Saturday, November 11, 2006

The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month

7 comments:

Ernesto Ribeiro said...

The Rape of Europe



From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2006-10-25 20:57

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”


Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”


Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.


Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”


In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”


As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.


“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.


This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

Anonymous said...

WE WILL NOT FORGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE WILL FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT, WE WILL PERSEVERE, AND WE WILL SACRIFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD BLESS ALL VETERANS WHO HAVE SACRIFICED FOR OUR FREEDOM , ENTITY, AND SELF RESPECT!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE THEM IMMENSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ernesto Ribeiro said...

The ambiguous victory of the democrats


by Olavo de Carvalho



The main result of the legislative elections is the consensus, between the republicans, that the party should abandon bushism and come back to good old conservative line of Goldwater and Reagan, that Bush, for moments, pretended to represent.





In 1975, the American soldiers withdrew of the Vietnam, leaving the free field for the communists, that then promoted the slaughter of 3 millions of civil Vietnamese and Cambodian, the fetidest episode of genocide of the second half of the century XX, exceeding in more from three times the total of dead persons of the war. The result was more than foreseeable, but the loving pacifists that made an effort turn it reality were never charged in the big media by the immeasurable crime that helped to practice. Some, as Noam Chomsky, still did the possible to hide it, and by that are worthy until today like examples of "intellectual uprightness".


Another similar moment is announced for soon in Iraq, by hands of the radical leftists of the Democrat Party, drunken by the easy victory in the Chamber and in the Senate, if are going to lead for the pacifist enthusiasm of John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and others that such.


It's difficult that that arrive it happen, therefore, when had the chance of cause to the practical one the proposal of immediate retreat that advocated of the mouth for outside, the democrats recoiled more than fast. They know perfect that the Iran, at present already the most greatest supplier of recruits for the Iraqi terrorism, is promptly for occupy the territory of the neighboring country or at least for carry out there a slaughter without precedents so soon see the American soldiers gone away. And a thing is speak bad of the government, another one is going sharing of the responsibilities of government. In the time in that the democrats were barely opposition, information as that helped them to squeeze Bush in the wall, obliging him it choose between the risk of ignore the threat and the of take alone an unpopular decision. Now, who is in the wall are they.


That's just one of the motives by that, in the most conservative circles, almost nobody is whining a lot the republican defeat.


By their turn, anti-Americans worlwide are commemorating the double democrat victory in the U.S.A. as went the beginning of the end of the "religious right", if not of the "abominable American Empire" entire.


But, if it is truth that American people is even tired of the war in the Iraq, never the international affairs, alone, decided an election in the U.S.A. Nobody doubts of that the Republican Party paid for the sins of George W. Bush, but the national rejection to the president has very less to do with the war than with the attitudes of him regarding public expense, immigration and electoral legislation – and, in those three areas, he did it not against the democrats, and yes with their enthusiastic support. Of them and of that ones called "RINOS" (Republicans In Name Only), as John McCain and Lincoln Chafee.


The most notorious example was the immigration law. While the entire country claimed for drastic measures against the illegal immigration, the president plotted with the rinos and the democrats a ridiculous plan that not alone amnestied the invaders but gave them more rights than the legal immigrants never had. The proposal awoke so much revolt that the conservative republicans in the Chamber of the Representatives frustrated the plan, working against their own president and suppressing of the law against the illegal immigration the device of amnesty.


That was in December. Then already there was conservatives openly calling Bush "TREACHEROUS".


Bush complicated very his own situation when gave support to a new electoral legislation that limited severely the action of the NGOs not-partisan. Now, those NGOs as by example to National Rifle Association, to American Family Foundation and especially the think tanks like to Heritage Foundation or to Claremont Foundation, the main force of the American conservative movement. It is clear that the democrats, that never obtained to mount a think tank that functioned, worshipped to new rule and the conservatives saw in him an explicit treason of Bush to the cause that professed defend.


More motive for revolt the president gave when violated at the same time two sacred laws of the conservatism, spending a mint of the government for increase the state-owned interference in the childlike education, with the help, obviously, of the democrats. The repugnance of the conservatives to the excess in the public expense is traditional, but his resistance to the state-owned education, that barely be moderated, if transformed in ostensible hatefulness when became clear that the American schools were becoming centers of doutrination, left-wing oriented... by the UN.


The worst one of everything was to sudden revelation of flat secret one of the Council on Foreign Relations in order to dissolve the borders between the U.S.A., Canada and Mexico, practically eliminating the American nation as independent political unit. The idea already was old, but when a citizen appealed to the FIA (Freedom of Information Act), obliging the government to divulge the documents about the matter, that's was uncovered Bush already was formally committed with the governments of Canada and of the Mexico it carry out the plan. The Republican Party, where do there is so many members of the CFR when in the Democrat, did not be able to neither approve an about those neither break openly with the president. Confused and undecided, the Party opted for do itself of dead person, what was the even though ask to the voters that buried it.


But it's clear that neither all to fair irritation of the conservatives against Bush would be able to transform-them in left-wingers. What they did was the more intelligent thing to do: chosing the more conservative between the candidates democrats, and voted in them.


(ER: To even to leader of the tropa-de-choque Nancy Pelosi alone obtained itself reelect when silenced the mouth about 'impeachment' and sold to new image of 'moderated' and 'pragmatic'. All the Party Democrat gone to the center, abandoning the left-wing talk. Neither red republican, neither blue democrat. It understood now because the media recognizes that that was the history voting of the voters 'purple'?)


In this way, the success of the Party Democrat was not neither a victory of the left one neither a defeat of the conservatism. Was a defeat of a ambiguous president and of his "rinos" allied.

Anonymous said...

Lest we forget - William Francis Buckley

In the present multi-culti environment, the ritual torture to death of captive warriors of other tribes, in honor of the victorious tribal god, is a feature of uncivilised savages which it is politically correct not to mention, especially as Native Americans such as the Iroquois delighted in these abominations.

Mercifully for the captives, death would normally occur within two or three days of continual torture, due to heart failure, dehydration, blood loss or infection.

But consider the fate of a warrior captured by a savage tribe with the same Satanic ritual urge to torture in the name of their ‘god’, but with modern medical support to prolong the life of the victim almost indefinitely.

Such was the fate of William Francis Buckley, a US army officer who was ritually tortured by Muslims in the name of Allah continuously and unremittingly for 444 days before death finally claimed him.

William Buckley must have endured more suffering than any other human being in history, for despite agonising 24/7 torture for more than a year, the best doctors in Iran were on call to give life support to prevent his escape through death.

Buckley was captured in Beirut By Hisbollah on March 16, 1984. and was smuggled to Tehran via Damascus aboard an Iranian plane and taken to the cellars of the Iranian Foreign ministry, where he was tortured without respite or mercy until he died of a sudden heart attack despite best attempts at resuscitation. This abomination was carried out with the full support of the demonocratic Iranian government and the vile Islamic pedophile-worshipping ‘clergy’.

Buckley’s remains were then sent back to Beirut and dumped in an unsuccessful attempt to hide Iranian involvement. However during his torture numerous videos of the kaffir’s suffering and ‘humiliation’ (very important to the Muslim male) had been made and these eventually found their way into Mosques worldwide, where they were (and probably still are) used as propaganda to inspire youthful Jihadists.

Buckley’s appalling fate illustrates the Satanic nature of Islamic tribalism. He wasn’t tortured to extract information. Like the prisoners of the Iroquois, he was tortured to appease a sadistic ‘god’ - Allah, aka Satan.

Ernesto Ribeiro said...

I agree.

ISLAM = RELIGION OF SATAN

OSONSFORLIBERTY said...

BRAVO ERNESTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "MO THE PEDOPHILE" IS IN HELL , WHERE HE BELONGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

God bless America