London's Daily Sun reports that Muslim 'fanatics' have drawn up a "hit list" of British Jews to be targeted in response to the current Israeli operation in Gaza.
Or maybe they're trying to convince British Jewry to emigrate en masse to Israel so that they can try to exterminate us all in one fell swoop.
Exit question: Why does the Sun refer to them as 'fanatics'? Jew-hatred seems to be mainstream in Islam.
P.S. I almost forgot: If you have not done so in the last 24 hours, please vote for my blog, Israel Matzav, as Best Midsize blog in the 2008 Weblog Awards by going here.
TV’s The Apprentice boss Sir Alan Sugar and Amy Winehouse record producer Mark Ronson are among prominent names discussed on a fanatics’ website.Just yesterday, Canadian Mark Steyn warned (Hat Tip: Hot Air):
Labour Peer and pal of Tony Blair Lord Levy [pictured. CiJ], Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Princess Diana’s divorce lawyer Anthony Julius are also understood to be potential targets.
British anti-terror expert Glen Jenvey is convinced online forum Ummah is being used to prepare a deadly backlash against UK Jews.
...
On the Ummah site, “Saladin1970” asks for help compiling “a list of those who support Israel”.
“Abuislam” asks: “Have we got a list of top Jews we can target? Can someone post names and addresses?”
Saladin1970 gives a link to the Power 100 list of top British Jews.
Mr Jenvey, 43, said: “The Ummah website has been used by extremists.
“Those listed should treat it very seriously. Expect a hate campaign and intimidation by 20 or 30 thugs.”
...
The Community Security Trust, which advises Britain’s Jewish community on safety, said: “We are advising prominent Jewish individuals to be conscious of potential threats.”
There is a crude arithmetic logic about European antipathy to the Zionist Entity: For your average finger-in-the-windy politician, there is simply no electoral upside in being pro-Israel, and quite a lot of potential downside. If you think Europe is soft on Israel's "right to exist" now, just wait another ten years.In England, they've gotten a head start on the next decade.
Or maybe they're trying to convince British Jewry to emigrate en masse to Israel so that they can try to exterminate us all in one fell swoop.
Exit question: Why does the Sun refer to them as 'fanatics'? Jew-hatred seems to be mainstream in Islam.
P.S. I almost forgot: If you have not done so in the last 24 hours, please vote for my blog, Israel Matzav, as Best Midsize blog in the 2008 Weblog Awards by going here.
11 comments:
Check this out This is an encouraging sign from the BNP and its supporters. If they will consistently support Israel and the Jews and get rid of their whites-only policy, there may be hope for them yet.
Thanks, Jeppo. I think I posted on that story two days ago, though, didn't I?
???
You already posted on it? Oops, I guess I'm a day late and a dollar short as per usual ;)
See, I thought you would have seen it, cuz I think it might have pissed you off.
:)
I know you have never been a supporter of the BNP, but the point of my post was that until Griffin and DeWinter explain to us all what it was that led to the soul-changing paradigm shift that is renouncing racism and anti-Semitism, I will go on believing they are both full of shit.
A racist does not change unless he has had some profoundly foundational change in his philosophical worldview.
If Griffin and DeWinter had had such experiences, I think they would both feel COMPELLED to tell us about them, because it would be like a born again experience.
Do you see what I mean?
While Griffin was previously a hard-core racist and anti-Semite, I don't think Dewinter ever was. The anti-Dewinter "evidence" that I've seen provided by Blokwatch and Yelloman, through their North American subsidiary LGF, seemed very weak to say the least.
Anyway Dewinter is only the leader of the VB's Antwerp chapter. The overall leader is Bruno Valkeniers, who succeeded Frank Vanhecke. Both of them seem totally clean, despite the Belgian establishment's shameful attempts to railroad Vanhecke.
I think the key point that Lawrence Auster was making in that article was that the rank-and-file of the BNP seem to be supporters of Israel, and quickly slapped down any anti-Semites who cropped up on that thread in question. That's the great hope, that a significant section of the British and European population are pro-Israel, anti-Islamist and anti-EU. And where the people lead, the politicians will eventually follow.
Jeppo
Ah, I see.
That's a good point.
Thanks.
I don't agree with you on DeWinter. He says he wants a "white Europe" and he hangs out with Jean Marie LePen. That's smoking gun stuff.
I know others would disagree with me, because they kind of dig the whole "white Europe" thing. I'm not so concerned about a white Europe as I am about the consistency of European Civilization. Most of my family are not white, and yet the brown-skinned ones are more Patriotic than I.
As far as I'm concerned, color is not the issue. Ideology is. And, anyone who expresses the issue in terms of color is HIGHLY suspect to me.
Jeppo,
It isn't a matter of what we want. It's a matter of demographic reality.
I get in this conversation with people too often. I always ask the same question, and no one ever answers me.
What policy will maintain an all-white Europe, when Europeans are breeding at less than replacement rate, while non-white citizens (in other words, already invited and accepted immigrants) are breeding at more than replacement rate?
The only policies which would assure a continued "white-majority Europe" would be
1) laws forcing white people to breed at a higher rate than non-whites
2) laws limiting non-white breeding
3) ethnic cleansing
4) genetic engineering and babies born in the laboratory.
The first three are fascist, and the fourth is beyond our ken right now, and seems to me immoral (for reasons I'd rather not go into debating).
This is the reason I have always said that
Ethnic Nationalism (while not wrong in it's intention - to maintain indigenous control over an area of land) is as inevitably fascist as is Communism (which is also not wrong in it's stated intention - to ensure that all have jobs, money, homes, healthcare, etc.).
Both ideas sound nice in principle, but INEVITABLY lead to fascistic policy.
That's my opinion.
Funny. No one ever actually addresses what I say. Instead, what people do is lump me in with Charles Johnson who has never actually made a philosophical critique of Ethnic Nationalism, or as he calls it, Neo-Fascism.
This is not to discount Charles. It's only to say that, because I have made an argument, and he hasn't, I think my argument deserves to be dealt with on a different ground than the criticism of Charles Johnson.
Even Robert Spencer has lumped me in with Charles to some extent.
I simply do not think this is fair.
It's definitely not fair to be lumped in with the likes of Charles Johnson. I feel for you bro, LOL.
That's a good question, the way you phrased it. Even if immigration were completely cut off, the higher birth rates of non-white citizens could eventually lead to whites becoming a minority in formerly white-majority societies. In that case, legally and morally, I don't think anything could or should be done to prevent this. But if immigration were to be cut off, my preference, then the odds of whites becoming an eventual minority, while still possible, would be greatly reduced.
Only in the West is this possible. There is no African or Asian nation where the majority race is in danger of becoming a minority through immigration or outbreeding. Even developed nations with birth rates as paltry as ours refuse to consign their progeny to a future minority status in the lands of their forefathers through mass immigration.
Nations like South Korea (99.9% Korean), Japan (98.5% Japanese), and Taiwan (98% Chinese) are investing heavily in robotics and automation to deal with possible future labour shortages, while we in the West opt to import countless millions of mostly low-IQ unskilled workers, and mostly from incompatible or downright hostile cultures. Not only will the East Asians preserve their own unique culture while we let ours slip away, but they seem destined to best us economically as well. The rest of the world will watch this unequal battle between Western multiculturalism and Eastern monoculturalism and draw the appropriate conclusions upon the East's inevitable victory.
Question for you Pastorius, half-jokey, half-serious. What will the last white-majority nation on Earth be? I'm thinking Belarus; harsh dictatorship, lousy economy, cold climate, remote location, hostility to immigration. They've got it all, lucky bastards!
:)
Jeppo,
You said: if immigration were to be cut off, my preference, then the odds of whites becoming an eventual minority, while still possible, would be greatly reduced.
I say: Certainly, it is the prerogative of the citizens of a nation to dictate who they allow to live within their borders.
However, the idea you propose does, indeed, go against the American ideal. America is founded on ideas, not on race. Call me American-centric, but I believe that is actually the right way to live.
Europe can define themselves the way they choose to do so.
Just to be clear, I am against all Ethnic Nationalism, including such popular forms as Native American Nationalism.
I think Indian Reservations are racist states, which, in our current environment, only exist because
1) Native Americans don't like people of other races
and/or
2) Native Americans are afraid to improve their lives.
Either way, Indian Reservations are a self-imposed concentration camp, just like Gaza, or Nazi Germany.
Yeah but try getting the Indians to give them up. Blood and soil trump economic rationalism, it's like an embedded genetic code.
While it's true that America was founded on an ideal, that ideal was the product of a specific ethnic group, namely the dreaded WASPs. America at its founding was 100% white (blacks and Indians had no political rights), 98% Protestant and 80% British. America was a WASP nation created to ensure that the founder's progeny would live in liberty forever, as was their natural right as freeborn Englishmen.
Haiti was founded as an independent republic shortly after America, based on many of the same principles. Both nations were founded on Enlightenment ideals of freedom, equality and justice. In fact Haiti may have been more enlightened, as slavery was outlawed there from day one. Yet for some reason it didn't work out all that well for them.
Canada and Jamaica are both Commonwealth countries where the Queen is the Head of State represented by Governors-General. Both are inherently English-speaking and Christian nations. Their legal systems are both based on English common law, and their political systems on the Westminster parliamentary model. Yet Canada's per capita GDP is more than ten times that of Jamaica, even when accounting for purchasing power parity. Canada also has far fewer murders per annum than Jamaica, even though its population is more than ten times greater. Why?
Ideals are important in forming the character of a nation, but race is even more important. It might be racist to point this out, but then there's the mitigating factor of it also being the truth, however unpalatable the truth sometimes is.
Well, there it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caXCxQOiLhw
Post a Comment