Think of it in evolutionary terms. Let’s say a society faces a mortal threat to its existence. But it’s a slow-moving, cerebral society. It takes it 60 years of data collection and analysis, intense debate and careful reflection to even recognise that this threat exists. That society is not going to flourish, is it? As it copes with the challenges of time, it’s going to struggle to survive. By the time it has recognised that a threat exists, it may well have been wiped out by it. Or the threatening entity may have achieved such a dominating position that the threat can no longer be eliminated safely, as it might have been in the beginning.

How much better would it be for a society if threats could be recognised instinctively rather than through a long drawn-out process of analysis and reflection? Much better. Societies with people who could instinctively recognise threats and respond to them while they were still in their formative stages would stand a much better chance of weathering the challenges of time successfully.

Wouldn’t it have been great if we had had people who could recognise threats instinctively too? Then we might not now face the prospect of having our way of life obliterated by Islam. The thing is, we did have them. Those “instinctive threat recognisers” are the ones people like Douglas Murray dismiss as “racists” and “mindless bigots”. Those people got the right answer long before Douglas Murray, or I, did, but somehow that doesn’t count, we’re led to believe, because they got it in the wrong way. Once at university I got a really low mark in a Maths test. It wasn’t that I had got the wrong answers. It was that I worked the problems out in my head and then just wrote down the answers. That wasn’t good enough, it seemed. They wanted to see the working. It didn’t matter that the answers were right.

That’s how it is with the pinstripe club, that select group of Islam critics still accepted in polite company, who relish their invitations from the BBC and the grant money they get from various foundations. These are the ‘House niggers’ of the Counterjihad. They love to sneer at we mucky-face ‘field niggers’ with our anonymity out there in blog land.

The truth is that very little of what we do is rational. Why did you eat lunch today? Did you say to yourself “My body needs energy so I will consume some protein to give it the nutrients it needs to power my activities throughout the day.” Of course not. You felt an instinctive hunger, you satisfied that hunger and your body got what it needed. Most of what we do is like that. We are creatures of instinct and the instincts that survived the test of evolution were the ones that proved to have survival value. The ‘racists, the ‘Paki bashers’, the ‘mindless bigots’ were right about the threat alien immigration presented to their societies. They got the right answer long before Douglas Murray did. Just don’t expect him to appreciate them for it.

It was the spectacle of Americans resisting the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ that first led me to reconsider my prejudice against prejudice. Listening to interviews with some of the people demonstrating against it, it was clear they had no in-depth understanding of the diabolical nature of Islam. They just had an instinctive sense of right and wrong. And that instinct took them to the right answer. Later, reading Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, and his warnings about the terrors the cult of reason would inevitably inflict on the world - which since, of course, it has done - prompted me to think of prejudice as being something positive, rather than negative. Reason is an imperfect guide to action because our reason can only operate on the basis of our knowledge. And our knowledge is limited and takes time to acquire. Therefore we should trust our instincts.

“Does this mean you agree with the racists?”, I hear people say. If the problem is Mohammedanism, why bring the other non-European immigrants into it? Let’s pretend that non-European immigrants, other than Mohammedans, were making positive contributions to Europe, and let’s pretend that preserving the distinctiveness of the European peoples wasn’t a thing desirable in its own right. Neither of those assumptions is true, of course, but for the sake of brevity let’s make them here. Would the benefit this hypothetical positive non-European immigration brought outweigh the disbenefit of Muslim immigration? Since Muslim immigration has conjured into being the very real possibility that our way of life, our democracy and our civilisation will cease to exist then, of course, the answer is no. No conceivable benefit contributed by non-Muslim immigrants could compensate for a possibility so ominous. So it would have been better to have no non-European immigration at all. Or even no immigration at all. That way, at least, our way of life would be secure.

So, yes. The racists were right – in the sense that the policy approach they prescribed (no non-European immigration) would have averted the catastrophic outcome we now face. It doesn’t matter how they got to that conclusion, whether through a long and careful process of reflection and analysis or through an instinctive aversion to the “Other” that came into being through a genetic mutation that occurred thousands or millions of years ago during evolution and persisted because it proved to be adaptive (in other words to facilitate the survival of the organism that carried it). They got the right answer. They got the answer that would successfully have preserved their tribe from extinction while all the effete intellectuals, of Left and Right, those who anguished about being placed on the wrong side of the anathema line, got the wrong answer, the one that took their tribe closer to perdition.

Let’s say you were programming an evolutionary algorithm designed to facilitate the survival of the members of a tribe. (Of course it doesn’t work like this, but let’s pretend it does for the sake of illustration.) You might well say, “Well, let’s throw in a generic prejudice against aliens. We know not all aliens are threatening. Some are even beneficial. But the calculations involved in working our which ones are threatening and which ones are beneficial are too long and complex. So it’s safer to have a generic prejudice against any aliens.”

Even among the people who now recognise that third-world immigration or Islam more specifically pose a mortal threat to our civilisation, I have never seen any attempt to come to terms, in a morally mature way, with the fact that the 'lumpenbigots' were right. If anything, the 'lumpenbigots' are even castigated for having produced the problem in the first place, as if their unsavoury nature put off those of more delicate sensibility who might otherwise have adopted the same positions!

Prejudice is not some odious thing to be avoided. It is the distilled wisdom of our ancestors. It acts as a societal defence mechanism. If we had listened to our prejudices, we would not now be in danger of losing our countries to Islam. Switching off your prejudices is the equivalent of throwing out the wisdom of your ancestors and starting again from a tabula rasa. It's like opening Pandora's box. A thousand horrors are going to emerge. And those horrors are what we're now living through. If we survive the coming storm, in the process of reflection that occurs when the blood-letting stops, we should abandon our cult of reason and accept that prejudice is a thing to be valorised, not anathematised.



25 comments:

chimoio said...

ha, ha! deepest respect cz, you ARE the waffle king!what's up? didn't get any reaction to your childish rant about the lawrence woman?
apart from the pavlovian doggish jayd that is
It's a shame, you have a really good site here!
and you shit all over it like a monkey with your ridiculous race obsession
[you can't house train a monkey you know ]

Maria José said...

A SOLDIER was attacked in an Exeter underpass by a gang who chanted “Lee Rigby” as they kicked him on the floor.

http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Gang-chanted-8216-Lee-Rigby-8217-kicked-soldier/story-19601547-detail/story.html#axzz2akPmXvgA

mony said...

Cheradenine
1. east european nations were antisemitic hundreds years prior to Communism.
2.jew r small minority in the MC and could be found also in the counter-jihad movement.
u r twisting those facts again for your own theory .

3. jews don't have high intelligence. it is nothing to do with genetic character. it is a culture thing, not race.
4. u became caught in your own theory. u always portray the europeans as naive nations lead to disaster by the canny and "high intelligence" jews. it is silly argument taking responsibility from europeans and throwing it on the "jews".
it is an old trick and it is similar to the way muslim blame the jews regarding any defect of the arab world.

Anonymous said...

To Cheradenine Zakalwe,
In Europe there have been "holocaust denial" laws for over 20 years. This should have been a wake up call to people to what was coming in regards to freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if you agree with the holocaust revisionists or not you should support their right to freedom of expression. Otherwise you are creating a mindset where people can be not only banned from speaking but imprisoned for their views. www.ihr.org/news022006.html As soon as these laws were announced I realised the utter contempt that Jews have for true democracy in Europe. They are the ones who are always criticising the Nazis for supporting censorship but they do it themselves. Not to mention that all the EU countries call themselves "democracies" and are signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which supposedly guarantees freedom of expression on all subjects. In these countries you can say you don't believe in God and nothing will happen to you but if you say you don't believe claims relating to the holocaust then you go to jail. Because of censorship most people have not heard what the holocaust revisionists have to say in their own words. See here for documentaries http://codoh.com/library/categories/1167
Their detractors talk out of both sides of their mouths. Out of one side they say they are talking a load of rubbish and out of the other side they say they are so dangerous they should be banned. If what the holocaust revisionists say is so much rubbish then it would be easily countered and you wouldn't have to ban it. I ask you a question - Since the holocaust denial laws were introduced in the EU has there been more free speech or less?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

The same tendencies that expressed themselves in Jewish involvement in Communism and modern multiculturalism - proceeding from a sense estrangement from, even contempt for, the Europeans in whose countries they were living - undoubtedly expressed themselves in other ways in earlier ages. I'm not saying all antisemitism was justified or even reactive. I'm simply saying that to make the blanket statement that 'all antisemitism is entirely irrational' is absurd, both historically and in the present day.

Nor I am saying that Jews are solely or even principally responsible for modern multiculturalism. Nonetheless, their activism in favour of immigration and diversity and their frequent use of the Hitler stick whenever any uppity European dares to dissent has been a significant factor.

It's ludicrous to claim Jews aren't more intelligent on average. Every IQ test shows it. Disproportionate Jewish presence in universities, now and in the past, shows it. Harvard even imposed a quota on the number of Jews admitted earlier in the 20th century because there were too many!

The idea that a people with a global population of 15-20 million could win one quarter of all the Nobel prizes ever awarded for some cultural reason alone stretches credulity. If Jewish culture was so amazing, why shouldn't we all adopt it? If the whole world had such a culture, we could speed up the rate of scientific advance a hundredfold.

Of course, there must be genetic component. These issues are discussed in Kevin Macdonald's books, which I recommend that you read.

mony said...

Cheradenine
i think we have very little in common. i read your blog not for your opinions usually but for the information u provide.
still, if i think u r up to something this time.
we r fast approaching to a period when words like racist or bigots will lose they social paralyzing effect. islam is going to drag europe so low that it will need to strip itself from many of its articles of faith in order to survive.
the recognition of how immigration and islam r using its liberal principle will create backlash so strong that dark ages will return. u r right by saying that a bit of "racism" 60 years ago would have prevent what is coming upon europe.
if europe will keep on holding its liberal -left principles it is doomed since islam is not playing in that arena and survival -in its most simple meaning -will be the issue. that will make many people much more "bigots" and "racists" they could imagine.
mony

mony said...

Cheradenine
"all antisemitism is entirely irrational".
agreed. ( i am a jew)
same can be said regarding english people. i can think about million reasons to hate english (or french people or germans or almost every nation).
remember jews r the outsiders in christian continent for almost 2000 years and not vice verca.
when i mentioned culture- i mean the culture of debate jewish tradition is blessed with. traditional brain storming.
also- since jews were banned from many occupations it produced excellence in fields of
education. it is much more seen with the european jews than from the arab jews.
and regarding jews in the MC MOVEMENT:
let me explain how things r seen from here (israel). most of israelis r right wing.
most of us see the jews in the MC movement as a disaster. those same peple that advocate for MC also advocate for banning israel products the same way they care so much for arabs rights while ignoring the constant call for the annihilation of israel. the term we use is "self loath jews".
they r minority inside israel, minority at the jewish communities in europe and in america.
that is why i think your use of the word jews is so inaccurate. u r using minority as the Representative of the jews, a minority that is also so dangerous to the future of the jews them self.

mony said...

correction:
i meant : "not all antisemitism is entirely irrational"

Anonymous said...

CZ, here's an article I find very interesting:
http://immortallife.info/articles/entry/why-is-the-iq-of-ashkenazi-jews-so-high
And also the reply to this question on Yahoo! Answers at the bottom of the page by dmaud56:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080703084807AA90WoO

Ashkenazi Jews have always fascinated me. I don't look at them with either disdain or respect, but with curiosity and interest. Jews are a peculiar people.

King Lear said...

Another brilliant piece CZ.

Anonymous said...

Cheradenine Zakalwe,
There are 2 sides to every story. Unlike most people who pass judgement on the holocaust revisionists I have actually read and listened to what they have to say. I used to think the holocaust extermination claims were true but now I agree with the revisionists. http://codoh.com
None of them claim that there were no concentration camps or that Jews and others were sent there. What they are claiming is there were no gas chambers and that most Jews died of typhus and the misfortunes of war.
Walter Luftl was the president of the Austrian engineers association and he used his expertise to conclude that from an engineering and scientific perspective the gas chamber claims are impossible.
http://codoh.com/library/document/2383
The US supreme court justice Harlan Fiske Stone referred to the Nuremberg trials as a "sanctimonius fraud" and a "lynching party". They were nothing but a soviet communist type show trial.
http://codoh.com/library/document/2369
www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm
The claim that all holocaust revisionists are "neo Nazis" is false for the simple reason that there are Jews who are holocaust revisionists.
http://codoh.com/news/3037

chimoio said...

"anti-semetism" is a construct much like "islamophobia" a non word,invented to close down discussion,as indeed is "racist",invented I believe by jesse jackson and his crew,
jews are not a race anymore than islam is a race
there were no "hebrews" in the classic biblical sense.......
whilst we are on the subject cz,"falasha" I.E.israeli black jews,"niggers"?

chimoio said...

check out the "6 million" canard,it's been around since before the first world war,and has latterly[albeit very slowly] been revised down to I think around 1.5 million officially. I believe germany is still shelling out according to the former figure for ,and will be payingas far as I know, for ever, in fact they paid for and are still paying for,your beloved israel based on this deliberate lie.remember, everyone suffered in the second world war not especially jews.
wow read that last paragraph over slowly a few times,how "anti semitic"does it get!

mony said...

chimio
this discussion is beyond the scope of the forum.
also- Holocaust denial is beyond my own personal scope, antisemic or not antisemic.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Mony, as I said in my previous essay The Jew Thing, people tend to develop ideological justifications for whatever they perceive to be in their interests. It is obvious that people in possession of their own country who need to defend it from external attack and internal subversion have different interests from those who live as a minority in someone else's country. Therefore they will develop different ideologies to justify their two sets of feelings. On the one hand the ideologies will affirm the principle of nationalism; on the other hand they will tend to denigrate and subvert it.

This creates a problem for diaspora Jews who wish to disparage the principle of nationalism in the countries where they are living as minorities but indulge it in relation to Israel. Generally, they attempt to square this circle either by not talking about it at all or by claiming that Israel has a unique status because of the Holocaust and therefore doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Of course this is contemptible hypocrisy.

I recognise that not all Jews, inside or outside Europe, support multicult ideas and that Jews have made enormously positive contributions to Europe and world civilisation. Hence why I am not anti-Semitic. However, I refuse to be silent about the disproportionate involvement of Jews in promoting ideas that blighted eastern Europe and are now destroying western Europe. And if Jews were to exhibit moral maturity as a people, something I rarely see any signs of since moral maturity includes a capacity for self-critique, they wouldn't be silent about it either.

Whether the Jews who support these ideas are a minority of all Jews (in those specific countries) doesn't seem to me to be relevant. The Jewish involvement is disproportionate and in some cases overwhelmingly disproportionate. Therefore it deserves to be mentioned. In talking about it, how else could they be referred to? Even Macdonald admits that the Jews pushing these ideas may not have been representative of a majority of all Jews.

Nonetheless, it is not just individual Jews but Jewish organisations that are promoting these ideas. These organisations claim to have a representative function therefore you cannot dissociate Jewry entirely from the choices they have made and the positions they have taken.

I recognise that some of these same people push multicult ideas that would be destructive to Israel as well as to Europe, however the expression of these ideas tends to be much more muted in relation to Israel.

chimoio said...

mony,I am in no way attempting to make light of nor "deny" any of the awful things that occurred during world war 2, to anyone,
it is however a fact that the numbers have been revised down, officially.
why is it seeming sacrilege to even mention it? this was a cackhanded attempt on my part to give example of how "anti-semitism"was invented and employed specifically to close down mere mention of,never mind discussion of. certain subjects.my "spat"with cz came about because of cz's defense of what I perceived to be unnecessarily offensive language,language that gives fuel to those that accuse counter-jihadists of being "racist" I mentioned things concerning jews as example of how to write on a subject without employing gratuitous insult thus alienating those that are on ones side.
and you are right!this is not the forum.

Paul Greif said...

chimoio,
I suggest that you crack into one of Hilberg or Gilbert,s authoritative tomes. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
incidentally, the author of the above article must be very gullible indeed to put such faith in the ill-informed, politically biased and ahistorical views of "Professor" Macdonald.
As much as I appreciate the Islam-related news that this blog provides, some of the writing and much of the commentary is of a very low order.

mony said...

CZ and Chimio
appreciate your clarification. i agree with some of what u say. i object the way you present it. will keep arguing probably, without forgetting the things we agree upon.
Paul
u make me regret my english is not better and happy that your is. thanks

chimoio said...

pual greif,positively the last time I go O.T....
I have read hilberg,maybe some of what I posted is open to question, however not the figures, they have been revised over the years to much less than the original amount not least at yad vashem amongst other places,
and it's true in many ways I probably don't have any Idea what I'm talking about as there has been so much obfuscation and downright lying punted about that is is difficult to know what is truth and what is lies and propaganda,however 2+2 always equals 4.
My "interest" in this particular subject came about after discovering that something that I had unquestoningly "believed" was in fact not true,
by which I mean the figure of 6 million.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Cheradenine, for your article. The upper echelon who see itself as the Greek mythological ‘gods of the Olympus’ depict the ‘lumpenbigots down there’ as primitive, racist, narrow-minded and not able to understand the beauty of a multiracial society- and other cultures. Those ‘Mr. and Mrs. Simpleton’ and Riffraff’s are living by the standards of their neighbours. Left wing and liberal ‘Ólympian gods’ play it nasty with their fellow men and women (who had voted for them). Their policy is aimed to use common folk in the ‘low budget’ neighbourhoods as guinea pigs in an anthropological long-term experiment. Something like the Island of Dr. Moreau (by H.G. Wells). Their adage is: let them live - and learn from other cultures - near to Third World guttersnipes and desert rats. The Olympian gods, themselves, have very little to do with non-western immigrants and “refugees”. They are living in neat neighbourhoods, send their kids to good white schools. If they have a neighbour, from a far away country, the nice neighbour has always a university degree.
It is very normal that common people are more alert to the dangers of non-stop Third World immigration. They are encountering living in a “Jurassic Park” like environment every single day. They had become aliens in their own country.

Anonymous said...

@Mony
1) East European nations hate Jews from the first day of worlds creation. The Polaks, Russians etc. had never concealed their hatred to Jews. Why the Jews had chosen to live in so bad European environment? Why didn’t they grab the first chance and get the hell out of there? Why they had tried to join local parties as the Communist party? The Zionists had made a more healthy choice. They headed to their own old Middle Eastern country; from where they came from.
2) It is true: some Jews have high intelligence and many others do not. Though, nearly every folk that has to encounter hatred and enmity in it’s surroundings, is developing more awareness. The struggle for life sharpens intelligence and IQ. A good example are the Chinese living out side of China. The same characteristic you can find also by animals. Take for example the fox.
3) Jews do not belong to a specific race. After a Diaspora of more than 2000 years, they are mixed with other nations. Living in a country where the general population is intelligent, had great influence on their thinking quality. Albert Einstein could not be born and grow up in Afghanistan or Morocco. Germany was a more suitable place. Jews do belong to a specific culture where learning takes very important part in their life. Even in the most primitive countries the some of analphabetic Jews was very low. (mostly women).
4) Europeans are not naïve nations and certainly not stupid. They are leading themselves to disaster by their own compatible Quislings who got a mandate from the voters to run the country. This has nothing to do with Jews; but rather with betrayal of the multiculturalists and political-correct leadership. Western Europe knows also variety of attitude. In Denmark, for example, people are already fed up with multicultural ideology. They have a very strong anti Islam and anti EU party like the Danish Folk Party (DF). The Danes do not need the Jews for lamenting on their misfortune. They prefer rather to come out for their rights.

mony said...

Anonymous
1. most of the 2000 years of diaspora jews simply didn't have a choice.
that is why i am a zionist and israeli. finally a state of my own.
2.i find the news about denmark very encouraging.
what does it take in your opinion to have a change at norway and sweden too?
3.please post your remark with some kind of a name next time for more efficient debate.

Roni said...

@Mony
1. Everyone who reads Mark Twain’s book “My Journey’s in the Holy Land” gets a
“real time” impression how the “Holy Land” looked like at the end of the 19th Century. No. Mark Twain was not ‘bribed’ by the Zionists. His impression was related on his own experience. Palestine of that time was very much like Burkina Faso or Chad: an empty desert with here and there a dwelling. Nobody could live at the coastline because of the dangerous marshes and Malaria. The Jews and the Dutch had created their own country from nothing: the Dutch by winning land from the sea, the Jews by hard labour, falling and go further. Both folks do understand that lamenting and blaming others cannot help by defeating bad reality; only will power.
2. Denmark has different mentality than the rest of Europe. Think about the Danes during WWII. They had brought the Danish Jewry by every floating vessel across the Øresund to Sweden. When the Gestapo and SS came to collect the Danish Jews in October 1943, they had found empty homes; even dogs and cats had been vanished. They were cared and tended by the neighbours. In our time Denmark did not band for the new occupying Imperator of the EUSSR (EU). They had arranged an ‘Opt Out’ and not letting every shit head to cross the border . In a referendum had the Danes voted against the EURO. The Danes did not band in 2006 by the mass hysteria of the Muslim world. In the name of free speech they refused to abort the Mohammed cartoons of the Jyllands Posten. By the way Pia Kjaersgaard (DF) had attended every pro Israel demonstration in Copenhagen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxIlsCK3oWg If you want to know more on Denmark, please read the articles of Nicolai Sennels on this blog.
3. As for Norway and Sweden. Both countries have a Socialist green and red government which are infected severely infected by the multicultural and politic correct virus. (if you have to compare it to a disease; the infection had nearly reached the stage of gangrene.). Multiculturalism in for the governments of Fredrik Reinfeldt (Sweden) and Jens Stoltenberg (Norway) more important than the well being of their own people. They both take the mass rape of local women, systematically ruining whole area’s (as in Malmø and Drammen) for granted. However, the right wing anti immigration party in Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) is on the rise. The Norwegian Progress Party of Siv Jensen had good chances to come to power, if Anders Breivik had not committed his pathological mass murder in the summer of 2011.

Roni said...

@Mony
1. Everyone who reads Mark Twain’s book “My Journey’s in the Holy Land” gets a
“real time” impression how the “Holy Land” looked like at the end of the 19th Century. No. Mark Twain was not ‘bribed’ by the Zionists. His impression was related on his own experience. Palestine of that time was very much like Burkina Faso or Chad: an empty desert with here and there a dwelling. Nobody could live at the coastline because of the dangerous marshes and Malaria. The Jews and the Dutch had created their own country from nothing: the Dutch by winning land from the sea, the Jews by hard labour, falling and go further. Both folks do understand that lamenting and blaming others cannot help by defeating bad reality; only will power.
2. Denmark has different mentality than the rest of Europe. Think about the Danes during WWII. They had brought the Danish Jewry by every floating vessel across the Øresund to Sweden. When the Gestapo and SS came to collect the Danish Jews in October 1943, they had found empty homes; even dogs and cats had been vanished. They were cared and tended by the neighbours. In our time Denmark did not band for the new occupying Imperator of the EUSSR (EU). They had arranged an ‘Opt Out’ and not letting every shit head to cross the border . In a referendum had the Danes voted against the EURO. The Danes did not band in 2006 by the mass hysteria of the Muslim world. In the name of free speech they refused to abort the Mohammed cartoons of the Jyllands Posten. By the way Pia Kjaersgaard (DF) had attended every pro Israel demonstration in Copenhagen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxIlsCK3oWg If you want to know more on Denmark, please read the articles of Nicolai Sennels on this blog.
3. As for Norway and Sweden. Both countries have a Socialist green and red government which are infected severely infected by the multicultural and politic correct virus. (if you have to compare it to a disease; the infection had nearly reached the stage of gangrene.). Multiculturalism in for the governments of Fredrik Reinfeldt (Sweden) and Jens Stoltenberg (Norway) more important than the well being of their own people. They both take the mass rape of local women, systematically ruining whole area’s (as in Malmø and Drammen) for granted. However, the right wing anti immigration party in Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) is on the rise. The Norwegian Progress Party of Siv Jensen had good chances to come to power, if Anders Breivik had not committed his pathological mass murder in the summer of 2011.

Anonymous said...

East European nations hate Jews from the first day of worlds creation. The Polaks,///// apparently its. NEVER racism od s.o Jewish does it,aye?! For the record-Poles were SO antisemitic that in 1918 they took in 500 000 Jews from Russia and gave them citizenship.because the awesome nations of the west did not want them!!! In Poland,Jews were gettoizing themselves-as Muslims are doing today!- because they considered Poles to be inferior and unbelievers. This posed a problem-at the same time these unpatriotic. group of 10% was occupying 50-60% at the universities-depriving Polish christians of a chance for a better life.janusz korczak,a great jewish-polish teacher murdered by the germans, also was critizising this behaviour. Later 40%!!! According to the ipn of the stalinist secret police had a jewish background-after germans had murdered 9/10 of jewish poles. Later, the used the allegation of "antisemitism" to leave poland for greener pastures-like this murderess here-helena wolinska. Poland was also the bravest nation with regard to saving jews-google zegota,pilecki,irena sendler,jan karski. Today,jews in poland are neither attacked norway defamed,poland is a strong friend of israel. And how are we treated for ihr efforts? We are defamed and despised especially by jewish americans who are 1. Out to blackmail poland for money they are not entitled to 2. Worshipping germany,perpetrator of the holocaust,country where synagogues are guarded by police from neonazis. But yes, poles are "antisemites" and zurich is "racist" for not selling a tag to oprah,who is black and thus always entitled to special treatment

Search

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews