A Clash of Symbols

Last night I posted VH’s translations of the latest news about Pro-Köln, the German activist group that has so enraged the High Mandarins of Multiculture by opposing the building of mega-mosques in German cities. In the comments section that followed there was much discussion of the significance of mosque-building in the West, and whether it really matters.

Robert Marchenoir posted an excellent comment on the matter which merits being reposted in full. I have edited it slightly for clarity:

The MuezzinThe mosque issue may be viewed as being of secondary importance, because it seems mosques are only a symbol.

However, it is precisely because they are a symbol that it is so important to nip them in the bud.

The strategy of Islam is all about symbols: the veil; Ramadan; the unkempt beards; the slain sheep, etc. Mohammed cartoons are but a symbol: see what they made out of them.

Islamists use symbols as a lever to impose their rule, while pretending at first they are really no big deal: just symbols, you see.

However, when indigenous European girls are systematically harassed sexually by Muslim youths, and even raped, unless they submit and don the veil, suddenly a mere piece of cloth turns into much more than a symbol.

Mosques are not mere symbols, even by that most extended definition.

Mosques have classrooms, where hatred of Christians and Jews can (and most likely will) be taught. They have preachers who can (and will) call to jihad. They have “social services” which will collect donations and use them for jihad. They have imams who will commit rape against infidel women, then produce alibis from fellow muslims testifying they were preaching at the time (this happened in Great Britain). They have minarets, from which loudspeakers will blare the call to prayer; not right from the beginning, but be sure that Muslims will attempt that trick at some point in the future.

And when your house is within earshot of a minaret blaring the call to prayer at 6 a.m., how much do you think its value will fall? How long will you stay there?

– – – – – – – –

That is not symbolic at all. It is active ethnic warfare.

When Muslims ask for their own specific areas in Christian graveyards, it might seem as “just a symbol” at first. However, what they will not tell you right away is that a Muslim grave is never to be touched. Ever.

Whereas in France’s crowded urban cemeteries, for instance, you (the Christian) cannot buy a perpetual plot any more. The longer they will allow your loved ones to remain there might be 30 years. After that, the bones will be retrieved and put away in some common place. The grave will be gone.

Be very sure that, once Muslims have won their Muslim plots in Christian graveyards, they will raise hell if some civil servant attempts to submit them to the common rule. Do you seriously think any western politician will risk urban guerrilla warfare or suicide bombing over some old bones?

You have already guessed the end of the story: after a while, Europeans will be wiped out even from their graveyards. Their very memory will be gone. No one will ever know they once inhabited this land.

So, yes, symbols are very important. That is why we have flags, after all.

5 thoughts on “A Clash of Symbols

  1. Actually the Islamic war on history is understated here. In Muslim parts of Israel there are digs to find and destroy evidence of pre Islamic Jewish occupation of the area. In Saudi a 4th century church was recently discovered and the crosses where immediately removed.
    The entire dig will likely be destroyed soon as well as any records of its discovery. Stories of this nature on the war on history itself by Islam and its adherents are common and the author of this article is quite right to point out its importance.

  2. yes Muslim graves are forever claimed for Islam. Just like mosques. Elites are so vain, they think they are too good to even sympathize with the indigenous trash of their past. They are as much the enemy as Islam.

  3. Great post.

    “That is not symbolic at all. It is active ethnic warfare.”

    Yes. They don’t have to fight us militarily or by terror. They just need to use our laws against us (like their threats against anyone publishing articles critical of Islam, or even just daring to question Islam).

    Speaking of Muslim grave customs, there is a sad story about a Canadian Muslim girl, Aqsa Pervez, who was killed by her father in an honour killing. Although if you say that it had anything to do with Islam that a man strangles his daughter, they will deny it vehemently.

    Read about the family burying her, in Canada, with only a numbered stone. Truly sickening.


  4. Combine “holy” and “criminal” and you have a theory in nutshell how to destroy any civilization.

    Any civilization tries to distance at its best the “holy” and the “criminal” from each other. Than you have the no-distance-combination of both – a perfect focus – personified in Mohammed.

    The focus point became also the shot Greek teenager. Think of the paradox – shooting more people would weaken the focus point, the riots in Greece would be less powerful.

    Is it also the high social status of this kid which cripples the police? Shooting the elite´s kid?
    A social blasphemy crippling the self-defence instincts?

    Likewise Mohammed was part of the Meccan elite (his grandfather kept grooming him for his position). Killing him would be an attack against elite in some way. Same with Fidel Castro. Get born priviliged and switch social structure as much as you can – a precipee for maximum power. There is not so much risk involved as you might think…

    Combine underclasses and elites.
    You get maximum explosive mixture.

    The anarchists in Greece do so right now, Fidel Castro and Mohammed did the same.

Comments are closed.