Thursday, May 26, 2011
Pat Condell: Let's Blame The Jews
I like that he calls out the "Anti-Fascists" of Europe, declaring, "What a joke you people are."
Anyone who knows the history of this blog, knows of our break with some of the prominent people in the counter-Jihad movement over their alignment with European Ethnic Nationalists such as the Vlaams Belang.
But, few people know (and they don't know because I have not discussed it publicly) of my break with some other IBA writers over their relatively benign view of the Anti-Fascists vs. groups like the EDL.
That is to say, I don't much like the EDL, but I am convinced the Anti-Fascists are at least as bad, and more likely MUCH WORSE THAN THE ANTI-FASCISTS.
Good on Pat Condell for calling these people out on their Anti-Semitism.
The EDL supports Israel for stupid reasons (I believe they do so because they see support of Israel as being in line with their own Ethnic Nationalism), but the Anti-Fascists are the people in Europe who buy the old European Nazi-line that Jews (now in the form of Israel) are responsible for most all the problems in the world today.
The Anti-Fascists are the ones who carry signs claiming Israel is a Nazi State.
The Anti-Fascists are the ones who align themselves with the Medieval Sharia supporters who would enact laws to put apostates and gays to death.
Fuck you to anyone who does not hate such Anti-Fascists with every breath you draw.
They are the scum of the Earth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Would Andrew Jackson have qualified as an "Ethnic Nationalist"?
Yeah, probably. Of course, you know America has evolved by becoming more and more true to the words in it's Constitution.
You would agree with that, right?
Anyway, I am not one of those "dead White men" people who would use today's morality to judge the moral "failures" of our Founding Fathers. I would not simply condemn people of the past for their the shortcomings which were simply the way things were done at the time.
Our Founding Fathers were the most enlightened people (as a group) in the world at the time. And, to the extent that America has become a better nation (and I believe it has) it has done so by building on their ideas.
Well, where would you and me be today if they had not been Ethnic Nationalists?
We'd both be in Mexico.
Its hard for me to say on the one hand that we owe our prosperity and status as a superpower today to the intolerance and greed of our racist forefathers ....... then turn around and suggest that we're gonna be better off in the future now that we're supposedly not that way anymore.
I am not well educated on the overall positions of the ethnic nationalist groups in Europe, such as the EDL, but it does seem they're the only one's there physically resisting the Islamic attempt at a demographic takeover.
What's the non-ethnic nationalist's plan?
....... I'm not sure I've ever met anyone that is not an Ethnic Nationalist to one degree or another. It sounds like an entirely natural and rational way to be to me. I dont see how the Europeans can look around had what has become of their societies and NOT be one.
Pastorius,
He's so right on this. For the most part I agree with everything he said.
Also, the Palestinians treat gay people much nicer than the Palestinians, do and are much kinder to homosexuals.
For Gay Palestinians, Tel Aviv Is Mecca
How's that for for the PC Leftists out there?
RT,
I just don't see it the same way.
Were Mexican people, who became citizens in the early United States, allowed to vote, or were they not allowed to vote because of the color of their skin?
Well some, like Juan Sequin who fought for Texas independence, were chased out of Texas by angry white mobs after the war, due to his divided ethnic loyalties.
I understand you not seeing it the same way I do, I just dont see how you think Europe can possibly reverse the demographic trends there without resorting to ethnic based violence at some point.
I can understand you, or anyone else, being against ethnic violence ....... I just dont see any other path to a positive solution available to the Europeans. Its not a problem that's going to go away by voting for a moderate candidate.
The solution is going to have to be ugly, one way or the other. Either Europeans are eventually going to have to forcefully remove the Muslims, or the Muslim will at some point force them to emigrate.
You apparently see this getting resolved differently. Care to expound on that possible scenario?
If the problem got bad enough (i.e. if nukes or biologicals are used on America) then I have an idea of a way to deal with this without mass violence in the streets.
I don't blame you for not remembering what I have written, but I have repeatedly proposed this idea.
1) Make a law which declares that advocating Sharia/Jihad is sedition which is punishable by death or deportation.
2) The FBI creates a list of the worst 1000 Jihad-advocating potential terrorists. People who are already associating with one another and proposing violence against Infidels. And, you deport them.
3) The result anger from step one will be that you will smoke out 1000 more people who will be willing to wage Jihad against the Infidel.
4) you round them up and deport them
Back to step 1
until they learn the lesson that we will not tolerate their seditious behavior.
Let me be clear that I do not believe that the magnitude of the problem is such that we need to do anything like the above at this point.
In fact, if we were to slow down the flow of Muslims into our country, I do believe the American system and ideals may be strong enough to assimilate large numbers of Muslims.
But, I do not believe any system could be strong enough to deter the imposition of Shara past a certain undefined rate of immigration.
Obviously I am talking out of my ass and I have no idea of what number of people we could integrate.
Thing is, everyone is talking out of their ass on this subject, because NO ONE to my knowledge has ever done a serious scholarly study on how the dynamics of a culture affect the relative ability to integrate citizens from that culture, and what number of new immigrants can be integrated as a percentage of a population given the relative dynamics of said culture.
Pastorius,
By the way, about my comment I wrote earlier, I meant to say "the Israelis treat gay people much better than the Palestinians." However, I did not notice that I wrote Palestinians twice for some reason. Sorry about that.
Thanks for the clarification, but I knew what you meant.
:)
Pastorius,
You're welcome, However, I was also worried about other people not understanding what I meant, so I really had to make sure I was clear.
Post a Comment