Monday, 17 June 2013

In the video the politician assures everyone that the mosque attack wasn't a "hate crime". A Muslim attacks some other Muslims because they're not radical enough for him. How is this not a hate crime?
‘A man started stabbing one of the guys who was just sitting right next to him.

'We went to save him. He had multiple injuries, three or four wounds.

'A few of us went to stop him. One of the guys was strong enough to stop him. I held his hand. One also had an injury on his thigh.’

Another witness said: ‘He shouted “Allah is going to punish you all”. He stabbed two people then one guy restrained him and someone called the police.
Source: Daily Mail H/T: Maria José

I was watching a documentary about the genocide in the Vendée, the first genocide committed by the Equality Cultists after they gained power in the French revolution. Blotted out of the historical record. Genocides don't count when they're suffered by Europeans.

Similarly, the history of Europeans enslaved by Mohammedans has been blotted out of the historical record.

People talk about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, but the truth is the anti-Europeanism is the dominant ideology of our age. It is so overwhelmingly dominant that people don't even perceive it as a distinct phenomenon in itself. They just take it for granted. It's regarded as normal.

The rules the Equality Cultists have established seem to go something like this:

It's not a genocide unless Europeans are the perpetrators and non-Europeans are the victims.

It's not slavery unless Europeans are the perpetrators and non-Europeans are the victims.

It's not a hate crime unless Europeans are the perpetrators and non-Europeans are the victims.


Anonymous said...

This is rather prescient of Horatio Nelson:

He states: "I hate rebels, I hate traitors, I hate tyranny come from where it will. I have seen much of the world, and I have learnt from experience to hate and detest republics.
"There is nothing but tyranny & oppression, I have never known a good act done by a Republican, it is contrary to his character under the mask of Liberty.
"He is a tyrant, a many headed monster that devours your happiness and property. Nothing is free from this monster's grasp. A republic has no affection for its subjects.
"A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt.

He was speaking after the excesses of the revolutionary war and the rise of the proto-left who had been inspired by that aesthetic, sensual dog Rousseau, may he forever burn in the 9 hells.

Anonymous said...

I also find it disconcerting that a tabloid like the Daily Mail disabled comments "for legal reasons".

Anonymous said...

The Dhimmi Mail and the Dhimmigraph both pull that routine of disabling or refusing to allow comments; it's because they know they'd be flooded with people stating the facts which only underline what liars and enablers and traitors they are to their readerships and their country (and how obedient they are to anti-white and truly racist NUJ guidelines).

'islamophobia' and 'anti-semitism' are both terms devised to impugn as irrational or inherently bigoted any viewpoint which offers criticism, analysis or, most dangerous of all, facts about either islam or judaism and the actions, policies, tenets and goals of their adherents. In the case of 'anti-semitism', it was first used to draw attention away from the support which jews historically lent to concepts (immigration, denigration of nationhood and patriotism, communism, parallel legal system apart from national one, multiculturalism etc) which most people rightly found unacceptable or destructive of their rights and identity).

Both 'islamophobia' and 'anti-semitism' share a crucial aspect which is that whatever the hearer considers to be critical or too revelatory of either ideology is something which can be charged with these false epithets. 'blasphemy' or a 'hate crime' to their ears. " And the Truth shall make you free". John 8:32

Frau Katze said...

I was wondering if the UK papers were legally obliged to suppress comments (police state thing) or if they just do it of their own accord. Does anyone know?

Anonymous said...

Frau Katze: Obviously, if there is a legal case being heard in court, then a newspaper might not permit comments because the Defence or Prosecution could state that such coverage might prejudice a jury or even the judge, but it is more likely that the UK suppression of newspaper comments is the result of the 'hate speech' laws put into effect over the years which were designed to restrict free speech. Also, most UK newspapers (including ones historically associated with conservatism, such as the Telegraphy) are now Left in their views and agenda and censoring or not permitting comments is their way of keeping their readership from hearing all sides of an issue. They are cynically using their readers as a 'tabula rasa' to establish their policies and future government without any risk of informed opposition. Same in the US.

Anonymous said...

For anybody interested in the Vendee genocide
(Fast forward the first 2 minutes
Lord Crusader

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews