Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Refugees - Thanks for asking but we are busy



Obama went on Twitter advocating that the USA accept invaders even as many people on the Right are resisting.

The Left's response has been predictable - if you don't want refugees you are an evil and racist person.



Yet, curiously, these same people are quite on Israel. And Israel does not bother to make up some excuse how they are worried if they can properly "vet" the refugees. Israel just states they don't want any non-Jews because they want Israel to remain Jewish. I wait for the ADL to make a tweet that they are "deeply disappointed" in Israel not accepting refugees.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syrian-refugees-israel-20150906-story.html




5 comments:

  1. The House just passed a vetting bill for refugees. I'm sure the Senate and Barry will ensure its strict and competent enforcement. No worries!

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.truthandaction.org/mizzou-student-vice-president-personally-tired-first-amendment/

    Look at this. Black students say they have no use for the First Amendment.
    Progs are now bitching about Free Speech cuz it allows too much 'hate speech'.

    Maybe the Right should fight fire with fire.

    Okay, the Right should also say END THE FIRST AMENDMENT. No more speech protection for whomever.

    The Right should only defend speech that is pro-white, pro-Western, and pro-European.

    The Right should oppose and try to ban any speech that spreads black violence, homo decadence, Jewish subversion, and etc.

    Ban all rap music for spreading racial violence.

    Ban all porn cuz it's Jewish-run industry that uses white women like pieces of meat.

    Ban all anti-white speech because it's hateful to the people who did most to create the modern world.

    Ban all feminist speech cuz it hates on men and creates divisiveness between white men and white women.

    Ban all homo propaganda since it spreads the lie that Bruce Jenner is a woman and the lie that fecal penetration is biologically and morally of equal value as real sexuality. It also corrupts children.

    No more Free Speech. There is now only OUR SPEECH vs THEIR SPEECH.

    And we must be for OUR SPEECH, and we need to call for banning of THEIR SPEECH.

    And we are justified in calling for this War of Speech since it is the Progs, Jews, homos, and blacks who are calling for End of Free Speech.

    Okay. The hell with Free Speech. White people should now call for banning all speech that hurts white interests from a**holes of other groups. Whites should go the Russian Route or the Turkish Route. In Russia, one cannot badmouth the Red Army of WWII. In Turkey, one cannot defame Turkishness. We need the Turkish option.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies


    1. Btw, it's often been said that the Left went from free speech rights to hate speech policing.

      There is some truth to this in the sense that the 60s college radicals invoked free speech rights in order to do as they pleased on campuses.
      But this overlooks a very important fact. The radicals were in fact pushing for a kind of Speech of Intimidation that would shut down civil discourse/debate and enforce only their own views.
      The seeds of PC were there in the beginning of the so-called Free Speech Movement.

      Free Speech works like traffic. It needs rules and regulations. When it comes to Free Speech, there shouldn't be any limits in what is said or conveyed. But there should be rules in HOW it is said.
      Likewise, when it comes to traffic and travel, there shouldn't be limits on where we want to go. But there has to be rules on how we get there. We must obey traffic signals. We must travel at certain speeds in certain places. We must obey the rules; that goes for each and every driver.
      Free Travel doesn't mean everyone gets to ride like a maniac as in ROAD WARRIOR or STAGECOACH. That be like post-apocalyptic scenario or like cowboys and Indians chasing/shooting one another. A person who breaks all traffic rules in the name of Free Travel is messing up the true meaning and process of Free Travel for everyone else.

      Free Speech works the same way. We should be able to express any view, but there has to be rules of discourse, of agreed-upon manners, rational methodology, shared principles of logic and honesty, and etc.
      Academia must uphold these standards. Academia should allow the pursuit of any truth or idea, but it has to uphold the proper processes of research, debate, discourse, and discussion.

      The Free Speech Movement threw a monkey wrench into academic standards. It was about the freedom of students to be obnoxious, disruptive, intimidating, thuggish, and impatient without any regard to proper process of discourse whatsoever. Their idea of speech was taking over spaces and screaming and demanding stuff right away OR ELSE. These students on occasion even occupied buildings and even held deans hostage. It was less about Free Speech than about Fright Shout.
      They were unwilling to sit down and argue their points with mutual respect shown to the other side that disagreed. They simply wanted to scream and shout until the other side backed down out of fear. It was Mob Radicalism.

      And it is this mentality that has taken over American campuses.

      And look at today's debating styles. Blacks need not play by agreed-upon methodologies. They merely need to shout, dance, strut, rap, holler, woller, and act like looney apes. Even Fred G. Sanford and Aunt Esther had more dignity.

      It's like sports. It would be pure barbarism UNLESS there are agreed-upon rules and do's and don'ts. Otherwise, boxing matches will turn into kick-in-groin and gouge-out-eyes contests. Everyone will be biting, kicking, and tearing off limbs in football. There has to be sportsmanship. A boxer is free to do as he pleases WITHIN established rules that goes for both boxers. A boxer who kicks the opponent in the groin in the name of 'free sports' is missing the point.

      Jews and blacks are not big on sportsmanship, a sense of honor rooted in aristocraticism of Europeans. Jews love to transgress and subvert, and blacks love to jive and ugabuga holler.

      Delete
  3. Your point about PREMISE is so true.

    Yes, it's the premise that really counts.

    So, what should be the premium premise for the white race? Racial survival, territorial ownership of their lands, and moral righteousness for existing as a people/culture and possessing the land beneath their feet.

    That being the premise, what should white people fear most? They should fear most the very groups that threaten them most. Who are they?

    Jews, Negroes, and Immigrants.

    Jews because they are smarter than whites and pose an intellectual, economic, and political threat to whites. Also, as Jews control the Narrative, they manipulate white emotions and values.

    Blacks because they are stronger than whites. Blacks commit lots of crime and often abuse whites. But this is a turn on for some white women cuz the nature of female sexuality is to submit to the tough guy. So, if a black thug beats up a white woman's father, she may be appalled by the act but a part of her wants to have sex with the Negro and have his kid because the Negro is the alpha who beat up the white boy.

    If Jews pose a brain threat and blacks pose a brawn threat, immigrants pose a demographic threat. India has 1.3 billion people but still has high birthrate. Indian government says it is seeking to export 300 million people in the next decade. And Latin Americans wanna come to the US for free stuff and low-level jobs. Browns may not pose the intellectual threat of Jews or physical threat of blacks, but too many of them will change the character of white nations.
    Just look at parts of UK that has too many Pakis. I got nothing against Pakis perse but why must there be so many in the UK? UK isn't UKistan.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Given what blacks have done to cities, it's understandable why Americans have been more okay with immigration.

    If I had to choose between 'Syrian refugees' and blacks, I'd go with the former.

    If I had to choose between Mexican illegals and blacks, again I'd go with the former.

    This is why European immigration policy makes no sense.
    In the US, immigrants at least serve as buffers and middlemen between whites(at least affluent ones) and blacks.
    In Europe, they are bringing in all these blacks who are nothing but trouble.

    This is, of course, one reason why Europeans got so excited about relatively lighter-skinned 'Syrian Refugees'. Better them than the less modern other Muslims and black Africans.

    At any rate, the problem was never immigration but color of immigration.

    After all, Israel is for Jewish immigration and has no problem with it. More Jews means more power to Jews in Israel. What's not to like.

    Suppose there are Anglo 'expats' all over the world and they want to re-emigrate to the UK. Why should any white Briton oppose such an home-coming immigration?
    It would keep UK white and British, and it would mean more Anglo folks in Britain.

    In contrast, letting in tons of non-British and non-white immigrants would mean Britain becoming less British and becoming invaded by another people.

    Suppose there is a worldwide Kenyan diaspora. Suppose all these Kenyans around the world want to immigrate back to Kenya. Should Kenya oppose it? No. It would be Kenyans coming to Kenya, like Jews going to Jewish Israel.

    It's all about race. Immigration is okay or not okay depending on who is immigrating.

    If your own kind is immigrating back to your country, it strengthens your nation and race.
    If another kind is immigrating your country, it weakens your hold on your own country.

    Jews know this, which is why they are for ONLY JEWISH immigration to Israel. But they want to weaken white gentile countries, so they say European nations must take in all these Muslims.

    PS. Could it be that one of the reasons why Jews want European nations to take in Muslims is precisely because European nations will have problems with Muslims? That could make the Europeans sympathize more with Jews in Israel: 'We Europeans have problems with Muslims just like Jews do in Israel.'

    Of course, there is the danger that white Europeans might side with Muslims and pander to them and become more hostile to Zionism. Both tendencies can be seen in UK and France.

    But even European rightists who don't like Muslims and may sympathize with Zionist problems with Muslims surely wonder sometimes: "It was the Jewish elites who led the way in urging us to take in all these Muslims."

    ReplyDelete