patrick.net

Powerful speech. He concludes with 'uphold the rule of law' and "love thy neighbor". Indeed, Europe allowing Islam to reach its dogmatic fulfillment would mean a rejection of the European rule of law, and submission to a 6th century cult warrior religious dogma, which is ultimately a lame type of barbarity. It's already obvious that Islam and its Toyota caravans and dusty ski-mask automatic handgun villages are going to be slaughtered by the West, they're pawns that don't even realize they are pawns. This whole thing is a power-play that will cycle more power through the UN and those who control it. Virtually all Muslims don't understand that the one they're picking a fight with is the very one that empowered them just enough to be villainous on the world stage rather than just sucking at life in their own sand empires. As for the high-level Muslims who do understand what's actually happening, they probably don't care as they know they are powerless outside their domains - they're in love with their oil money and 'royal privileges' and they know they're going down with the ship.

Islam explicitly teaches its followers not to love their neighbors, if their neighbors are not muslim.

http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/68-mumin/1174-islamic-morality-love-thy-neighbor-only-if-muslim.html

You cannot expect high morality in a religion where the prophet orders his followers not to start the greetings if they meet the non Muslims on the road. Even when the Christians start the greetings, Muslims are not supposed to respond in kind. There was a time, before the current Islamic resurgence, when the Muslim and Christian Arabs treated each other in civilized ways. Nowadays, both mosques and madrasas are working hard to teach, or remind, Muslims with the proper Islamic protocols in dealing with the others. Ideally, Muslims should, discretely, avoid handshakes with others; you never know what those hands were doing a few minutes earlier. The Arab Christians try to be polite and nice to Muslims and greet them in the Islamic way “assalmu alaikum”, meaning peace be upon you. The Muslim etiquette is NOT to respond in kind by saying, “waalaikum assalam” meaning: and peace be upon you. Instead they should say “wassalamu ala mani ittaba al huda” meaning peace be upon those, who follow the right path, which is Islam. The Muslim response is evil and insinuates a declaration that there can be no peace with those Christians. The Christians often do not understand what is behind the Muslim response, and just accept it as a greeting. I also noticed that Muslims apply this etiquette to the Internet. They often start their debate with ex-Muslims by that evil greeting – the only difference is: this time they get an equally harsh response.

Yep, it's religious sanctioned Apartheid.

"Good Morning, Sir. I hopes Massah is doin' fine."
"Hey, boy."

Right, Islam is weird like that -- Islam encourages trickery and all sorts of evils upon nonbelievers.

By contrast, Christianity requires the golden rule in all circumstances. So a Christian must always do good, even when confronted with evil. What is good? Justice is good. Justice is what a Christian would want done to him. Justice is a Christian's expression of the golden rule in the face of evil. That is why a Christian stops an attacker cold in his tracks - justice!

A Christian will also forgive when he would want to be forgiven. But a Christian will neither forgive an unrepentant criminal, nor allow justice to go undone, because Christians love justice.

Greg Glaser says

As for the high-level Muslims who do understand what's actually happening, they probably don't care as they know they are powerless outside their domains - they're in love with their oil money and 'royal privileges' and they know they're going down with the ship.

I agree with everything you say here.

Interesting that part of the speech is about how "we will not give up our freedom," and yet surely an outcome of all of this, no matter how it plays out, is a decrease in freedom and a stronger more powerful "big brother," and probably one step further in the direction of a world government of some kind.

You must have missed comments by a Polish foreign minister here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/16/polish-foreign-minister-suggests-turning-syrian-refugees-into-an-army/

Polish foreign minister suggests turning Syrian refugees into an army

"They can go to fight to liberate their country with our help," said Witold Waszczykowski, who was set to take office on Monday.

So Waszczykowski believes it makes sense to arm and send refugees back into the war zone they desperately fled. He said this would avoid a scenario where "we send our soldiers to fight in Syria while hundreds of thousands of Syrians drink their coffee" in the streets of Berlin.

Don't forget Geert Wilders
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3qpFQXO4EqM

This was predicted Long Ago, back in the last days of the 1960s, by a British War Hero, a highly educated man with degrees in the Classics, and no far-right Conservative but a man who crossed over to support the Labour Party when he felt they were in the right. Enoch Powell.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/mw4vMZDItQo

Great speech, I remember. He was labeled Nazi shortly afterwards ;)

Beware the pikemen!

marcus says

Interesting that part of the speech is about how "we will not give up our freedom," and yet surely an outcome of all of this, no matter how it plays out, is a decrease in freedom and a stronger more powerful "big brother," and probably one step further in the direction of a world government of some kind.

Yeah, totally. I was also thinking TPTB are allowing and empowering Islam to be the grossly ugly enemy it is in order to justify eventually unleashing the West's latest arsenal of weapons (i.e., sonic weapons, cyber attacks, global governance, biometric ID).

I think the chances of jihadi Islam winning a war against the Military Industrial Complex are somewhere between 0% and negative 1,000,000%. Seriously, even if the lights go out (worldwide EMP attacks) and nuclear meltdown occurs, the military industrial complex has surely run countless mock scenarios where they retain power and control from their deep underground military bases stocked with clean water, abundant energy and electricity, and more technology than the general public knows.

The real loser of the next war though will be liberty and the environment. All of this may be worldly speculation and theory though, as things will probably start getting Apocalyptic pretty soon here. In the bible, a recurring pattern is that the Creator promises something to a person or group (e.g., "Israel"), and then Israel eventually transgresses/sins in some major way without repenting, at which point Israel's enemies are allowed to strengthen and unleash terror, until the Creator saves a remnant of Israel for the next round. Might that same pattern be happening today? In one school of thought, Israel's enemies today are systemic, they're everywhere: in islam, in consumerism, in cookie-cutter christianity, in the nation of Israel, Britain, U.S., Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, in the military-industrial complex, in your Grandma's spice cake, in Freemasonry, at the UN, etc.

Perhaps then this is a time for introspection.

mell says

Great speech, I remember. He was labeled Nazi shortly afterwards ;)

The ironic thing being that he was one of the few backbenchers, who, along with Churchill and some Labour MPs, had made himself Hoarse calling Chamberlain and Lady Astor's set fools. Who in 1938 demanded the British Government begin trading in key supplies with Russia before Hitler invaded Poland.

"Like 1916 and 1812, Russia is the key to our victory."

He also insisted on British Standards worldwide, condemning the killing of Mau Mau prisoners who refused to work in the prison camps.

For myself:
Thank you, Multikultis, for now I believe Nationalism is the only answer to the Islamic Threat and Neoliberalism. Otherwise I would be a rather left-of-center Leftist.
If Labour would reverse itself on Immigration, it would sweep the elections, since the Conservatives couldn't betray their Landlord and Neoliberal Capitalist base that demands migrants to offset the strong possibility of declining rents and rising wages as Europe's population would continue to softly decline without it.

Other Europeans who get it, LePen of France, Zaman of the Czech Republic, and Orban of Hungary.

And here is the King of Euro Neoliberals, the vile Jean-Claude Junker.
"Don't let Open Borders critics exploit the Paris Bombing."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3329384/Critics-Europe-s-open-borders-exploiting-suffering-Paris-says-Juncker-vow-save-Schengen-Zone.html

thunderlips11 says

For myself:

Thank you, Multikultis, for now I believe Nationalism is the only answer to the Islamic Threat and Neoliberalism. Otherwise I would be a rather left-of-center Leftist.

If Labour would reverse itself on Immigration, it would sweep the elections, since the Conservatives couldn't betray their Landlord and Neoliberal Capitalist base that demands migrants to offset the strong possibility of declining rents and rising wages as Europe's population would continue to softly decline without it.

Don't forget that what is considered 'Nationalist' these days is just normal parties that would have been part of the liberal burgeoisie back then. I do not subscribe to the notion that enhanced patriotism/taking care of your citizens necessarily comes with any lost liberties, you can keep habeas corpus, warrants etc. for CITIZENS. So this is a leftoid straw man, even from a libertarian point of view.

mell says

Don't forget that what is considered 'Nationalist' these days is just normal parties that would have been part of the liberal burgeoisie back then. I do not subscribe to the notion that enhanced patriotism/taking care of your citizens necessarily comes with any lost liberties, you can keep habeas corpus, warrants etc. for CITIZENS. So this is a leftoid straw man, even from a libertarian point of view.

I agree. I have absolutely NO BEEF with the NSA, CIA, etc. collecting every damn call made in the Middle East, or even calls made by non-US Citizens in the USA without any kind of warrant whatsoever. Or even a very abbreviated warrant process - even a listen first, get the stamp later warrant - for listening to US Citizens suspected of talking about terror for intelligence purposes

thunderlips11 says

mell says

So this is a leftoid straw man, even from a libertarian point of view.

Actually I don't have that much of a problem with it either, as I have always thought it was inevitable, much as I think surveillance of all kinds will naturally increase along with the technological ability to maintain and utilize it at a reasonable cost. It is an inevitable loss of liberty though in some ways. The terrorist threat just allows it to happen in a more accelerated way and with less legislative debate. That may work out fine, and it may not.

I guess the main risk would be some future totalitarian regime taking over all of that surveillance power towards their own ends.

Unfortunately this guy reminds me an other German speaking "leader" at a pulpit.

Heraclitusstudent says

Unfortunately this guy reminds me an other German speaking "leader" at a pulpit.

Hitler speeches are more entertaining

It is clear that certain Middle East countries are not ready for self rule.

Heraclitusstudent says

Unfortunately this guy reminds me an other German speaking "leader" at a pulpit.

nah, he's much more cheerful.

and he's defending the rule of (democratic, not sharia) law and "love thy neighbor" against a religion violently opposed to both of those things.

thunderlips11 says

for now I believe Nationalism is the only answer to the Islamic Threat and Neoliberalism. Otherwise I would be a rather left-of-center Leftist.

People misunderstand nationalism. Nationalism is about identity. A national identity. And of course it should be defended. Nationalism has been excessively shamed in Europe since WW2.
Islamism too is about identity. You can't assert yours without being at war with them.