I am not sure what else is to be expected when the West invades barbarian lands and then invites the barbarians here. Cameron is a pathetic sissy calling this "terror-related." No, Prime Minister, it's far worse than anything you and the rest of the Cathedral's blank slate adherents can imagine. It's just the sort of thing that barbaric primitives in thrall to a hostile creed are going to do when placed in an unarmed, passive society. The immigrants are what they are; they do not belong and never should have been invited. If there's to be outrage, it should be directed to the people who dream up these awful social engineering schemes.-The Anti-Gnostic
I have generally disagreed with AG's hardnosed anti-immigration stance. And for the most part I still do. But I think I am coming around to his POV at least with regards Islamic immigration. There is a lot of evidence that Muslims just don't assimilate well and that their cultural and moral compass is incompatible with that of Western Civilization.
See also these related articles...
The Manhood of the West
Cameron: Attack Not Representative of Islam; Al-Shabaab: Yes It Is
7 comments:
http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=628
This is a better insight.
Pfaff is saying the same thing I am saying, and that Pat Buchanan and Steve Sailer are saying: they are over here because we are over there.
Also, if we're going to wave the bloody imperialist shirt about, remember the Mohammedans were imperialist way before it was fashionable. They poured out of the Arabian peninsula and brutally homogenized dozens of distinctive Christian cultures in North Africa and the Levant. These were Berbers, Greeks, Assyrians, Phoenicians and many others. Now they all speak the Prophet's language and we call them 'Arabs.' This historical fact is consistently and deliberately ignored.
A-G,
I think you should read a bit more history. You do remember the Byzantines, the Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians etc;, etc;?
I believe all were imperialists also and all "brutally homogenized" conquered populations.
And let's not forget the Chinese and the Mongolians, Tartars etc;
And let's not forget the Israel of the Old Testament...not exactly a mellow, peace loving nation then and, as Pfaff discreetly points out, not now.
Honestly, you make Colonel Blimp look like a wussy liberal.
The point remains: they are over here because we are over there. And it really chafes liberals when conservatives are the ones pointing this out.
There's actually an odd synergy between conservative military adventurism and law and order, and the liberals' vast social engineering schemes.
Without an aggressive military to bring female suffrage and public schooling to Central Asia, and a large national security apparatus to manage the influx of so many disparate peoples--institutions commonly associated with conservatism--that Great Global Democratic Vision runs out of gas pretty quick.
Then we're back to blood and soil, aren't we?
Could you tell me why we are, or more correctly, have been over there for more than a century?
"Over there" encompasses quite a bit of the world....Why,exactly, do we need to be "over there"?
With rare exceptions, we don't need to be over there and should not be.
Could you please, please, define "over there"?
Would being "over there" include oil companies, manufacturing companies, financial corporations, etc;etc; as well as the large number of military bases etc;?
I really think you and A-G are rather blind as to what being "over there" entails.
Post a Comment