Ann Coulter went off the rails Wednesday night during the Republican presidential primary debate. Apparently angry that several of the candidates kept referring to Israel, Coulter tweeted: “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”
The response on social media was mixed. Some defended Coulter’s remarks—“America has interests that aren’t Israel’s interests,” one Coulter supporter tweeted under the hashtag #IStandWithAnn—while others sharply criticized her. It seems that for many, the issue wasn’t the idea she was apparently trying to convey—that the candidates seemed perhaps overly focused on Israel —but rather the particularly ugly and vicious modifier she attached to “Jews.” It seemed to indicate either some sort of meltdown, or a very dark and angry corner of her mind.
Coulter has made questionable statements about Jews previously, in particular during a 2007 interview when she said that Christians “just want Jews to be perfected.” In fact, lots of Christian denominations have renounced replacement theology, or the belief that the followers of Christ have replaced the Jews as God’s chosen people. Thus, many Christians see the Jews not as a pool of potential converts but rather, in the words of Pope John Paul II, as “elder brothers.”
…American society, like all modern societies, is governed by a set of conventions and models established and enforced by its public elites, including policymakers and journalists, who identify those things that are to be prized and those that are to be detested. This is what coin of the realm means. If an issue is not denounced and identified as hateful and instead proves useful then it may enter the mainstream of political discourse and risk becoming an organizing tool.
So who are these public elites who determine what we say in public without getting shunned? Who are the elites who run the media who set the Overton Window?
Steve Sailer wrote in 2006: "Jewish intellectuals have a tendency that on any topic related to Jews, they tend to think baroquely many steps down the line. Thus, the full panoply of the subjects that have been assumed to be bad-for-the-Jews and therefore ruled out of discussion in polite society is breathtakingly broad — for example, IQ has been driven out of the media in large part because it is feared that mentioning that Jews have higher average IQs would lead, many steps down the line, to pogroms."
To quantify the statement that "Jews are a small group, but influential in their areas of concentration," in 2009, the Atlantic Monthly came up with a list of the top 50 opinion pundits: half are of Jewish background.
Over 1/3rd of the 2009 Forbes 400 are of Jewish background, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency's reporter who covers Jewish philanthropy.
This is not to say that influential Jews are at all united in what they favor. On the other hand, it is more or less true that Jews hold something of a veto over what topics are considered appropriate for discussion in the press, Jewish influence itself being the most obvious example of a topic that is off the table in polite society.
John Derbyshire wrote: "I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT—not ever again—be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently."
Would you like to denounce your past colleagues? No.
Would you like to renounce political heresy? No, back off!
Totally biased, marxist interview.
* Frost (in 1969) tries to ridicule Powell’s figures that, on present trends (i.e. trends of 1969) there would be around 8% to 10% of the population in Britain of immigrant origin by around the year 2000. Well, that’s precisely what has happened.
* The progressive left wing dominated mainstream media have brainwashed the people of Britain into total submission over the last two decades. We are slowly approaching the point of no return & should the people fail to wake up & vote it out at the ballot box then our children will have their freedom and culture erased.
* Frost got thrashed. Both during the interview, and retroactively throughout the decades that have since vindicated many of Powell’s suppositions.
* Powell: Brilliant: What I would give for a leader like him today. As a White British heterosexual male I have experienced being treated differently to others just for that reason. I fear for my children 9+ 8, who are now members of an ethnic minority within their own age group, as White British Children now make up less than 50% of Britain’s primary school pupils. Why was this man so vilified, why was he not listened to, was this the beginning of the being right is no excuse, telling the truth is no defence.
* It may have been a better show if the audience member who challenged Powell toward the end and Frost had changed places throughout. As Powell points out, Frost does seem unclear about whether his task is to interview Powell, debate Powell, or make speeches. Certainly it’s desirable for an interviewer to challenge his subject, but Frost doesn’t seem to understand when to cease pressing a point, and consequently Powell bests him repeatedly. I doubt that would have happened if the interviewer had been, say, Mike Wallace.
* The British Establishment Media Networks still enlist their biased audiences just like the BBC do even today some things never change. Filthy dirty sniper tactics from Frost trying to set Enoch up on National TV with misquotes and lying about the dockers and Enoch this country owes you a huge debt of gratitude for being truthful and destroying the politically correct trash spewed out by the liberal establishment media. The media are still pedalling the same old politically correct garbage today.
* Frost later goes on to bait Powell on whether he believes that there are differences in intellectual potential… TWICE. Powell answered him TWICE. He didn’t fucking know nor care because it wasn’t relevant to the changing ethnicity/cultures etc of British identity. Powell wasn’t ducking an awkward question. Indeed, Frost only thought that he landed a few blows. Frost looked stupid in Powell’s presence.
Powell was lambasted because he spoke of the unspeakable. He was honest to his own detriment (political suicide). He was in a political, social and intellectual league of his own. Grossly misunderstood and misquoted.
Was Enoch Powell right?
Yes, in principle. But he underestimated the influx and subsequent progeny. But Enoch also suspected that this would be the case!
An honest politician that told it like it was. Certainly a man before his time… and ours!!!
* Each to his own and all that, but David Frost did have sex with a lot of black women, and his sexual inclinations might explain his approval of mass uncontrolled immigration.
* This is a great interview. People unfamiliar with Powell outside of the “Rivers of Blood” speech whereupon he was painted as some hostile raving loon would be well served to view it.
Here is a serious, admirable man and politician. Measured, thoughtful, affable, appreciative of language and determined to ably represent his constituents.
Worthy of note is that Frost nearly went through his Birmingham speech line by line to nitpick over singular words used. This shows both how far downhill political reportage has come in that Frost expected an audience to sit through such an exercise as well as showing the adversarial milieu in which Powell found himself at the time. After all, Frost seems to have given him a far more even handed time than most journalists at the time.
Lastly it would be interesting to note the predictions of Powell’s constituents which he recounts in the interview in places like Wolverhampton (?) and which Frost scoffs at, and the actual condition of such places today.
* The prissiness of Frost and an audience member over language and “inflammatory” terms is interesting. It shows how an emphasis on “hate speech” pre-dates our era of political correctness. I think it was the idea that Hitler used words to cast a magic spell over the Germans that made people like Frost so terrified of words and phrases.
* What it shows is the power of the media to the point of the media as the fifth estate. The absolute disrespect Frost is allowed, cutting Powell off, wise cracks, jabs and snide remarks, purposefully misconstruing his words, throwing out insinuations and associations. Whenever Powell made a point, Frost could throw out a joke and his audience of minions would laugh as if on cue. As Solzhenitsyn asked at Harvard, who elects them and whose interest do they serve?
* Why was Robert Frost a big deal? Because he worked for a company that had one of a handful of broadcasting licences and the towers and cameras to exploit that licence. That’s a pretty shabby claim to authority when you think about it.
With not one word changed, Powell’s speeches on Lords reform, some delivered half a century ago, could be delivered today. This is because his analysis was not dependent on day-to-day events and a transient national mood. His approach was based on first principles, extraordinary learning and a rigorous understanding of the British constitution.
It was this intellectual clarity which caused him to oppose British entry to what was then known as the Common Market. At the start of 1971, during the final stage of negotiations, Powell took himself round Europe speaking in Turin (in Italian), Frankfurt (in German) and Lyon (in French). As he remarked: “There is no more ignorant vulgarity than to treat language as an impediment to intercourse, which education, habit, travel, trade, abolish and then remove.” He used these speeches to warn his French, Italian and German audiences that the British tradition of national sovereignty and parliamentary democracy was incompatible with European economic and political union.
He warned: “A common currency means common government; the one is meaningless and impossible without the other.” This remark defines today’s European predicament. On foreign policy he was equally clear-sighted, arguing for a defence strategy based rigorously on the national interest. He was against the American invasion of Vietnam from the start: “The point is that the Americans do not live in south-east Asia, whereas the North Vietnamese and their neighbours do.” On the same principle it can be assumed that Powell would have opposed the Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya interventions.
He demanded equal treatment for enemy combatants, as his speech condemning the Conservative government cover-up of the Hola Camp massacre, in which Britain killed 11 Mau Mau rebels, shows. Powell condemned parliamentary colleagues who called the Mau Mau “sub-human”. The Labour politician Denis Healey called Powell’s contribution (delivered at 1.15 am) “the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard”, with “all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes”. His cold and lucid anger could equally well be applied to Guantanamo Bay and the other illegal detention facilities and torture centres around the world today.
But now we must come to Enoch Powell’s notorious speeches on immigration, which have defined his posthumous reputation and established his pariah status. He challenged the culture of denial that surrounded the subject even then, predicting that the immigrant community would rise much faster than official statistics suggested. His claims were denounced as alarmist and irresponsible, even by The Daily Telegraph. As Tom Bower shows in a well-researched and fair-minded essay, Powell’s projections turned out to be much nearer the truth than the official ones.
But he was wrong on every other point. The bloodshed he forecast has not occurred, while his language was dreadful. He described the fate of an elderly widow who “finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes out to the shops, she is followed by children, charming wide-eyed piccaninnies.” Journalists searched for this woman, but she could not be found. Questioned by David Frost on television, Powell acknowledged that he had never spoken to the woman, and could not even vouch for her existence.
The case for the defence goes like this: at the time immigration was surrounded by a culture of silence, and Powell was doing no more than bravely voicing the concerns (and using the language) of his constituents. He was no racist, as even opponents like Michael Foot acknowledged, and as his stance over the Hola Camp suggests. And let’s not forget that Powell, who had a brilliant war, risked his life for five years in the fight against fascism. But I am certain that the Conservative Party was right to drive him out for his remarks, which had the malign effect that no mainstream politician dared raise the issue of immigration for a generation.
For some, this single episode has been enough to damn his memory, and that can be understood. But Enoch Powell was a man of extraordinary integrity. He walked alone. To quote the late Daily Telegraph commentator TE Utley, doing his best to stand up for Powell in the wake of the notorious “rivers of blood” speech of April 1968: “He does not believe that politics is a hand-to-mouth affair, a succession of expedients to meet unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances.” He was never distracted by the tyranny of the present, and was one of the last politicians prepared to resign or to refuse office on a point of principle or out of loyalty to friends.
Mr Duncan Smith writes that “it is Powell’s belief in the importance of the democratic nation state as the source of political power and his fight to ensure the British people did not leave their sovereignty to supranational institutions which carry the greatest weight”. It is this conflict between the European Union and the nation state, clarified so brilliantly by Powell more than 40 years ago, which continues to animate British politics. Do not be surprised if in due course Mr Duncan Smith were to follow the example of Enoch Powell and resign over the Coalition’s stance on Europe.
Posted inImmigration|Comments Off on Frost On Friday 1969 – Interview with Enoch Powell
According to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry on David Sassoon: “his business, which included a monopoly of the opium-trade, extended as far as Yokohama, Nagasaki, and other cities in Japan. Sassoon attributed his great success to the employment of his sons as his agents and to his strict observance of the law of tithe.”
A member of the Sassoon family emails me: “Luke, I read your article on the SASSOON’s. Your words are trouble and lead to nothing except rousing Antisemitism especially in the Arab world. You can look at any of the great moguls from past centuries and point a finger at the way they earned their fortunes. That goes for Ford and Edison and Vanderbilt and the rest. Why do you focus on the SASSOON’s. Is it only because of their Jewish roots?”
I would say that exempting Jews from the public criticism that others get is a bad idea for Jews (people behave badly when they are exempt from criticism) and for non-Jews (who will resent this Jewish exemption from criticism). Everybody behaves better when they are open to accurate criticism.
Posted inDrugs|Comments Off on The Sassoon Family Fortune Originated From Selling Opium To The Chinese
Link: In April 2015, the “Starships” rapper set the bar for bar mitzvahs sky high, when she performed at 13-year-old Matt Murstein’s coming of age party at The Pierre Hotel in Manhattan’s Upper East Side. [Nikki] Minaj performed a private set of seven songs, snapped pictures with the teens on Matt’s step and repeat, and even doled out a little life advice to the crowd. Matt’s dad, Andrew Murstein, is the founder and president of Medallion Financial Corp.
* In 2008, Snoop Dogg told Esquire magazine, “I performed at a bar mitzvah. And I’m telling you, man, these little [expletive], they were singing my [expletive], they was cussin’, they were singing the dirty version. I’m talking about 12- and 13-year-old little white kids singin’ this real gangsta [expletive]. Man. I was shocked. I just gave them the mic and let them [expletive] go.”
Posted inJews|Comments Off on These Stars Will Totally Do Your Bar Mitzvah
From the Washington Times: Ann Coulter is being vilified on social media after she accused GOP presidential candidates of pandering to “f–ing Jews” during Thursday night’s CNN debate.
“Cruz, Huckabee Rubio all mentioned ISRAEL in their response to: ‘What will AMERICA look like after you are president,’” the annoyed pundit tweeted to her 664,000 followers. “How many f–ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”
“Maybe it’s to suck up to the Evangelicals,” she posited.
“All GOPs = prolife, pro-Reagan, pro-Israel. Pandering on all 3 tonight was EPIC,” Ms. Coultersaid.
Ms. Coulter defended her profane tweet, adding, “I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night.”
The comments didn’t go over well on social media. Conservative radio host Mark Levin called her a “jackass.” New York Post columnist John Podhoretz told her directly, “Shame on you.” New York Times bestselling author Joel C. Rosenberg called her comments “ugly” and “reprehensible.”
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) also released a statement condemning Ms. Coulter. The group’s national director, Jonathan A. Greenblatt, issued the following statement Thursday morning:
“While most of America has rightly tuned out Ann Coulter’s hyperbolic and hateful rhetoric, her irresponsible tweets during the Republican presidential candidate’s debate are truly a new low and must be called out. Ms. Coulter is pandering to the basest of her base. Her messages challenging the candidates’ support for Israel were offensive, ugly, spiteful and borderline anti-Semitic. Her tweets give fodder to those who buy into the anti-Semitic notions that Jews ‘control’ the U.S. government, wield disproportionate power in politics, and are more loyal to Israel than to their own country. All decent Americans should reject Ms. Coulter’s rhetoric as simply beyond the pale.”
“Ann Coulter asks, ‘How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?’ and then blithely dodges Fox News’ direct challenge of her gratuitous anti-Semitic slur.”
“Disgusting,” charged Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish Human Rights NGO, reacting to Coulter’s Tweet during last night’s Republican debate.
“And if a simple, “I am sorry” is beyond the reach of the vocabulary of this noted wordsmith, then perhaps she has unearned her spot among top tier political pundits,” Cooper concluded.
The holy rabbi does not lower himself to explain what was disgusting about her tweet.
Posted inAnn Coulter|Comments Off on Simon Wiesenthal Center Denounces Ann Coulter’s Anti-Semitic Presidential Debate Tweet
John Derbyshire writes: A side story from Wednesday night’s GOP candidates’ debate—covered more thoroughly in the full Radio Derb posted today—was the fuss about Ann Coulter getting exasperated with all the candidates’ asseverations of solidarity with Israel and tweeting, “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”
The beep that Radio Derb listeners will hear, by the way, is Ann’s, not mine. Her actual tweet said “f-hyphen-hyphen-hyphen-i-n-g.”
How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?
This caused a lot of shrieking and swooning, especially of course from ethnocentric Jews. Actor Seth Rogen told Ann that, quote, “You are a horrible f—ing idiot.” John Podhoretz harrumphed back on Twitter.
I seriously doubt that. Those of us who love Ann—and to judge by her book sales, our numbers are legion—love her for the same reason people love Donald Trump: she breaks the mold of conventional political rhetoric.
Trump does the same. The more he does it, and the more the Establishment pundits say “That’ll finish him for sure!” the higher his poll numbers go. I predict the same for Ann’s book sales.
And the mold of conventional political rhetoric has needed breaking. For more than a generation now—for thirty or forty years—politicians have observed the PC proprieties, walking on eggshells around anything that might give offense to anyone, pandering to favored groups and influential donors. The result has been that important issues don’t get discussed in the political arena—immigration policy being the outstanding example.
From the point of view of those of us who are fed up with that style of political diction —half mealy-mouthed schoolmarm prissiness, half unctuous fawning—Ann’s Wednesday tweet was a scream of protest against the latter: against unctuous fawning on what GOP candidates seem to think is a key voting segment.
Why do they think that? Estimates of the proportion of self-identifying Jews in the U.S.A. range from two to four percent, depending on whom you ask; and not all of them are fans of Israel. Why so many shout-outs from GOP candidates to such a tiny demographic? That’s a politer form of Ann’s question.
That’s a fact of life in the U.S.A. I don’t myself think it’s a particularly deplorable one. Whether it is or not, it surely doesn’t justify the shameless and blatant pandering that Ann was targeting.
That pandering just fortifies the impression that our candidates, when they speak, are speaking to wealthy donors and influential commentators, not to us dull-witted, no-account proles: precisely the impression that is driving Donald Trump’s success.
Ann’s tweet was of course well-received by anti-Semites, opening her up to charges of guilt by association. Is she herself an anti-Semite?
The book has 12 index references to Israel. Some are duplicates, references to the same passage under different headings. Here is a very brief summary of the eight referenced passages.
More praise for Israel’s firm policy against illegal immigrants.
Quote: “Jews forthrightly ask: Is it good for the Jews? Why can’t Americans ask: Is it good for Americans?” End quote. There follows a comparison of our troubles with Mexico versus Israel’s with Palestine. This section ends with, quote: “Could we move Israel to our southern border? They know how to defend a country.”
She pooh-poohs the lie that diversity is a strength, and raises counterexamples all over the world, including, “Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.”
The anomaly of the New York Times giving over an editorial to boosting money transfers from the U.S.A. to Mexico when there was plenty of more important stuff going on in the world. There follows a paragraph listing that stuff, amongst it “Israeli airstrikes on Palestinians.”
That’s all Ann has to say about Israel in her book—not exactly a catalog of frothing Jew-hatred. The main impression you get about Ann’s attitude to Israel is that she admires their politicians for doing what ours will not do: defending their national sovereignty and keeping their ethnic balance intact. See Ann Coulter Calls Fury Over Jewish-Debate Tweet “Fake Outrage”: “I’m Pro-Israel”,by Paul Bond, Hollywood Reporter, September 17, 2015.
That’s not even to mention the mass immigration of Muslims into the U.S.A., which is giving anti-Semitism the kind of boost that mass immigration of rabbits would give to sales of lettuce.
In the season premiere, released yesterday, a new character was introduced: “PC Principal.” Describing himself as someone who is “sick and tired of how minority groups are marginalised in today’s society,” the episode revolves around PC Principal’s sometimes violent quest to rid the school of problematic language. Like Dolores Umbridge with more testosterone, PC Principal spends his debut terrorising anyone who he suspects of misgendering trans people or disrespecting women and minorities — occasionally beating up students in the process.
The show takes aim at the most absurdly PC story of recent months — the lionizing of Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner. The plot revolves around Kyle’s refusal to agree that Jenner is a hero. “I thought we were all on board that Caitlyn Jenner is an amazing beautiful woman who had the exquisite bravery of a butterfly flying against the wind,” screams PC Principal, “and then this sh*t comes out of peoples’ mouths!”
Amusingly, PC Principal and his gang of accomplices are portrayed as a hybrid of social justice warrior and college frat jock. At one point, the parents of South Park’s kids go to a college bar where they are accosted by “PC bros” who threaten to “throw down” at the slightest suggestion that Jenner isn’t a “stunning beautiful woman.”
Soon, the PC bros start talking amongst themselves (“Sweet, you’re PC bro?” “Yeah, Arizonia State.” Sweet bro, I’m PC U. Mass.” “Sweet dude.” “Sweet.”) and agree to set up a PC frat house under the leadership of PC Principal. (“No problematic language here bro!”) As a final test, pledges are told to “go outside and check someone’s privilege.”
Given that frat boys are the natural enemies of the social justice left on campus, it’s a creative bit of left-field humour. South Park cleverly questions whether the antics of the frat pack (at one point, the PC bros draw penises on Kyle’s face while he’s asleep) would be deemed acceptable if they were done in the name of progressive values.
Like some of the social justice warriors we’ve covered in the past, the PC bros take a hostile, even violently belligerent attitude to anyone who offends them. At one point, PC Principal beats Eric Cartman to within an inch of his life for using the word “spokesman” instead of “spokesperson.”
In fairness, even Shanley hasn’t gone that far. Yet.
South Park is fictional, but its satire is always grounded in current events. The treatment of Omar Mahmood, terrorised by PC students at the University of Michigan, is a reminder that the “PC bros” aren’t that far off from reality. Representing social justice warriors as frat boys actually comes across as quite accurate. In many ways, they are the new jocks, terrorising anyone who thinks or acts differently. In many ways, they’re just the stupid, meatheaded bullies of the past — they just wear dyed hair, thick-rimmed glasses, and plaid shirts these days.
Of course, there’s a limit to how far the show reflects reality. We’ve yet to see anything like the climax of the episode, where Cartman & co disrupt the PC frat house by luring a mob of pregnant Mexican women inside with tacos, and then setting loose a truck full of Syrian refugee children to be chased around the house by Jared Fogle.
As you might expect, the episode led to considerable hand-wringing from politically correct commentators. “It is a big deal when someone says ‘he’ instead of ‘she’ when talking about [Caitlyn] Jenner,” whined a writer at Bustle. The A.V club grumbled that South Park had been needling political correctness “for years” and that this episode was nothing new. More saltiness could be found on Twitter.
Parker & Stone slowly morphed into the Trump of TV comedy; angry older men getting attention by calling populist-rage "truth-telling."
That said, no one watching this episode with an objective mind can doubt that this is one of Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s finest creations. Now in its 19th season, South Park retains its ability to be shocking, funny, and above all relevant. From the 9/11 truther movement to the language stormtroopers of trans acceptance, the show is relentless in its mockery of our collective manias.
Posted inPC|Comments Off on SOUTH PARK JUST DECLARED OPEN SEASON ON SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS
Mr Turnbull disputed the argument that there should be no limitations on free speech, saying history had proven that “hate speech” was dangerous.
“I am very, very strongly of the view that hate, you know — people who peddle racial hatred — seriously undermine the stability and the harmony of our country,” the minister said.
“You don’t have to look very far, whether around the world today or in history, to see where hate speech can get you,” he said.
When asked about Attorney-General George Brandis’s comments that everyone had a right to be a bigot, Mr Turnbull said that there should be no tolerance for people who were racist.
“As soon as the Opposition as it then was, announced that it proposed to repeal Section 18C, the ECAJ consulted extensively and made known very publicly over many months that it would oppose any repeal of Section 18C.”
“That legislation has served the Jewish community very well over 20 years and should continue to do so. And the legislation should remain intact.
Posted inAustralia|Comments Off on Australia’s New Prime Minister Strongly Supports Hate Speech Laws
* Slovenia is about the perfect country. They have never started any wars, never had a major war fought within their borders. Never had sectarian or civil strife. Never been ruled by despots (Tito’s rule was quite mild). Never been a source of malcontents or revolutionaries. I heard that the landscape is absolutely beautiful: forests, mountains, farms and delightful small cities and towns. And it appears that they produce strikingly beautiful women. And there are only about 2 million Slovenes. But why should they have nice things? If they could force the matter, the SJWs would compel Slovenia to take a couple of hundred thousand of these invaders and destroy Slovenia forever, just because.
* It looks like Europe is screwing Serbia again. In 1999, NATO took the muslims’ side in Kosovo and helped rip away that province. Now the Europeans have encouraged muslims to immigrate en masse into Europe, and Serbia will have to take a big bite out of this sh*t sandwich.
Dumping muslims into Serbia, after the Serbs watched what demographic change brought to Kosovo, is akin to rubbing salt in an open wound. I really feel for the Serbs and am embarrassed that my tax money went to support that 1999 bombing campaign.
* If my memory serves me right, it wasn’t that long ago Serbia was noted for not being too kind to the Muslims settled on its territory.
* All that angst, all that blood letting, violence, suffering and hatred emanating from Serbia just 20 years ago, and the pages and pages and pages of anguished editorial written over it, were, in the great scheme of things, just a pure exercise in futility.
* The open borders left keeps “reminding” Europe that to reject these refugees would be to violate international law on asylum.
Merkel unilaterally and illegally, without consulting the Bundestag (sfaik), declared that Germany would accept basically as many refugees as wanted to come.
Merkel unilaterally and illegally declared, in violation of international law, that these refugees did not have to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrived in.
Merkel unilaterally and illegally sent Germany’s neighbors into chaos as refugees overran them on their way to Germany.
Merkel unilaterally demanded that her fellow EU countries accept some of the refugees she herself illegally invited, after it became clear that too many would come.
But the open borders left keep obsessing about an asylum treaty that has no real legal power to bind a sovereign nation, while ignoring Merkel’s own flagrant violations of the law, just as they ignore or play down Barack Obama’s insistence on ignoring American immigration law.
Why aren’t the Feminazis using this as an example of the war on women? The Muslim man probably stabbed her because he believes women are too inferior to be anything other than baby making machines and housewives.
In his Islamic culture women are only good for sexy time (in Borat accent) and for pumping out little Muhammads out of their vaginas.
* All nonwhite countries violate the international law of asylum. How many Syrian refugees has Mexico taken in? Jorge Ramos should publicly shame his home country of Mexico for not opening their doors to millions of immigrants who do not share the same Catholic religion as the Mexican people.
Mexico needs more Mosques and less Catholic churches.
* On the ground here in Croatia (but far away from the Serbian border).
No one except for a tiny minority of foreign-backed NGO shitheads is welcoming these refugees as the mainstream liberal politicos have done a 180 in 24 hours. The Interior Minister, Ranko Ostojic, has openly told the refugees himself in plain English that there is no room for them in Croatia, that Croatia is not a transit country to Germany, and that if they wish to save their lives they should return to Serbia, Macedonia or Greece.
24 hours ago the PM and the Mayor of the capital were telling the world that they would let the migrants pass through.
…except that Slovenia said it wouldn’t allow migrants to pass through.
Not one of these migrants is willing to register him/herself in Croatia as per EU/UN procedure for fear that it would stop them from getting to Germany, and ALL of them want to get to Germany.
Croatia has now closed its border with Serbia except for one tightly controlled crossing. The migrants now have the option of trying to swim across the various rivers or make their way through minefield-infested cornfields, which three weeks ago saw a de-miner lose his life.
Serbia is fuming that Croatia has sealed its border and is now threatening to ‘sue’ Croatia.
Hungary is extending its border fence for 41km to cover its border with Croatia that isn’t part of the Drava River.
Serbia is now becoming the chokepoint with Croatia sealed and the Serbs are now going to have to figure out what to do. Will they send the migrants through Romania so that they can try to pass through Hungary that way? Will they try to send them across Bosnia?
This is entirely Merkel’s fuck up beyond the guilt of France and the UK for removing Gaddafi. The EU is going to have to start actively patrolling the Greco-Turkish sea border one way or another.
* Hispanic immigrants to the US do come out as more desirable than the Mohammedan hordes currently besieging Christendom. Hispanics tend to be culturally much closer to Americans, being Christian and speaking an Indo-European language. Assimilation is beginning to occur. Also the majority of them do honestly want to work and build an honest life. Just this past week, two of the Hispanics I worked with had such poor English that they could not understand simple questions that I put to them. They worked hard though. That cannot be denied.
Finally, Mexicans and Hondurans are not machine gunning American cartoonists or bombing our commuter rail systems. Nor will they.
* Islam seems to make people more intense, Catholicism less intense.
Posted inEurope, Germany, Serbia|Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Beautiful Wife Is From Slovenia
