Last weekend a demonstration was staged in Berlin to speak out on behalf of Germans who have been slaughtered by migrants since 2015, or who have been traumatized by cultural enrichment in other ways.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for translating the video below, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling. The translator includes these introductory notes:
An event called the “Line of Horrors” was organized in Berlin on Saturday January 19th memorializing all the victims of migrant crime since 2015. It took place at 11:30am in front of the federal chancellery.
The woman reading victims’ stories is Brigitte Poisson. The other man speaking is named Jürgen Richert.
The man being interviewed at the beginning goes by the name Robert V., a.k.a. Robert Einzelfall (“Isolated Incidents”).
“Und Täglich Grüsst der EINZELFALL” is a reference to the movie Groundhog Day with Bill Murray. The title of the movie in German (rough translation) is “The groundhog says hello every day.” So… “The Isolated Incident says hello every day”
Most Germans, including politicians, don’t know a thing about Switzerland. They think of rich people at Zurich’s Bahnhofstrasse, a.k.a. the “Million-Dollar Mile” [That’s slang for the Bahnhofstrasse — translator]. They think of evil bankers with big fat bank vaults for German tax-evaders, they think of hillbilly “Alpöhi” [Heidi’s grandfather in the story “Heidi” — translator], they think of uneducated goat herders like Peter and naïve Heidis, they think of nasty “Schweizermacher”, immigration officials, [The word “Schweizermacher”, “Swissmakers”, is based on an infuriating propaganda “comedy” from 1978 that portrayed two particularly nasty government immigration officials harassing the poor Africans swarming into Switzerland in the ‘70s and ‘80s — translator], and they think of a quixotic population that voted for the ban on minarets.
A small portion of Germans dreams of Swiss citizen-ballot voting. But if only everything were just like that.
The reality is that Swiss banks have long practiced the self-abnegation crawl in front of tax collectors of foreign countries, and that they sell out their clients to blackmailing US administrations or SPD administrations.
The results of citizens’ voting ballots that are disliked are levered out by the elites in politics and justice, they grovel in front of other nations, and they are jubilant when an EU court or some UN organization has the last word. And also there’s no lack of rampaging leftists.
Meanwhile, half of the citizens in Switzerland are now foreigners. Tendency rising. Here’s a few quotations from an article of the WELTWOCHE from Jan 9, 2019:
At the beginning of data acquisition in the year 1926 almost 100% of the 200,000 migrants were reported to possess only Swiss citizenship. 2016 we see a completely different picture: of the 775,000 Swiss citizens who live in another country, 570,000 had one or more passports. That’s a share of about ¾.
Similarly steep is the share of passport holders inside Switzerland; actually it progressed extremely rapidly. In 1996 Switzerland counted 236,000 people with dual citizenship. twenty years later this number has risen to 900,000. This means that dual citizens are the fastest-growing part of the population.
The composition of the population living in Switzerland is therefore being downright plowed up, and even more so when you look at the growth in the numbers of asylum seekers and migrants.
1950 saw 285,000 asylum seekers in Switzerland; in 2016 the number increased to 2.1 million. The absolute number has increased sevenfold since the end of the war. The share of asylum seekers in Switzerland rose from 5% to 25%.
If you add the number of asylum seekers/migrants with dual citizenship (which also comprise 25%) together with the share of asylum seekers/migrants, it becomes painfully clear that the Swiss citizens with simple one-passport citizenship only make up 50% of the entire citizenry of Switzerland.
Germany is not quite there yet, but they are moving in that direction. How will Switzerland digest this development? Many of these asylum seekers/migrants are working. The social state is still able to whitewash these tears in the fabric. Still.
The following video is an excerpt from President Emmanuel Macron’s much-ballyhooed “national debate” that he convened to try to defuse the anger expressed as the Yellow Vest movement.
Brigitte Barèges is the mayor of Montauban in southern France. In this clip Ms. Barèges, addressing President Macron, expresses her doubleplus ungood opinions about French immigration policy and the negative aspects of cultural enrichment in France.
Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
The following article was published at Alexander Wendt’s website. It points out that the only kind of “integration” that occurs in Germany is when immigrants overwhelm, drive out, or absorb the native German population. In Berlin, “integration” means turning Germans into Turks.
What happens in schools in which Turkish and Arab youths are already in the majority? Assimilation is in reverse: it is the “Almans” who are adjusting themselves.
I am 16 years old and I live in Berlin-Kreuzberg. I grew up between Görlitzer Park, Warshaw Street und Kottbuss Gate. At my elementary school the percentage of foreigners was past the 70% mark.
I experienced what the words “integration difficulties” really meant: A third grader sitting on the floor, crying and hitting at the teacher who tries to soothe him; a fellow student storming angrily out of the classroom after a warning and can only be brought back with much difficulty. Another who’s taking a nap during German class. And ultimately, a fourth-grader who visits the local mosque regularly and babbles on to me about good and evil angels sitting on my shoulders. It was a crazy time; the educational level was beyond ridiculous. I have learned absolutely nothing in elementary school. Nada y niente.
And still — and, yes, this may sound crazy — I was better friends with the Turks, the Kurds and the Arabs than I was with German students. Because most German students in Kreuzberg are just insanely dumb: They have been brought up anti-authoritarian; achievements and performance were foreign concepts to them, but their mommies were sure that something was going to come from them — something about painting pretty pictures or maybe music. The child could jam away on the drums so well…
When I got older, I went to grammar school, out and away from Kreuzberg. The older I got, the more things changed around us. Those Germans with the last bit of common sense left. Those who remained at the Kreuzberg schools soon only had two options left: Either they were excluded, and ridiculed as “Almans” — or they assimilated. They adjusted themselves. They assimilated so that they could belong to a deeply Islamic-shaped youth culture. There everything was about honor and family, and whoever said anything against it or just generally was of different opinion than the leader of the group got punched in the face. Sure, as far as alcohol and girls went, things weren’t so Islamo-puritan, unless it was about your own sister, so help us allah, because then it was a matter of honor. Shisha was all the latest rage, music came from rappers who were rapping things in broken German about punching people in the face and boxing. This culture reacted allergically to everything German, Western, and against everyone who didn’t immediately shed themselves of it.
I’ve watched how the assimilating Germans started to talk in slang. They took up the mannerisms of their migrant friends, and in order to try and completely evade the slightest accusation of Almandome, they would try to exceed and surpass their migrant friends in things such as aggression and the propensity to use violence.
The fact that culture functions in this way here is known by everyone, whether a student at Waldorf, SPIEGEL online reader, a Green Party member/fan, or just generally a tolerance-loving diversity fan: to accuse a migrant gang of cheating at soccer by Bolzplatz? Better not. To flirt with a girl with darker skin? Rather keep your distance.
In a follow-up to Thursday’s post, Seneca III provides a more detailed account of Cousin Theresa and the catastrophic failure of her Brexit deal.
End of Days? — Part II: An Update
by Seneca III
To recap: The voting down of May’s Brexit ‘Deal’ (the Withdrawal Agreement) was not meant to carry out the will of the British people as determined by the Referendum, but rather the first step in a convoluted process to use amendments and contra-constitutional machinations designed to bring about a set of conditions whereby departure would be interminably delayed until we would be forced to remain shackled to and still funding the crumbling EU by default.
Summary: Today is Day Two since Theresa Mary May and her spavined government managed to survive a vote of no confidence by a narrow margin because the thought of a Jeremy Corbyn administration run by a Marxist cabal of Venezuela-style apparatchiks was too much even for the most ardent Remainer to contemplate… and little has changed.
In many ways this scenario is best illustrated by The Daily Telegraph, once known as ‘The Tory Party at Prayer’. It, like its readership in the comments section, has sunk into a morass of internecine, bipartisan uncertainty where so many of the comments demonstrate a level of ad hominem sniping that is depressing to behold — a reflection, perhaps, of this divided country at large. On the 16th January it led with an article exposing the underhanded duplicity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one Phillip Anthony Hammond (another Oxford PPI graduate) in which it reported (mostly behind a paywall) that:
Philip Hammond [together with Clark (Business Sec) and Barklay (Brexit Sec) I would add], told business leaders that the “threat” of a no-deal Brexit could be taken “off the table” within days and potentially lead to Article 50 “rescinded”, a leaked recording of a conference call reveals.
The Chancellor set out how a backbench Bill could effectively be used to stop any prospect of no deal. He suggested that ministers may even back the plan when asked for an “assurance” by the head of Tesco that the Government would not oppose the motion.
He claimed next week’s Bill, which could force the Government to extend Article 50, was likely to win support and act as the “ultimate backstop” against a no-deal Brexit, as a “large majority in the Commons is opposed to no deal.”
Hereunder a list of known participating CEO’s:
Jurgen Maier, Siemens UK
Doug Gurr, Amazon UK
Keith Anderson, Scottish Power
John Allan, Pres of Tesco and Pres of the CBI
Peter Mather, BP UK
Leo Quinn, Balfour Beatty
Richard Pennycook, British Retail Consortium
Paula Vennells, CEO of Post Office and director of Morrisons
Caroline Fairborn, CBI
Vivienne Hunt, McKinsey & Co.
Simon Blagden, Fujitsu UK
[It is worth noting that In January 2018, senior Conservative MPs mounted pressure on Theresa May to sack Hammond as Chancellor following his recent comments about Brexit, which were deemed too Europhilic in nature. He remains in office, so the Witch of Westminster must obviously hold him in some sort of affection — or complicity. It looks as if Hammond, May & Co. do as all crooks and fraudsters do. All have something on each other, so they must live by the code of “If I go down, so will you.” It is mutual blackmail that holds the gang together…self-survival.]
However, Hammond, Clark and Barclay are not alone in the government’s attempt to thwart the will of the people. Again, in the Telegraph on the 17th more revelations of the treason embedded in the heart of Westminster surfaced:
Jussi Halla-aho is the chairman of the Finns Party, the only major political party in Finland that opposes mass immigration and Islamization.
In the following video Mr. Halla-aho talks about migrant crime and culture-enriching welfare leeches. He proposes a measured, sensible program to roll back the cultural enrichment and return Finland to the Finns.
Many thanks to KGS for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Tucker Carlson is a prominent conservative talking head in America. For the better part of a year, he’s been accumulating occasional pieces on the fate of men in our gynetrophied culture. As usual, this phenomenon is tied implicitly to the unintended effects of globalism.
In this episode, Carlson features Heather MacDonald and her recent book:
Men leaving the scene (#MGTOW) was predicted a generation ago by Lionel Tiger, a cultural anthropologist from Rutgers. Somewhere, in one of his books I read back in the 1980s, he made the observation that when women begin to crowd any given field the men quietly drift away. I recall one of the occupations he cited historically was the way women gradually took over the niche male secretaries once held. But which book that was I’ve since forgotten (though you don’t forget a person named Lionel Tiger, do you?).
Here’s a book of his from the turn of this century:
“Lionel Tiger, a pioneer of biological anthropology and developer of the concept of male bonding, here delivers a very well-researched and well-written brief for masculinism, which if successful, may gain parity with feminism and eventually transform women’s studies within academia into what they should have always been, namely, gender studies.” (Edward O. Wilson, author of Consilience and Pellegrino University Research Professor, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University)
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Katie Hopkins have recently been in Finland to report on the growing presence of “grooming gangs” — more accurately, traffickers in child sex slaves — among culture-enriching “Finns”. Katie & the Wolff have been paying special attention to Oulu, a city in northern Finland that is now known as “the rape capital of Finland”.
Yesterday, after they met with Laura Huhtasaari of the Finns Party, Ms. Hopkins was once again interviewed by a journalist for the state broadcaster YLE. When asked tendentious questions, Ms. Hopkins — with her trademark English-bulldog style — insisted that the interviewer deal with the topic at hand on her own terms, and not those of the PC state media.
Many thanks to KGS for recording and uploading this video. Knowing YLE, this is the only version of the interview that will ever see the light of day. The audio track is quite low, but if you turn the volume up you should be able to hear just about all of it:
On Sunday, while he was onstage at a charity event, the mayor of Gdańsk was stabbed, and later died. Green Infidel, who translated a video of the incident, describes what happened:
On Sunday January 13 the mayor of the northern Polish city of Gdańsk (known for being the home of the Solidarity movement), Paweł Adamowicz, was stabbed on stage while live on TV in a large-scale nationwide annual charity concert. The knifeman somehow made his way on to the stage at the same time as the mayor was present (apparently the assailant managed to obtain a press pass). He proceeded to knife the mayor, then took time to walk around the stage with his arms raised, and even addressed the crowd to say he had “just killed” the mayor, before finally he was tackled to the ground.
The wounds suffered by the mayor were serious — apparently he was stabbed close to the heart, and on Monday afternoon (January 14), after many hours fighting for his life in hospital, he was pronounced dead.
The video below captures the surreal moment of the knifing (at 0:17, the knifeman runs from left to right on the stage, presumably to stab Mr Adamowicz, before running back and then standing on the stage with his arms raised in the air, before addressing the crowd, which was totally oblivious to what had just happened).
It’s hard to see what happens onstage in the video — even the audience is unaware of the attack until well after it happens.
The big question now is what sort of ripples the tragic incident will cause in Polish politics. Green Infidel adds this further analysis:
Paweł Adamowicz, the mayor of Gdańsk for more than twenty years, and the recipient of numerous “mayor of the year” awards, was known for being a big fan of accepting “refugees” and promoting Multiculturalism, and was a strong opponent of the governing Law and Justice Party.
There’s nothing to suggest this was the motive — the knifeman on the stage, known only as Stefan W., said he was “unfairly imprisoned by the former Civic Platform government. This is why Adamowicz has just now been killed.” He was apparently released from prison around a month ago, after a five-year sentence for armed robberies of two banks, and had also received psychiatric treatment.
Nonetheless, as Adamowicz was such a big opponent of the Law and Justice party, this is bound to have repercussions. Fingers are already being pointed at the Right for fomenting a “climate of hate”, especially Polish state TV, TVP, which had run many news segments attacking Adamowicz. Also, this happened at the “Great Orchestra of Christmas help”, a charity event which raises money for equipment for causes such as children’s’ hospitals, but which is organised and promoted by prominent leftists, and attacked by many on the Right as being hostile to Christian values (the head of the campaign, Jerzy Owsiak, has given statements supporting euthanasia and abortion rights, and runs Woodstock, an annual hippie-style concert in Poland).
As such, this may well be a significant moment in Poland, especially during an election year…
Now we’ll just wait and see what happens. Green Infidel will keep us informed.
The SPD politician Thilo Sarrazin is known for his provocative statements about immigration and Islam. As we reported last night, Mr. Sarrazin was recently a guest speaker at an event at the University of Siegen, and was vigorously protested by progressive students.
The video below is an editorial comment by RTL WEST head Jörg Zajonc, who objects to the widespread attempts to silence dissident opinions.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
However, the uniformity of opinion decried by Mr. Zajonc is not a bug in German culture, but a feature. It is seen as the responsibility of teachers, journalists, and commentators to ensure that their audience is directed towards the correct opinions.
As MissPiggy (who translated this one, too) put it:
The state broadcasting agitator Anja Reschke declared on Swiss television (on the German-language network 3sat) to the stunned presenter that in Germany, journalists have an “educational mission”, because the citizens would otherwise overthrow “the government”.
Once again, thanks to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
When Thilo Sarrazin came to speak at Siegen University in Germany, social justice warriors among the students did their best to de-platform him. Even though they failed to keep his “hate speech” off campus, the event — which was billed as “an experiment in freedom of opinion” — could hardly be called a rousing success.
Apparently free speech in Germany will remain largely experimental…
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
This video is a composite of two original clips, so there are two transcripts below.
It seems that the Canadian government is looking to suppress what remains of independent journalism in the country by further regulating content on the Internet. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) — which is melded with the CBC in some mysterious fashion — has submitted its recommendations to the government for changes to legislation governing telecommunications and media in Canada.
Ezra Levant thinks they will use it to shut Rebel Media down:
Canada’s telecom watchdog has filed a preliminary submission to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel
By Sameer Chhabra, MobileSyrup.com January 10, 2019
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has formally filed a preliminary submission to the panel responsible for reviewing the country’s broadcasting and telecommunications laws.
The CRTC’s January 10th, 2019 filing comes one day before the January 11th deadline, and urges that any new telecom legislation proposed by the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review panel should focus on “outcomes that will benefit Canadians in an era of hyper-connectivity by optimizing competition, enabling affordable and innovative services and extending these services and the facilities necessary to access them across the country.”
The Commission’s use of the phrase “optimizing” is explained by its belief that “varying degrees of competition” have already been introduced to Canada’s telecom market.
The submission filed by Canada’s telecom watchdog also outlined recommendations for changes to Canada’s broadcasting framework, referencing points raised in the Commission’s May 2018 programming distribution report.
According to the CRTC, new broadcasting legislation should encourage the production and consumption of Canadian content (CanCon), while also ensuring that all participants in the country’s broadcasting industry should “participate in appropriate and equitable—though not necessarily identical—ways to benefit Canadians and Canada.”
A lengthier report was published by The Star. Some excerpts are below:
‘Smarter’ rules would ensure all digital players pay for CanCon, panel told
By Terry Pedwell The Canadian Press Friday, January 11, 2019
OTTAWA — Federal lawmakers need to make foreign content providers, such as Netflix, YouTube and Amazon Prime, pay their fair share into producing Canadian content, Canada’s broadcast regulator and its public broadcaster argued this week.
What that share looks like, however, remains uncertain as the federal government moves to tear down and rebuild the country’s broadcast and telecom regulations.
In written submissions to a seven-member panel, both the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation also called on Ottawa to create new rules that encourage news content distributors to deliver accurate and trustworthy information to Canadians.
The submissions, which were due Friday, are part of a wide-scale review of Canada’s Broadcasting Act, Telecommunications Act and Radiocommunication Act that was started last June by a panel of experts chaired by former Telus Corp. executive Janet Yale.
“What we’re asking for are new and different powers to regulate in a different way,” Scott said in an interview with The Canadian Press. “It doesn’t mean more regulation. It means smarter, better, flexible regulation. A new toolbox.”
The CRTC has asked for explicit statutory authority and flexible mechanisms to regulate audio and video services, both foreign and domestic, including online.
That would help the regulator ensure that any service provider making money from Canadian viewers and listeners also somehow pays toward the creation and distribution of Canadian content, as domestic broadcast companies do now.
Currently, traditional broadcasters in Canada contribute millions of dollars to bodies including the Canada Media Fund and directly pay for original Canadian productions.
But a shift by Canadians to viewing content online has eaten away at funding models that rely on subscriptions and advertising revenue.
Scott said regulators need the authority to reach agreements with new digital platforms to ensure they contribute “equitably” to the creation of that content.
The CBC’s submission Friday was nearly identical in tone, saying the government needs to ensure that digital companies profiting from the Canadian cultural marketplace also help pay for the creation of Canadian programming.
It also called for mechanisms to ensure Canadians have access to “trusted news and information” through entities including Google and Facebook.
I tracked down the PDF of the “CBC/Radio-Canada submission to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel” at the CBC website. It’s a monster at 46 pages and 29MB; however, most of that space is taken up by lavish color graphics, so it’s not quite as long as it seems. There’s also a lot of repetition; nevertheless, the core material consists of dense PC/MC bureaucratic bumf that demands a lot of determination and caffeine to slog through.
I’ve only made a preliminary survey of the contents, and will simply present some of the highlights here. First, the Executive Summary:
Stefan Kretzschmar is a retired professional handball player, and very well-known in Germany. In the following interview he discusses the uniformity of publicly-expressed thought that is imposed on (or is self-imposed by) professional athletes.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
In his latest essay, our Israeli correspondent MC wades into the murky cultural waters where shariah advocates and social justice warriors converge.
The Hebrew ‘shalom’ is translated as ‘peace’, but that is not particularly accurate. It actually describes an ‘inner peace’, which comes with a personal relationship with the Creator, in this case Yahovah. ‘Peace’ is essentially a manmade thing (or not, as the case may be), but shalom comes through keeping the Commandments of Yah.
In this day and age this kind study of is considered to be ‘splitting hairs’, just as the difference between quoting a hadith about Mohammed’s sexual proclivities and accusing him of paedophilia is ‘splitting hairs’, since the one makes the other obvious.
The problem about a sex act with a 9-year-old is not so much the gross physical intrusion as the potential for damage to the child both physical and — especially — emotional. This is true particularly when considering the case of Mohammed, a religious icon whose every act is to be emulated by the faithful.
A 9-year-old is a child, and it thus vulnerable. Because a child is, by definition, not yet physically or emotionally mature, he or she cannot be considered able to give any kind of informed consent to a sex act. Any sex act.
Islam, being a male fantasy-oriented religion, takes no account of consent from either mature or immature women. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian religions regard the woman as the ‘life-giver’, as the name Adam gave to Eve (Chava) implies. The woman is thus a pivotal player in the commandment to go forth and multiply, and we build our Western culture around the need to support this life-giver and her offspring — or rather we did until Roe vs. Wade.
Thus, because paedophilia is an intrinsic part of Islam, any judgement comes down to a matter of who can get away with offending whom. Muslims become violent when offended and start murdering people, but since Christians are mainly ‘white supremacists’ and need to be taught a lesson anyway… or so it seems to go these days. But just when did emotion and politicking creep into the modern law-making and its associated executive process?
So the recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision that to call Mohammed a paedophile is ‘hate speech’ is fraught with implications. In itself, the idea behind ‘hate’ speech is to provide a means to demonize free speech. Bur free speech is only really proven to be free when somebody is offended by it. So just how do we define hate speech in a ‘free speech’ context, if the two are so mutually incompatible?
Is it when free speech causes harm, as in falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded cinema?
To tip the scales of justice, the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ must be clearly delineated, and must be able to be applied in all circumstances to all people, both equally, and across the board.
Do Muslims have an existential problem with paedophilia? Does the rest of society therefore have to give way to these Muslim sensitivities? Is there therefore a different law for Muslims — ‘Yes’, ‘Yes’ and ‘Yes’, it would appear.