Mayor Cohen of the city of Amsterdam recently warned for violence between Moroccans and other groups in Multi-ethnic and Multicultural Amsterdam, the utopia that is the making of Cohen and his Socialist predessessors.
Ebru Umar writes the column in the Metro newspaper that used to be written by Theo van Gogh, who was murdered for his opposition to Islam. She is from secular Turkish parents and makes no excuses for her strongly anti-islamic views.
A week ago Moroccans killed a Flemish boy in a full trainstation in Brussels. For a mp3 player. The Belgian authorities blame Belgian society.
They should really blame themselves for not protecting society against the rats from Morocco, who cause murder, theft, violence and rape everywhere they go.
It is the duty of the rulers of society to protect society. Our authorities are sadly failing in their duty.
ebru umar
theo van gogh
14 comments:
"Cohen"....Is that Dutch???
:)
Interesting chap, that David Myatt. Interesting to see that he recognizes Islam as a stronghold of warrior values, which it is. It is also true that these warrior values are lacking among Western populations.
The road of terrorism is a dead end as are all forms of "lazy violence". The main challenge of the Right against the suicidal Left is to survive (seperately) until the failings of Leftism become so obvious that they cannot be ignored by the population any longer.
Cohen is by ancestry a Jew. He is a prominent representative of the Dutch upper class and was a brilliant university administrator. At one time, until 2-3 yrs ago, he was slated to be the next candidate for Labour to become Prime Minister.
He is selling Jews in The Netherlands down the river even more faster than Whites. His nickname is "tea drinker" for his propensity to go drinking tea with parents and elders of violent immigrant youth. The motto of the Amsterdam Mayor is "keeping things together" implying he understands that Amsterdam is a powder keg.
Good question Snouck. I agree with your comment above. I'm not a Jew basher nor do I see a Jew under every rock as some do. David Duke is a prime example of a bright man who can find the root of every White problem originating with the Jews. That is too simplistic for me and not realistic either. I think I believe what you imply. Jews have a heavy portion of the blame, yet we Whites do as well.
Just a little FYI to put things in perspective though, you mention that Jews make up a small portion of the population of the US. That is true and the accepted figure is somewhere around 2-3% of the total US population. Yet, they comprise ~50% (+/-) of the super wealthy(billionaires), media moguls, harvard law school acceptances, people in Congress etc. They are the only ethnic minority to successfully lobby the US Census to NOT include Jewish as part of the census. So, while I agree with you that WE are ultimately to blame for our relative slothlike behaviour. They are tricky little bastards themselves and I question their motives. I also agree with you that the average Jew on the street may be oblivious to these power plays behind the scenes, though they have the mentality, from multiple sources and multiple reasons, to do what is "good for Jews". Immigration being front and center in the US in this regard. This info comes from Jewish sources and not some clandestine neo-Nazi website.
If Jews had the mentality of wanting to assimilate into whatever nation they found themselves in, instead of being "the chosen" and maintaining separatism, I would have no problem with them because they are bright and industrious. The problem is that many, especially in places with large numbers, continue to put Jewishness above the wellbeing of the nation they live in. Then they wonder why they get expelled, as that post on my blog indicated. You can't have it both ways and many European Whites that immigrated into the US after the Northern Anglo founded it, all assimilated and became "American".
That is my opinion.
Ethnocentrist:
"I think I believe what you imply. Jews have a heavy portion of the blame, yet we Whites do as well."
Snouck:
....Ships passing in the dark....
I am going to refrase the question in starker terms. Let's assume that 95 percent of American Jews are as a Mephistopheles (Morris Dee, Abe Foxman) and the Wasps as Doctor Faust.....
Why is it then that caused the 1960ies generation of Anglos to accept the 1965 Immigration Act opening the USA to mass third world immigration while two generations before the 1920 generations CLOSED the country to preserve the country's ethnic core.
What deal or understanding was offered to the Anglos and why did they accept what their grandfathers ethnocentrically had declined?
That is the question. And the same deal was taken by the core ethnics of the European nations. They took the deal, because they thought it was a sweet deal and they were flower children.
It is a question which answer is IMO essential to someone who calls himself European-ethnocentrist.
Snouck,
Are you trying to get me to say that Europeans, going back to ancient Greece with its Hellenisation of the Roman empire in using thought, logic, and individualistic thinking is the cause of our downfall? Also, after the Dark Ages, when the "enlightenment" came, so did our further push towards individualism and the shedding of feudalism and tribalism? If that is it, then of course I agree that Europeans have evolved into people who are individuals first followed by clannish second. Though the clan/tribe mentality still was prevalent up until the middle of the last century. Europe still is tribal, though the tribes have national boundaries in the present day. Americans have succumbed to the ideology of patriotism, which is a form of tribalism that involved European peoples up until the mid 60s. That notion is losing its lustre with more and more non-Europeans in the country.
Now with that said, there are the other components of greed and individual self-interests of WASPs that has allowed the current state to take hold as well. All this does not absolve a hostile ethny in the midst that has been deceptive in many major instances. They have pushed this ideology even before the 1920s when the immigration act was much more rigid. Yet through a slow and steady assault on our thoughts and belief systems they have created followers, if you will. These followers are now major proponents. A significant player in the assault of racial awareness of Whites is Franz Boas, famous anthropologist, who forged data to fit his ideology of race does not exist and we are all the same. This was going on for decades at all the major universities in the US. Eventually those lies were believed and if we are all the same, then why not open immigration to the third world? Not to mention the 1965 Immigration Act was sold as a "minor change" that would not change the face of America in any appreciable way. How wrong that was.
If this is not what you are after, then please explain.
Infidel Mojo:
The third point deal with the work done by Franz Boas and relates specifically to work the US government commissioned at the turn of the 20th century. At that time the government asked Dr. Boas to do physiological measurements on immigrants(craniological measurements most notably) entering the US to determine what role race played in behavior, intelligence, and the probability of success in the new society. He found that race did not impact these issues at all.
Snouck:
Dinesh da Souza amongst others maintains that Franz Boaz rigged his research. The work of Margareth Mead is another infamous example of rigged research.
Snouck,
are you going to give me the answer to the question you posed? I'd like to hear what you have in your mind.
Mojo,
What is a tribe you ask? A tribe is a group that works for the benefit of that group. Jews do so consciously and subconsciously. Jews have remained Jews in every nation they have been in for the last umteen centuries. If that is not an indication of tribalism, what is? You as an anthropologist would know better than I, however you must be aware of all sorts of migrations of people across the globe and what happens to these migrants/discoverers/adventurers. Did not all or nearly all become assimilated in their new environs? Why did that happen while we have Jews remaining intact, or nearly intact? Is it simply religion? I highly doubt it?
I think your assimilation assertion is highly dubious and simply based on a gestalt of the landscape. The US is where Jews have assimilated the most and even still, not tremendously so despite the warnings of Jewish groups. By this I mean intermarrying and shedding Judaism. I think they pose a threat and has been the case in other instances in history, they have played major roles in the course of the US and Europe.
I also think your eagerness to explain away their behaviour, namely they were treated badly, is off the mark as well. I can speak for an ethnic European group that has been treated poorly during their immigration into the US and they did none of the things Jews did in their "fear" to be persecuted. They assimilated, intermarried and contributed.
You worry about Islam, which is appropriate. They are here thanks to Jews, like Boas and groups who rattled the immigration debated for decades in order to make it lenient. Yes, I'm painting with a broad brush, however there is more truth to my words than not.
Let me add that without addressing all the issues, simply going to war with Muslims is but a bandaid solution. Wanting to gloss over the nefarious effects of one of the truest tribes will get us to square one in another...what? Century?
As I've said before, Jews can join us. Though they must shed their Judaism, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about that. With the furor of the recent Israel Lobby paper, it only solidifies in my mind that Jews (organized Jewry) has divided loyalties.
Infidel Mojo:
The second point to mention is the use of the word “tribal”. Like the word “culture”, it is thrown around rather liberally without any definition. What precisely does “tribal” mean here. The word "tribe" was used at an early point in anthropology to denote a relatively well-bounded group with its own language, culture, history, territory etc. As opposed to peasant societies, tribes have little or no regular contact with the larger society. Tribes are self-sufficient in most meanings of the word. Within neo-evolutionist thinking, "tribe" is used to denote groups who do not subsist on hunting and gathering, but most commonly on agriculture and/or intensive animal husbandry.
Snouck:
I would like to propose as a definition of "Tribe": a group that defines itself according to a kinship or blood ties definition.
Tribes do not have to be primitive. In most parts of the world outside the West people define themselves according to blood or kinship ties.
Ethnocentrist. You will receive an answer. My humble apologies for the delay.
This has been an interesting read, to be sure! I always enjoy Mojo's commentary on these matters. But I fear that he knows a bit more about Boas than his commentary has thus led you to believe. He is an Anthropologist, and I'm just waiting to see more of what you all have to say on this subject.
Mojo,
Thank you for the follow up comment. It clarified several points. Hopefully we are not speaking past each other here.
Regarding Jews: I can agree with your comment and how things came about to where we are now. Of course they have suffered in the past at our (collective) hands. We have as well at the hands of others. Now, I believe you are saying that it is what it is and there are bigger fish to fry, correct? Or most aptly, they are not a big problem and are more helpful than harmful?
Regarding Boas: Can you link a source where I may go through his work, if at all possible? I would be interested to see it first hand. Not that I do not believe you, as I'm sure you are correct regarding his work and the premise it was initiated. More for my interest.
Now this leaves us still somewhat apart on thinking. My feeling is your views on the benignity of Jewish influence both past and present definitely have validity. You bring on a strong case for it and judging by what you write, is probably more correct than not. Here is where I have an issue. It is analogous to the OJ Simpson double murder trial. We have evidence that Jews have done some not so upstanding things along the way. We have evidence that certain schools of thought have been under the influence of Jews, from Europe with or without an political axe to grind. We can explain away one thing after another, as was the case in the OJ trial, and when looked at the micro, individual level, it makes perfect sense. The issue with me is when we look at ALL the evidence collectively, as the jury should have done in OJ, then one has a harder time making the case of benignity. Too many coincidences for my taste. Now I could be wrong and/or misguided and am willing to be proven wrong. However I do not think I am. What are your thoughts regarding this?
Thanks.
Thanks Mojo. I appreciate the follow up. I certainly agree that the bigger fish are the Muslims in Europe and the Mexicans in the US. Though as I said previously, when all is said and done and assuming we come out the other side relatively unchanged from where we are now, all issues need to be looked at with brutal honesty. Otherwise all this will be for naught.
Post a Comment