ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 12, 2015

Mailvox: deportation is not war

Asked asked about the abandonment of multiculturalism:
Vox, your position seems to abandon multi-culturalism.. how do you envision this practically? France has 4-5 million Muslims, it's not possible to deport them without a MAJOR war. The other alternative would be forceful conversions to Christianity/atheism... yeah.. be ready to strike France out of the map.
This is a false dichotomy. Of course it is possible to deport 5 million people. It's neither difficult to accomplish nor likely to inspire war, let alone a MAJOR war. The oft-heard insistence that mass deportation is either a) impossible or b) necessarily violent is intrinsically ignorant. One has to literally know nothing about 20th century history in order to make the assertion, as one's knowledge of the subject does not even rise to the level of Wikipedia.
  1. Eastern Europe, 1945: German Reichsdeutsche and citizens of other European states who claimed German ethnicity were forced out of many Eastern Europe countries to Germany and Austria, and to Australia or the United States from there for many, during the later stages of World War II and the post-war period. The areas of expulsion included former eastern territories of Germany, which were transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union after the war, as well as areas annexed or occupied by Nazi Germany in pre-war Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, northern Yugoslavia and other states of Central and Eastern Europe. By 1950, a total of approximately 12 million Germans had fled or been expelled from east-central Europe into the areas which would become post-war Germany and Allied-occupied Austria. Some sources put the total at 14 million, including migrants to Germany after 1950 and the children born to expelled parents. The largest numbers came from territories ultimately ceded to Poland and the Soviet Union (about 7 million), and from Czechoslovakia (about 3 million).
  2. Soviet Union, 1932: Population transfer in the Soviet Union may be classified into the following broad categories: deportations of "anti-Soviet" categories of population, often classified as "enemies of workers," deportations of entire nationalities, labor force transfer, and organized migrations in opposite directions to fill the ethnically cleansed territories. In most cases their destinations were underpopulated remote areas (see Forced settlements in the Soviet Union). This includes deportations to the Soviet Union of non-Soviet citizens from countries outside the USSR. It has been estimated that, in their entirety, internal forced migrations affected some 6 million people.
  3. USA, 2011: Nearly 400,000 people were deported from the United States in the past fiscal year, the largest number in the history of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the government announced Tuesday. Overall in fiscal year 2011, immigration officials said, 396,906 individuals were removed.
  4. USA, 1954: Overall, there were 1,078,168 apprehensions made in the first year of Operation Wetback, with 170,000 being captured from May to July 1954.
It is simply false to claim that it is impossible to deport 5 million people from any country without a war. It can certainly be argued whether a mass repatriation policy is desirable or not, and it can be debated precisely how such a policy would be best and most civilly enacted, but it's utterly ridiculous to claim that such a policy would necessarily lead to war when it has never before done so in all of military history. In general, mass deportations tend to be a postcursor to war rather than a precursor. Note that an immigration regime no stricter than that presently practiced by the current US ICE agency could send every Muslim in France back to the Dar al-Islam by 2025. That's hardly a blueprint for Armageddon.

Of course, the first step in abandoning multiculturalism is to stop the bleeding. Which is to say, shut down all immigration immediately. Shut down all income redistribution from the native population to the non-native population. That alone will address one-third to one-half of the problem. Then the question of repatriation can be reasonably debated.

The alternative is not much of an option, as it should be abundantly clear by now that going further down the multiculturalism and diversity path will lead to civil war followed by vicious and violent ethnic cleansing. If you genuinely wish to avoid violence across the West, an approach that involves closing the borders, ending the income subsidies, and repatriation is the only civilized answer.

Labels: , ,

95 Comments:

Anonymous Wikiboob January 12, 2015 1:55 PM  

Jews expelled from Middle East nations (most settled in Isreal)

Greek-Turkish population transfers...

The list is endless.

Anonymous PA January 12, 2015 1:57 PM  

Anotjer example of mass deportations: entire cities were depopulated of whites in the united states following integration of schools.

Practicsl lessons of postwar white genocide are as follows:

- do it with a smile; never call the campaign by some feaece, or by some coldly bureaucratic name. Call it something positive lime "civil rights" or "urban renewal"

- let your proxies do your dirty work for you, and if possible ban actions of direct self defense against those proxies. An American neighborhood is more effectively cleansed of whites by a car thumpung rap with impunity than by stormtrooper raids.

- be in control of the media and academic institutions.

Anonymous PA January 12, 2015 2:04 PM  

(This time without confusing typos)

Another example of mass deportations: entire cities were depopulated of whites in the United States following integration of schools.

Practical lessons of postwar white genocide are as follows:

- do it with a smile; never call the campaign by some fearce, or by some coldly bureaucratic name. Call it something positive like "civil rights" or "urban renewal"

- let your proxies do your dirty work for you, and if possible ban actions of direct self defense against those proxies. An American neighborhood is more effectively cleansed of whites by a car thumping rap with impunity than by stormtrooper raids.

- be in control of the media and academic institutions.

Blogger Josh January 12, 2015 2:10 PM  

What percentage of Muslims in France are French citizens?

Anonymous Troll January 12, 2015 2:15 PM  

Three Points:

First Point: Half of the the things of Vox's list came about as a result of a major war. German expulsion would not have been able to happen with out Germany having been defeated in war. Otherwise, the treatment of the Germans meted out after the end of World War II would have caused a war. Likewise, the population transfers in the Soviet Union were a direct result of the Reds winning the civil war. Almost all population transfers that one can think off happen at the start of a war or the end of a war (Greeks/Turkish, Arab/Israel, White/black (various African wars a "liberation"). The list goes on and on.

Second Point: Percentages are more important then absolute numbers. I have see Vox make this mistake more then once. It is trivial to expel 5 million people from a country of 1 billion. Not so trivial to expel 5 million from a country of 15 million.

Third point: Throwing out people who have nothing and have only been in the country for a few years is a lot easier than throwing out people who have two to three generations in country. The latter category has a lot more to lose and will fight a lot harder to avoid their fate.

Anonymous Alexander January 12, 2015 2:17 PM  

About 10 million people moved between India and Pakistan. So no problem.

The other thing to consider is not only will delay increase the likelihood (inevitability) of war, it will increase the number of natives who see war as *a desirous result*.

At least as things stand now, the average German or Frenchman wants the Muslim in his neighborhood to go back to Algeria or Turkey, and then doesn't give a damn about what happens to him... give it another year or two, and he'll get shipped back to Algiers and then have a warhead or three dropped on his head for good measure... if he even makes it out of the country alive to begin with.

Anonymous PA January 12, 2015 2:19 PM  

"throwing out people who have two to three generations in country."

Boer expulsion from South Africa.

Anonymous Anonymous January 12, 2015 2:21 PM  

Maybe I'm wrong about this but ... If you shut off the dole for a few months, a lot of them will leave voluntarily. There's only so much rioting and griping they can do if the govt. simply says, "not a penny more." ... It won't happen, but it's a necessary step.

Anonymous NZT January 12, 2015 2:22 PM  

Progs like to scoff at it for lack of a real counter-argument, but it really is true that even a modest crackdown in official deportations can have a massive follow-on effect in self-deportations. The US has 10-20 million illegals who all got here on their own, and it makes perfect sense they'd be able to reverse the process if they were suddenly unable to get any employment or housing and faced a serious enforcement effort. Add in an offer of no-questions-asked one-way bus tickets back to the border, and I bet you could get 80-90% of the problem solved with no violence and minimal cost.

Anonymous Salt January 12, 2015 2:24 PM  

Okay, Troll, I'll take your point as true. War it is. They shall be expelled no matter. Now if they should come to understand the historically undeniable, might they also come to understand their best avenue in doing it willingly and living?

Anonymous Brain Death January 12, 2015 2:25 PM  

Excellent points, all. This is a variation of a cheap debate trick the the pro-immigration folks employ from time to time - they feel that they can "counter" their opposition by exclaiming "that is simply impossible" (or would cause a major war). I was debating some far left wing cow on another site a few months ago who claimed that building a fence along the US-Mexico border was never going to happen because it was technically impossible.

I called BS, as we could build a 6 meter high WALL from the Gulf to the Pacific in a few years if we wanted to - we have interstate highways crisscrossing the land, building a wall would not be that much more difficult, perhaps less so.

Again, such a thing might be POLITICALLY impossible, but that is another matter. Political winds change, too.

Anonymous Bah January 12, 2015 2:26 PM  

You don't have to deport them. They can be made to self-deport. They arrived voluntarily. They were not rounded up like cattle and forced to come to the country. They arrived as a result of economic and political incentives that encouraged them to come and to stay. Change those incentives, and they will voluntarily leave. Yeah, they will scream and shout, and so will their Leftist enablers, but tough shit.

Anonymous Will Best January 12, 2015 2:27 PM  

10 million Illegals would leave the US within 3 years if you did the following:

1) Ended birthright citizenship.

2) Mandated US citizenship or lawful residence for a child to attend any school district receiving federal funds. Enforcement would be the return of all US funds obtained over the prior 5 years and the loss of funds for the subsequent 5 years.

3) Conclusive demonstration of citizenship must be demonstrated in person once per year in order to obtain need based social benefits.

4) Create a private right of action by non-citizens against corporations that choose not to hire them if they have a non-citizen in a role the US citizen is capable of fulfilling.

Anonymous Bah January 12, 2015 2:28 PM  

Eastern Europe, 1945 <-- this isn't a great example because the expelled were Germans, and thus enjoyed zero sympathy in 1945, and the world had just fought a major war that involved killing millions of Germans, and the territory in question was controlled by Stalin's Red Army, which had both the will and capability (conspicuously lacking today in Europe) for ruthless ethnic cleansing.

Blogger Josh January 12, 2015 2:33 PM  

4) Create a private right of action by non-citizens against corporations that choose not to hire them if they have a non-citizen in a role the US citizen is capable of fulfilling.

I think you mean citizens against corporations.

This is the only part of your proposal I disagree with, as it would make the litigious climate here even more litigious.

Anonymous Roundtine January 12, 2015 2:38 PM  

The Dominican Republic stripped citizenship from people of Haitian descent with roots going as far back as the 1920s because they had not assimilated. Technically, the U.S. could probably deport many people who've immigrated since the 1990s, and all of their children, born here or not, by reinterpreting or changing the law. For European nations this is even easier where there is some history of an ethnic component to citizenship.

Anonymous rubberducky January 12, 2015 2:39 PM  

I do agree with Vox's position. However, the 2011 USA deportation numbers need to be caveated. Obama changed the definition of deportation to get those numbers. If you got turned back at the border, they started counting it as a deportation. This was never done before (because it isn't a deportation, it's a failure to gain entry). Obama did this so he could claim to be tough on immigration while simultaneously doing the opposite. Without this change of definitions, deportation rates fell quite a bit.

Anonymous Goodnight January 12, 2015 2:45 PM  

In the great mass immigration to the U.S. between 1880-1924, approximately half voluntarily returned to their home countries of their own accord. Incentives matter greatly.

Blogger bob k. mando January 12, 2015 2:50 PM  

Bah January 12, 2015 2:28 PM
which had both the will and capability (conspicuously lacking today in Europe)


it "lacks will" at the level of the elites. it's already a majority opinion at the level of many of the electorates in the EU.

give it another couple of years and EU officials may be getting targeted for assassination BY EUROPEANS.

only 10 years, Mark Steyn was poo poo-ed as a heathen reactionary know-nothing for daring to point out that the rapid Islamization of most EU nations was going to have serious deleterious effects and in the not-to-distant future.

today, national parties ( UKIP, Golden Dawn, National Front, etc ) are winning elections on that platform.

how much further will it transform in another 10 years? you really need to seriously consider that question.

because the Muslims are NOT going to back off. and that is the instigating factor; that the immigrants demand the 'right' to murder, enslave and prostitute the native population.

http://www.steynonline.com/

Blogger Rek. January 12, 2015 2:50 PM  

@ Brain Death

Did you know that the EU spent about 25 million euros to build some joke of a fence around a European enclave on the north shore of Morocco.

I mean if you are gonna throw out that kind off money at least try and pretend it's to keep the immigrants out.

EuroNews - Melilla: the Spanish enclave that has become the back-door to Europe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHj58hYdhMg

Once the immigrants are in, they are in. And by that I mean, they are flown to refugee camps in Spain. Talk about an accommodating immigration policy.


Anonymous Will Best January 12, 2015 3:00 PM  

I think you mean citizens against corporations.

This is the only part of your proposal I disagree with, as it would make the litigious climate here even more litigious.


Yes that is what I meant. And that is sort of the point. Corporations will opt for the path of least resistance and just avoid non-citizen hires. If you didn't want a private right of action, perhaps the alternative would be tax incentives. Maybe something like you aren't allowed to deduct as an expense the wages/benefits for non-citizens.

Anonymous Boogeyman January 12, 2015 3:12 PM  

Besides the problem of un-assimilated Muslims in France with French citizenship, I think there would be an even bigger obstacle to 'sending them back'. What if their country of origin won't take them back? Palestinians and the territory they now sit on should rightly be part of Jordan, but Jordan, like other ME countries, won't take them in. They prefer instead to keep them where they are so they can keep their victim status so as to be used as a club against the Jews.

Muslims in the west are part of a soft invasion force, at least as far as Islamists are concerned. Taking them back would be like voluntarily taking the marines off the beach after they'd secured the beach-head.

Anonymous Bah January 12, 2015 3:17 PM  

it "lacks will" at the level of the elites. it's already a majority opinion at the level of many of the electorates in the EU.

Unsure the electorate is ready for a Red Army 1945-style expulsion at bayonet point using rape and atrocity to incentivize self-deportation.

Anonymous Bah January 12, 2015 3:18 PM  

What if their country of origin won't take them back?

Then there's gonna be a hell of a crowd in the arrival terminal in Algiers airport.

Anonymous PA January 12, 2015 3:22 PM  

"... like voluntarily ta kind marines off the beach"

Nothing a few well placed bribes won't take care of. Aren't Europeans supposed to be good at diplomacy?

"using rape and atrocity to incentivize self-deportation."

It worked pretty well with white flight.

Anonymous Alexander January 12, 2015 3:24 PM  

I know there has been some cutbacks since 1945, but I am fairly certain that the naval power of France is a match for Algeria.

Reverse Dunkirk. Drop them all on the beaches, and then who gives two shits what the Algerians decide to do with them?

And if the country of origin feels no obligation to them, then we sure as hell don't have one either.

OpenID luagha January 12, 2015 3:25 PM  

Yeah, not providing government benefits is such an atrocity.

And if you read this site and Alpha Game, whites raping non-whites is a statistical nullity. Our government couldn't order our white soldiers and police to rape non-whites if they wanted to.

Would that be dereliction of duty?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 12, 2015 3:28 PM  

Muslims can be made to self deport, even right now with the political climate we have. But the Left must do this and that the Left must stop patronizing the religious fundamentalist muslims.

As of now we conservatives allow the Left and the Muslims easy political accomadations. If we can throw some sand in the Left voting coalition's gears this self deport mechanism can be kicked off.

OpenID cailcorishev January 12, 2015 3:29 PM  

According to Wikipedia, the population of France is 67 million (not 15 million). So that's about 1 Muslim for every 15 non-Muslims.

If there were 15 people at a party and one of them was unwelcome, would it be impossible for the other 14 people to get him to leave without killing him? Of course not. There's a good chance he'd leave if the others simply turned their backs on him and ignored him (the party equivalent of refusing to hire or sell to him). For the more unobservant, it might be necessary to say, "Hey, dude, you've kinda worn out your welcome here. Do yourself a favor and take a hike before things get worse." For the most stubborn jerks, it might be necessary for a few of the larger guys to escort them to the door. But almost never would "war" be necessary.

When the native people of France (or the US) decide they really don't want the invaders anymore, deportation will be easy, and it will be quicker and more peaceful than people thought was possible, as long as the deportees let it be.

Anonymous Alexander January 12, 2015 3:30 PM  

Number 3 is an excellent weapon to bring up against they lefty. Either A) Obama successfully deported a massive number of Juan's and Pedro's and no war resulted or B) Obama lied and manipulated the figures and he's full of bullshit.

They won't go with B.

Blogger Josh January 12, 2015 3:34 PM  

Corporations will opt for the path of least resistance and just avoid non-citizen hires.

Or just not hire anyone.

All you're doing is replicating the affirmative action / EEO model.

Anonymous sapoo January 12, 2015 3:39 PM  

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/22/saudi-arabia-deported-foreign-migrant-workers

Saudi Arabia deported 250k in 3 months.

OpenID cailcorishev January 12, 2015 3:41 PM  

What if their country of origin won't take them back?

Parachutes.

But seriously:

- All foreign aid stops.
- All trade is suspended -- all purchases of oil, camel dung, whatever else they produce.
- All investments by their elites in our country are seized.

That's off the top of my head; I'm sure there are a few more forms of persuasion a real diplomat could think of.

Anonymous Bah January 12, 2015 3:51 PM  

"It worked pretty well with white flight."

The difference is, all the Left has to do to make that work is let blacks be blacks.

To make it work the other way, the government has to encourage (modern, soft, suburban European) whites to get atrocious on Muslims. Not saying it's impossible, but it ain't their natural behavior at this point.

Anonymous Bah January 12, 2015 3:52 PM  

But seriously:

- All foreign aid stops.
- All trade is suspended -- all purchases of oil, camel dung, whatever else they produce.
- All investments by their elites in our country are seized.


They might well regard that as an acceptable price to keep the emigrants from coming back.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan January 12, 2015 3:53 PM  

Obama could start the self deportations tomorrow, all he simply has to say is "chill" and to liberalize their culture to the left's muslim allies. He is a perfect example of a Post Muslim man himself, born supposedly to a Sunni Muslim father, but instead ignored his faith of birth and upbringing in Indonesia and went to a nominally Christian church for years, see it is a choice.

Blogger bearspaw January 12, 2015 3:59 PM  

Dalrymple wrote that it would not be unreasonable to give each Muslim family several thousand Euros and plane tickets back home or to a Islamist country. This option would be cheaper than keeping them on the public dole in the long run.

Blogger JCclimber January 12, 2015 3:59 PM  

Didn't Arizona and a few other states recently experience self-deportation?

You make it nearly impossible for them to get jobs, welfare, hospital care, and anchor baby citizenship, and they'll HAVE to move to another location.

And we'll never see it happen in America. It's not an accident that we've imported so many socialist "Liberation Theology" believers from our Southern neighbors.

It is by design, and not necessarily to make $$$.

Anonymous PA January 12, 2015 4:02 PM  

"the government has to encourage (modern, soft, suburban European) whites to get atrocious on Muslims"

Millions killed in Iraq and Pakistan, brought to you by people who attended EO and sexual harassment seminars.

... none of it is to say that atrocities are needed or desired. What this thread reminds us of, is that there is no shortage of the means of deporting non-Europeans. What is missing is the current European elites' desire to expelled them.

Blogger Danby January 12, 2015 4:03 PM  

@Bah,
Really? Europe doesn't havew enough violent thugs? Since when?

You know the dangerous Blacks are only a percentage of the population, right? maybe as high as 5%.

If crimes against the invaders were prosecuted as vigorously as crimes by the invaders, there would be plenty of young toughs looking for a fight in the banlieux and slums of Europe. The current reality of course is that the Moslems need to advance to armed robbery and murder (but not rape, evidently) to get the attention of the police, whereas the White population will be prosecuted for calling a Moslem a camel jockey, a faggot gay, or a prostitute a whore.

There are plenty of thugs, yobs, skinheads and toughs in Europe. Society just keeps them more or less in check. Both the French revolution and the NAzis succeeded by giving them an organized outlet for their violence.

Go into any English lower-class pub to see what I'm talking about.

Anonymous zen0 January 12, 2015 4:16 PM  

simplytimothy In the Two To Tango thread ( January 12, 2015 10:00 AM ) has links to an article on the Red Queen Trap that are interesting. It is based on the evolutionary theory called the Red Queen hypothesis. Basically, it is a host/parasite struggle. The only way out is disconnect and separation.

France is now a hollowed out state with no go zones. Any attempt to simply regulate these zones will meet with counter-measures. The zones have to be eliminated, with extreme predjudice, if necessary.

The military has done a study in Afghanistan on this basis, calledDynamic Red Queen explains patterns in fatal insurgent attacks

We find that a generalized version in which an adaptive Red Queen (e.g. insurgency) sporadically edges ahead of a Blue King (e.g. military), explains the progress curves for fatal insurgent attacks against the coalition military within individual provinces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Remarkably regular
mathematical relations emerge which suggest a prediction
�� τ n = τ1 n−[m log10τ 1 +c ] for the timing of
the �� n’th future fatal day, and provide a common framework for understanding how
insurgents fight in different regions.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey January 12, 2015 4:26 PM  

Well said, Vox. Masterful answer.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner January 12, 2015 4:45 PM  

Logic does seem to be quite elusive for the multiculturalists, a glaring inability to connect the dots is a trait they seem to share.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 12, 2015 4:54 PM  


That's off the top of my head; I'm sure there are a few more forms of persuasion a real diplomat could think of.


Tax remittances at 20% to 30% per transaction. This would make it very expensive for a colonizer in Paris, France or Paris, Texas to send funds back home. A dent in the GNP of the colonizer country - Algeria or Mexico, or etc. and less travel money for the next wave of colonizers.

Blogger scipio afircanus January 12, 2015 5:31 PM  

IMO, the elites that profit from the decay ( leftists, big business, the banksters) are going to push back against this in the US and Europe until 1 of 2 thing happen: (1) worsening economic and social conditions force the elites to do an about face on immigration and support the native populations or (2) we get new elites who implement (1)

I think that a decline in the economy is going to bring this about (1) or (2), though I vote personally on (2).

Remember people, we are living in a period where the prevailing economic decisions made by governments and businesses are based on the fantasy that increased debt can be used as a substitute for economic growth. We have been on this ride for about for about 40-50 years, and we are reaching or will reach the limits of debt expansion soon enough. When the debt bubble pops, the civil wars will start.

I don't expect repatriation or separation of the immigrants until after the bubble pops. I dont see the powers that be making the right decisions, and IMO they will be removed from power by force, since they wont give it up willingly.

Anonymous johnc January 12, 2015 5:35 PM  

Is depopulation such a major problem in Europe that they have become dependent on immigration? The birth rates are staggering, frankly, and they portend a very bleak future even if deportation was successful.

Even more urgent than the deportation of Muslims is the need to re-Christianize Europe, of which sadly I am not seeing too many sprouts in the garden.

Anonymous Bohm January 12, 2015 5:47 PM  

ending the income subsidies, and repatriation is the only civilized answer.

'Civilised' -as defined by National Socialism '33-'45

Of course it is possible...

Examples cited: 1) The smoking ruins of post-war Eastern Europe. 2) Soviet terror of the 1930s.

Says it all, really

(examples 3 and 4 hardly applicable to European situation)

Blogger Daniel January 12, 2015 5:58 PM  

Yes it does, Bohm.

It says deportation works without warfare.

Anonymous Ollie January 12, 2015 6:21 PM  

Tangentially related, Pegida Facebook supporters are listing a 40K attendance level for today's rally. Yahoo is listing a 25K number and going out of its way to quote a 100K plus number for anti-pegida rallies. The Guardian seems to be almost not covering this at all, providing just a short close angle video clip and listing the count as a nebulous "thousands".

Hmmm..

While I've seen plenty of large crowd pictures to corroborate the Pegida estimates of its rally, I haven't seen any such pictures to corroborate the bombastic counts of anti-Pegida rallies. After 30 minutes of googling, all the anti Pegida demo pics look like mostly small groups of 50-70 people, with the largest appearing to be Saturday's Dresden demo/concert which looks like around 10-15K rather than the 35K it was quoted at.

What's more, despite several different counts - all far lower than the 40K quoted by Pegida itself - listed by mainstream media sources (all of whom seem to be opposed to Pegida by the tone of their reporting), I’ve noticed a consistent 35K count for last Saturday’s anti Pegida demo in Dresden alone.

This reminds me of the media blackout and number cutting during the French anti gay marriage protests. If memory serves me, they also grossly inflated the counts of gay marriage supporters, going out of their way to puff up the pro-gm side..

I get the feeling that once again, our friends in the MSM are using their favorite dirty tricks to prop up the narrative and create the appearance of a huge pro-narrative consensus where none exists.

Blogger Danby January 12, 2015 6:27 PM  

@Bohm
And here comes Tommy Haas -- excuse me, I mean Bohm, sneering and implying and evidently unable to say manfully what he actually means. Your sneering contempt impresses no-one, and your effeminate manner of speaking disgusts me.

You obviously want to say it,.
Here's the words: "Anyone who is not on board with multiculturalism and the Islamization of Europe is a Nazi."

Go head, say it, faggot!

OpenID simplytimothy January 12, 2015 6:42 PM  

I get the feeling that once again, our friends in the MSM are using their favorite dirty tricks to prop up the narrative and create the appearance of a huge pro-narrative consensus where none exists.

Yep. The Ptomekin press.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 12, 2015 7:19 PM  

The Muslim invasion isn't a red queen trap. First, the invaders are not highly adaptable. They run variations on a small play-book. Second the adaptations we would have to adopt to push back the invaders are necessary to us anyway, because there are other invaders, and as long as we have a ruling class mixed with organized Jewry there will always be more invaders.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 12, 2015 7:28 PM  

Bohm, could you please explain your alternative? I believe I requested this before. Demographics points to an Islamization of Europe, leading to an increase in no-go areas, more intercultural friction including violence such as the murders at Charlie Hebdo, and further polarization of European countries.

You seem to deny this as even a possibility. Yet you offer no alternative.

What's your vision, or perhaps what's your point?

Blogger george strong January 12, 2015 8:37 PM  

Unless white leftists and blacks are eliminated from our population as well, what is the point? It will just happen all over again.
Enjoy the decline, because as Scipio said, nothing is happening until the debt bubble pops.

Anonymous cecilhenry January 12, 2015 8:46 PM  

Absolutely deportation is the answer.

But the problem as amply evidenced is that the elites do not want them to leave. They brought them in and want them IN.

These elites are the enemy every bit as much as the immigrants. In fact they created the problem on purpose and want you and me to pay for it.

Anonymous Bohm January 12, 2015 8:51 PM  

Paradigm,

Firstly, demographics do not point to an Islamisation of Europe. That is a myth. Total fertility rates among immigrant populations after the second generation- including Muslims - soon converge with that of host populations in the West. Muslim immigrants do not constitute the majority of immigrants coming into Europe in any case. In Britain 28% of immigrants are Muslim. Islamic minorities in Europe are growing more slowly than before and are expected to peak mid-century at around 10% of the population. (It’s currently around 7%)

10% is quite a lot in my book and obviously this is having an appreciable affect in urban areas but it won’t amount to an ‘Islamisation’ of Europe.

And it is very unlikely that this Muslim minority will become more , rather than less, radical over time- not a good survival strategy. In short, I don’t buy into the concept of Europe’s impending Islamification.

My main point is that mass deportation of 7-10% of the population is not a ‘civilised’ option. You can’t have a ‘reasonable debate’ about how to ethnically cleanse a country. Once you target a portion of the population for ‘repatriation’ you have instigated tyranny,

When VD says it’s possible to achieve mass deportation without war, he is correct but also completely missing the point. The essential element is fear -fear for one’s life.

The most complete ‘peacetime’ mass deportation I can think of is Idi Amin’s expulsion of Indians from Uganda in ’72. He gave them 90 days to leave the country. What do you suppose would’ve happened after 90 days?

Anonymous Anubis January 12, 2015 8:51 PM  

"The birth rates are staggering, frankly, and they portend a very bleak future even if deportation was successful."

Those that are the product of K selected evolution which is everyone that can create/sustain civilization have less kids under times of stress. While R selected have more because they evolved to outbreed disease. Ireland still has not recovered to the pre potato famine levels but Ethiopia had a higher birthrate than any civilized population despite 30 years of famine. Get rid of the parasites (including French jews)& bad neighborhoods and civilized people will get back to breeding again. When civilized families no longer have to pay for Laskanka's 21 illegitimate crack babies, they will have their own.

Anonymous Anon January 12, 2015 9:04 PM  

"Islamic minorities in Europe are growing more slowly than before and are expected to peak mid-century at around 10% of the population. (It’s currently around 7%)"

I don't know there is a lot of contradictory information out there. Denmark: Muslims 218 percent more criminal in 2nd generation than first

Anonymous Anon January 12, 2015 9:13 PM  

Oops wrong cited paragraph...

"And it is very unlikely that this Muslim minority will become more , rather than less, radical over time- not a good survival strategy."

- Denmark: Muslims 218 percent more criminal in 2nd generation than first

Anonymous Joe H. January 12, 2015 9:28 PM  

People also make the claim all the time that deportation is some form of punishment. It's not. If you go to prison for illegal entry, that's punishment; your deportation is just returning you home where you belong, restoring the status quo, bringing balance back to the force. Sorry, I got a little carried away with that last one. In the U.S., we could could make large numbers of illegal aliens self-deport by making it impossible for them to work or go on welfare and we could physically deport 5-10 times more than we are now without breaking a sweat. We need more fencing and more emphasis on border security to keep them out once they are out.

Anonymous zen0 January 12, 2015 9:39 PM  

@ Bohm

My main point is that mass deportation of 7-10% of the population is not a ‘civilised’ option. You can’t have a ‘reasonable debate’ about how to ethnically cleanse a country. Once you target a portion of the population for ‘repatriation’ you have instigated tyranny,

If the ethnic cleansing is done to save the society in question from being overtaken by another, there is no foul.

Anonymous zen0 January 12, 2015 9:50 PM  

fuckin' Bohm says if you do not allow Muslim tyranny, you are someone who promotes tyranny. This only highlights what the game is. It is you or Muslims.
One or the other has to be eliminated. I prefer the elimination of Muslims. What say you?

Anonymous Jack Amok January 12, 2015 10:13 PM  

My main point is that mass deportation of 7-10% of the population is not a ‘civilised’ option.

Radical Muslims aren't civilized people. "Moderate" Muslims who don't self-police the radicals aren't civlized either. Barbarians are not owed civlized treatment.

Anonymous Harsh January 12, 2015 10:17 PM  

Second Point: Percentages are more important then absolute numbers. I have see Vox make this mistake more then once. It is trivial to expel 5 million people from a country of 1 billion. Not so trivial to expel 5 million from a country of 15 million.

There's an error of logic here. A determined group of 1 million people could expel 5 million immigrants. A morally weak group of a billion would fail to do the same. It's less about numbers than will.

Anonymous Harsh January 12, 2015 10:19 PM  

My main point is that mass deportation of 7-10% of the population is not a ‘civilised’ option. You can’t have a ‘reasonable debate’ about how to ethnically cleanse a country. Once you target a portion of the population for ‘repatriation’ you have instigated tyranny,


And yet you've failed to demonstrate why that is so. You're begging the question.

Anonymous Passinthough January 12, 2015 10:42 PM  

The thing to remember is man proposes and God disposes. The wanabe rulers of mankind (elites) think that this time they're going to win and rule the whole earth. God has his own kingdom and he plans for it the fill the entire earth. In the meantime those of us who want to be of the kingdom of God have work to do.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 12, 2015 11:02 PM  

zen0: "My main point is that mass deportation of 7-10% of the population is not a ‘civilised’ option. You can’t have a ‘reasonable debate’ about how to ethnically cleanse a country. Once you target a portion of the population for ‘repatriation’ you have instigated tyranny,"

Non-white mass immigration targeted at white countries plus forced assimilation is w-word g-word thing-that-shall-not-be-mentioned. That puts repatriation entirely in the shade. When you are promoting g-word, you have no basis to argue about what is the "civilized" option.

Anonymous Bah January 12, 2015 11:35 PM  

@Danby,

If they gave a shit about immigrants, they'd already be pounding on them.

Anonymous AlainS January 13, 2015 12:03 AM  

The implications of a forced deportation of muslims hasn't been thought through here very well.

Whether it can be done is beside the point.

Try to imagine the response to such a proposal by other European countries, by the United States, by England. The French would be warned that economic sanctions would be placed upon them immediately. People across the globe would boycott French vacations (someone guess what the largest economic sector in France is).

You simply aren't seeing what's happening in France in any case.

The French are very happy with their government's response to this crisis. They are pleased with the reaction, with the police on the streets, with the solidarity being shown. Holland comes out ahead on this.

Sure, the Right increases its presence in provincial elections, but we won't see Madame Le Pen as president of France any time soon.

You fools need to take a closer look at how politics work in a very, very small world.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 13, 2015 12:11 AM  

Bohm
Firstly, demographics do not point to an Islamisation of Europe. That is a myth. Total fertility rates among immigrant populations after the second generation- including Muslims - soon converge with that of host populations in the West. Muslim immigrants do not constitute the majority of immigrants coming into Europe in any case.


Can you point to actual numbers?


In Britain 28% of immigrants are Muslim.

Yet they seem to have an effect far out of proportion to that, such as in Rotherham.

Islamic minorities in Europe are growing more slowly than before and are expected to peak mid-century at around 10% of the population. (It’s currently around 7%)

Again, numbers? Cite?

10% is quite a lot in my book and obviously this is having an appreciable affect in urban areas but it won’t amount to an ‘Islamisation’ of Europe.

Considering how much the Euro governments have done to cater to homosexuals, who amount to 3% or fewer, I am not as optimistic as you are, if for no other reason than the gay lobby isn't in the habit of murdering opponents.

Unlike followers of Islam.

And 10% is more than enough to make entire areas of Sweden, France, Belgium, the UK, etc. totally off limits to Europeans. So there are areas of European countries that are forbidden to native born Europeans, but no area of Europe is ever off limits to Muslims, even those that wish to commit murder in the name of their religion. That means that sanctuary areas already exist for guerrillas, a necessary prequisite for guerilla warfare.

You'll have to explain how the current trend will somehow not continue a bit better than this.

And it is very unlikely that this Muslim minority will become more , rather than less, radical over time- not a good survival strategy.

Rubbish. Theo van Gogh's murderer was a 2nd generation colonist, the Muslims who have made Malmo a no-go area are 2nd and likely 3rd generation, the same is true in Marseilles and other areas of France. You have no evidence for this claim, and there are plenty of burning cars every month in France that suggest the opposite.

Stop making stuff up and playing at taqqiya.

In short, I don’t buy into the concept of Europe’s impending Islamification.

In short, you have no evidence for your position.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 13, 2015 1:11 AM  

AlainS: "Whether it can be done is beside the point."

Whether it can be done is exactly the point, in the expressed opinions of countless anti-whites who argue against any push-back versus invasive mass immigration, because, they say, to expel them would be impossible. This false claim is their argument. It should be answered, and here it has been answered.

Anonymous Anon January 13, 2015 1:18 AM  

"Whether it can be done is exactly the point"

Yep and as Vox has already pointed out - "Nearly 400,000 people were deported from the United States in the past fiscal year, the largest number in the history of the U.S.". So just close the floodgates and eventually they'll be gone, so much for "impossible to expel".

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 13, 2015 1:26 AM  

AlainS: "Try to imagine the response to such a proposal by other European countries, by the United States, by England."

We already know that hostile elites are masters of our states, and that they favor mass non-white immigration targeted at white countries, plus forced assimilation. It is through the will of these hostile elites that we have large and growing imported alien populations. Naturally the same hostile elites would use the prestige of the states they control, and other institutions in their grip, such as academia, the mass news media and the mass entertainment media, to shame and sanction any effort by whites to survive collectively. Naturally that would include sanctioning repatriation.

That is not new, and it has little to do with the point, which is whether, given political will, the expulsions would be possible.

The clear answer, from history, is that this would indeed be possible.

Of course, it's a lot more possible, politically and diplomatically, if whites act together to secure our common interests across state boundaries. The more internationalist we are, the more moral confidence we enjoy, and the stronger we are politically and diplomatically. Helping others, we help ourselves.

The more we prioritize beggar-thy-neighbor petty nationalisms the weaker we all are, and the easier is for the internationally mobile and influential hostile elite to move its puppet states against us, and reduce us one by one, each friendless and alone. That's why old-style nationalism is not the answer.

Anonymous Bohm January 13, 2015 3:57 AM  

Gentlemen,

Let’s think this through, shall we?

VD says we should stop ‘subsidising the incomes’ of Muslims. What does that mean, exactly?

I presume he means denying state benefits and services. Now, there is much talk about doing exactly that for immigrants in general. But we’re talking about targeting Muslims specifically. So -no welfare or benefits if you’re Muslim. Presumably, this measure extends not just to recently-arrived immigrants but to all Muslims, no matter how long they’ve been resident in the host nation.

Immediately, you’ve created a second-class citizenry. If you can deny state provision to Muslim, why not the vote? Or health care? Property rights? The list goes on.

To expedite these measures, there also needs to be a prior and parallel process of demonisation, in order to justify them. You have inculcate the notion that Muslims -all Muslims - pose an existential threat. You also push the ’if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ ultimatum to anyone who dissents. You guys appear to have no problem on that front.

But once you establish that Muslims are an existential threat, if follows logically that anyone who objects to punitive, collective sanctions against Muslims are also an existential threat. Sanctions must also be applied to them. Fear begats fear.

We haven’t even got to mass deportations yet and already we are dismantling the secular state and imposing apartheid. The first thing to go would have to be the European Convention on Human Rights. So much for European ‘civilisation’.

US conservatives are very handy with Martin Niemoller quotes when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. But he’s soon forgotten when it comes to people who aren’t US conservatives.

When Jack Amok says "Moderate" Muslims who don't self-police the radicals aren't civlized either. Barbarians are not owed civlized treatment he is admitting the barbarity that Europe would have to stoop to, to rid itself of Islam entirely.

Paradigm asks for citations. I respectively suggest he does the research himself - as was suggested to me on this blog when I asked for a source the other day. However, I would urge him to cast his search beyond Jihadwatch and such like

Paradigm says I have no evidence for my position. I don’t deny that radicalisation occurs. Mainly because of the ME situation, combined with economic disenfranchisement. If you want radicalisation across the board, I think VD’s plan would do the trick.

Anonymous VD January 13, 2015 5:12 AM  

We haven’t even got to mass deportations yet and already we are dismantling the secular state and imposing apartheid.

Yep. Look at what happened in South Africa post-apartheid.

The first thing to go would have to be the European Convention on Human Rights. So much for European ‘civilisation’.

European civilization long predates the European Convention on Human Rights. That's a feature, not a bug.

When Jack Amok says "Moderate" Muslims who don't self-police the radicals aren't civlized either. Barbarians are not owed civlized treatment he is admitting the barbarity that Europe would have to stoop to, to rid itself of Islam entirely.

Precisely. That's why the Islamic invaders should never have been admitted in the first place. But they were. Now that level of barbarity is the best-case scenario.

I don’t deny that radicalisation occurs. Mainly because of the ME situation, combined with economic disenfranchisement. If you want radicalisation across the board, I think VD’s plan would do the trick.

You are either missing or evading the point. Radicalization is not the problem. Islam is the problem. It wasn't radicals who invaded Spain 1,300 years ago; the Turks who besieged Vienna were some of the most decadent Muslims who ever lived.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 13, 2015 5:13 AM  

Bohm: "Immediately, you’ve created a second-class citizenry."

There already is a second-class citizenry: whites of the core ethnic groups of countries with Western-style multiculturalism are denied collective political representation and the equal protection of the laws regarding group relations. Simply: the blacks are protected, the Asians are protected, the browns are protected, the Jews are protected, and everybody is protected and entitled to a lobby that advances their specific group interests -- except whitey. This has economic and social consequences, and it's been that way for many years. So let's not start any nonsense about the "equality" of the status quo.

What's in question is only a change in the rules that would -- amazing novelty! -- favor whites in their own countries over non-whites, as opposed to the usual: taxing whites to death to pay for more and more non-whites to take white countries from the whites.


Bohm: "If you can deny state provision to Muslim, why not the vote? Or health care? Property rights? The list goes on."

Or why not invite them to leave altogether, and return to their own Muslim countries, of which they have an abundance?


Bohm: "To expedite these measures, there also needs to be a prior and parallel process of demonisation, in order to justify them."

There is already a process of demonisation directed at whites, so again let's not talk as if we were going to breach amity here.

Muslims have been enthusiastic to join in the demonisation of whites, while demanding that they be exempt from the criticism and ridicule that whites get all the time. Their demand for privileged status over whites is without merit.


Bohm: "We haven’t even got to mass deportations yet and already we are dismantling the secular state and imposing apartheid."

No. Absolutely wrong. The reverse of correct.

Apartheid was a deluded and foredoomed system under which blacks seeking work were allowed to flood into South Africa in limitless numbers, even taking demographic possession of land that was never trod on by a human foot till the white man came, and this was supposed to be politically and culturally harmless for the whites, as long as group relations were governed by an elaborate set of laws.

In fact the non-white influx was inevitably fatal for the whites: their political system, their culture, and their race. No matter who said what, to allow a black majority meant black majority rule, and in time a president who likes to sing a song about shooting the whites. If you don't stop the demographic conquest, that's it: game over, you have the same future as South Africa, Zimbabwe and Haiti.

The principal difference between Western multiculturalism and apartheid is that Western multiculturalism is viciously anti-white from the outset, while apartheid falsely promised whites the easy life.

The similarities are much more important. Both are collective sure-death scenarios for whites, in which the mad notion is made law, that radical demographic changes to the detriment of whites can be made to yield social bliss provided the government gets its fingers stuck in everything, regulating group relations.

What those who want Muslims and other invaders asked to leave want is the opposite of apartheid. No government regulation of relations between the different races (including the ever more dominating masses of hostile non-whites), no "black areas" or "sensitive zones," no pretext for the government to get involved in everything protecting "minority rights," no relations of racial domination or subordination, and above all no collective doom.

Anonymous Discard January 13, 2015 5:21 AM  

Bohm: Those who are not French should not be second class citizens, they should not be citizens at all. Why should non-French vote in France, or have property rights? Moslems are not French, they belong to another people and culture.

And what's wrong with Apartheid, other than the fact that the non-French are still in the country? Don't tell me how much you like living among Blacks or Moslems or Mexicans. Lefties live more segregated lives than the average working class man. Apartheid, and Jim Crow, were ways of ensuring that the common man had the same right of racial segregation as the rich.

Who cares about the European Convention on Human Rights, when a Frenchman can be jailed for speaking his mind on immigration? The real Frenchman is stripped of his Human Rights for the benefit of the non-Frenchman.

I am a White working class man, the villain of every leftist narrative, the Racist, the Sexist, the Homophobe, and the Xenophobe. I am The Other. I am the Them to your Us. I have been treated with contempt all my life by the intelligentsia. Oh so reasonable, oh so compassionate towards the oppressed, and fuck the low class Whites who pay the price.

Black is not White.
War is not peace.
Non-French are not French.

And if you want the 3rd World in the West, take them into your own neighborhood first. If you don't like barbarism, stop importing it.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 13, 2015 5:33 AM  

What I want is what we had before hostile elites took it from us: fraternity, homogeneity and peace in our own countries for ourselves alone, with a few guests being only guests -- and more importantly few -- and a future in perpetuity for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren: a future in which they will not be crowded out and cease to exist or be blended away, in which they will not be dominated by an alien culture or religion, and in which they won't be fodder for future Rotherhams.

What Muslims have shown they want is supremacy: the right to scold and not be scolded religiously, the right to do violence to the infidel and have a partial state guard them against any return fire, and the right to rape and terrorize our girls.

They must go.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar January 13, 2015 5:34 AM  

Its like that vibrant problem in the inner cities. We keep spending more and the problem and it keeps getting worse. Impossible? No.

Ever see the Star Trek episode,"Trouble with Tribbles"? These non-Whites are like tribbles. How to stop them? Stop feeding them.

Oh but the riots! No worse then the ones we have now...

Anonymous Bohm January 13, 2015 6:41 AM  

VD,

Look at what happened in South Africa post-apartheid.

What’s your point here?

Now that level of barbarity is the best-case scenario.

So now you’re advocating barbarity as the ‘best case’ scenario, in order to save European civilisation. Previously, you advocated a ‘reasonable’ or ‘civilised’ debate. It’s interesting that the two are apparently interchangeable.

Radicalization is not the problem. Islam is the problem. It wasn't radicals who invaded Spain 1,300 years ago; the Turks who besieged Vienna were some of the most decadent Muslims who ever lived.

Amazing that you’re still pissed about Spain. Before they reached Spain, Muslims invaded Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco - all Christian regions prior to invasion. How come you’re not pissed about that? I’m guessing it is the Reconquest that excites your fervour, for some reason. Vienna, also. But not Constantinople, apparently, or Alexandria 641. It’s worrying when people dredge up medieval history to justify their prejudices. Islamists do that, too.

If you’re pissed about Spain 1,300 year ago, can’t you see why Islamists are pissed about Afghanistan 2002, or Iraq 2003, or Libya 2011, or Yemen or Syria or Iran or Palestine?

tacitus,
whites of the core ethnic groups of countries with Western-style multiculturalism are denied collective political representation and the equal protection of the laws regarding group relations.

Please, spare me your white victimhood resentment- it’s utterly pathetic

Discard,

Who cares about the European Convention on Human Rights

Way to go, Discard - cut off your nose to spite your face. The convention protects your individual rights, too, in case you didn’t realise.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 13, 2015 7:10 AM  

Bohm: "Please, spare me your white victimhood resentment- it’s utterly pathetic"

My arguments are correct; that your reply is mere name-calling confirms it.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents January 13, 2015 10:17 AM  

Bohm
Paradigm asks for citations. I respectively suggest he does the research himself - as was suggested to me on this blog when I asked for a source the other day. However, I would urge him to cast his search beyond Jihadwatch and such like

Not how logic works, Bohm. You make the claim, you provide the data to support it. You don't get to demand that someone else do your research for you. If you wish to argue without evidence, go right ahead, but then for you to cite such things as Total Fertility Rate doesn't even pass a basic laugh test.

Specifically, you made some claims about Total Fertility Rates in Europe in 2nd gneration Muslim families, claims that either can or can not be backed up with data. If you can't put up the sources for your TFR claims, then I am free to assert you just made those numbers up.

Paradigm says I have no evidence for my position.

I don't see any evidence. I see handwaving.

I don’t deny that radicalisation occurs.

Previously you claimed the opposite. If you have changed your position, why?


Mainly because of the ME situation, combined with economic disenfranchisement.

First of all, I doubt that Pakistani pimps in Rotherham are really all that concerned about the Palestinians when they rape white English girls. There seems to be some other motive at work. Second of all, subnormal IQ people who are marginally or totally illiterate, innumerate, with little command of the host country language, are very likely to be useless economically.

Thirdly, far too many colonists of any religion are sucking on the teats of the state for me to take "economic disenfranchisement" seriously.

Theo van Gogh's murderer was 2nd generation, spoke Dutch well enough and he self radicalized by reading the Koran intensely after his mother died. He carried out the Koranic obligation to the letter, including the "stike at the neck" part in response to van Gogh's little video.

The Muslims who have made parts of Sweden untouchable for white, native, Swedes are not chanting slogans about Palestine when they stone police vehicles, fire fighter trucks and even ambulances. They are declaring their neighborhood to be part of the dar al Islam - they are declaring sovereignty over that piece of dirt. They are declaring that Malmo is not Swedish anymore. The colonists in France who entertain themselves with automotive bonfires on a regular basis are doing the same, frankly.

That's the issue, Bohm, and when are you going to address it? Ever?

If you want radicalisation across the board, I think VD’s plan would do the trick.

Radicalization is happening no matter what. You are saying that Europeans have no right to defend themselves. But Muslims do.

Bohm, are you Muslim? Please answer this direct question.

Blogger Jassi January 13, 2015 10:49 AM  

"About 10 million people moved between India and Pakistan. So no problem."

Man, if this isn't sarcasm, I don't know how anyone can reasonably respond to such an ignorant statement unless you think that the war which killed about a million during the partition itself was "no problem" or that the 5 wars since are also "no problem."

Anonymous Jack Amok January 13, 2015 10:58 AM  

When Jack Amok says "Moderate" Muslims who don't self-police the radicals aren't civlized either. Barbarians are not owed civlized treatment he is admitting the barbarity that Europe would have to stoop to, to rid itself of Islam entirely.

Yes, though I'd say "rise to" instead of "stoop to." Part of being civilized is controlling barbarians in your society. You cannot claim to live in a civilized society if barbarians are allowed to roam freely through it wreaking havoc upon your friends and neighbors. In order to be civilized, a society needs to eject any barbarians (home-grown or imported) it finds within it's midst. Kill, impirison or exile, any will work, but you have to pick one.

Anonymous Discard January 13, 2015 1:06 PM  

Bohm: The European Convention on Human Rights does not protect the individual rights of Europeans if Europeans can be jailed for speaking their minds about immigration. It protects only those people that the elites want to protect. It is not a shield against tyranny, but a weapon of tyrants.

Regarding White victimhood resentment: You don't live with the Vibrants, but you would force other, lesser, people to do so. Of course you and your kind are resented, just as all privileged hypocrites are.

And drop your nonsense about people being pissed about the invasion of Spain 1300 years ago, when you know perfectly well that the beef is about the invasion today. Your diversion won't work.

Anonymous Eric Ashley January 13, 2015 1:10 PM  

The Blue elite will fight and will use the immigrants as cannon fodder. The immigrants by themselves might not, but the elite knows that once the illegals are gone, they are next, and so they will act.

Now if we had a Reagan who could mobilize the masses the Blue elite might accept a Velvet Revolution instead of unleashing biowarfare weapons.

Anonymous Stilicho January 13, 2015 4:07 PM  

Bohm, Tell us again how the fact that 40% of Muslim respondents prefer to implement sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of Britain means that no non-muslim Briton would be subject to sharia law if those respondents' preferences were enacted.

Let's make it simple for you:

Merriam Webster predominantly: for the most part; mainly

By contrast:

Merriam Webster exclusively: adv. limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group .

Anonymous Stilicho January 13, 2015 4:18 PM  

A refresher in the matter:

Bohm (claiming Vox was wrong) Turns out that 40% of British Muslims would prefer Muslims in Britain to be under Sharia law. Big difference.

My response:
Not so fast. A quick Google search reveals the following:

The most startling finding is the high level of support for applying sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of Britain.
and...
There was a new ICM poll of British Muslims in the Sunday Telegraph. The finding in the poll that got the most coverage was a question that suggested that 40% of British Muslims supported “there being areas in Britain which are pre-dominately Muslim and in which sharia law is introduced”.


Therefore, the preference of 40% of Muslims in Britain for sharia law is not limited in application to Muslims, but rather to "areas which are pre-dominately Muslim". In other words, they would prefer to impose sharia law upon non-Muslims in geographic regions where Muslims are at least 51% of the population.

Anonymous Yankee Imperialist January 13, 2015 11:54 PM  

“When the native people of France (or the US) decide they really don't want the invaders anymore, deportation will be easy, and it will be quicker and more peaceful than people thought was possible, as long as the deportees let it be.”

Immigrants are NOT invaders. Permission via legislation had been granted for people to come. Now, mind you, I have no problem limiting the number of people entering our shores. But deportation in American of “undesirables” is NOT an option given current constitutional, legal, and moral constraints. You are selling a dream.


“But seriously: All foreign aid stops. All trade is suspended -- all purchases of oil, camel dung, whatever else they produce. All investments by their elites in our country are seized.”

Utterly unrealistic goals. You are selling a dream.


“I get the feeling that once again, our friends in the MSM are using their favorite dirty tricks…”

Absolute false flag event.

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/huge-rally-in-paris-mourns-attack-victims/4

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/huge-rally-in-paris-mourns-attack-victims/19


And, of course, Muslim outrage over what happened in France is absolute nonsense.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.636240


“If the ethnic cleansing is done to save the society in question from being overtaken by another, there is no foul.”

Spoken like a barbarian!


“One or the other has to be eliminated. I prefer the elimination of Muslims. What say you?”

First, label one an enemy. Second, cite religious texts as proof that the enemy needs to be eliminated. Third, provoke people other than yourself to eliminate the enemy.


"Moderate" Muslims who don't self-police the radicals aren't civlized either. Barbarians are not owed civlized treatment.”

Define “civilized”. Define “barbarians”.


“A determined group of 1 million people could expel 5 million immigrants.”

The operative word is COULD. By what means? Who makes the decision who is to leave? What about second and third generation immigrants? Do they stay? Under what conditions? What happens if no country is willing to take them?


“There was a new ICM poll of British Muslims in the Sunday Telegraph…”

That poll was taken in 2006. Regardless, in 2007 in a Pew Research poll, 70% of Muslims in Britain believed that suiide bombing and violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could NOT be justified.

Anonymous sailoring January 14, 2015 12:42 AM  

"What I want is what we had before hostile elites took it from us: fraternity, homogeneity and peace in our own countries for ourselves alone, with a few guests being only guests -- and more importantly few -- and a future in perpetuity for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren: a future in which they will not be crowded out and cease to exist or be blended away, in which they will not be dominated by an alien culture or religion, and in which they won't be fodder for future Rotherhams."

Oh...Boo Fucking Hoo! You want a world where the white man has the legal right to trample over the rights of non white men and to do so for their benefit, damn the consequences of everyone else. You want a world where, "Hey, boy, get the fuck out of my way" is considered kindness by your Nazi thug friends. You want a world where Jews, muslims and christians of the wrong sort and women are removed of their self determination, that you take a way for your own pleasure.

You're a fine man. But we thank God every day that your type is laughed at, ridiculed and remembered for what you are: a soulless lout.

Anonymous Discard January 14, 2015 3:01 AM  

Yankee Imperialist: Apparently 30% of Moslems in Britain believe that suicide bombings and violence against civilians in defense of Islam IS justified. That doesn't strike you as a dangerous minority?

Blogger Joshua Sinistar January 14, 2015 3:30 AM  

sailoring the time for talk is OVER. You and your cretin pets crossed the Red Line. Prepare for War or flee. We will not negotiate with liars.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 14, 2015 6:43 AM  

sailoring: "You want a world where the white man has the legal right to trample over the rights of non white men and to do so for their benefit, damn the consequences of everyone else."

On the contrary; as I explained in ample detail, the idea is that relations of racial domination and subordination are bad, and the ideal is the status obtaining previously, with no racial conflict.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 14, 2015 7:07 AM  

sailoring: "You want a world where Jews, muslims and christians of the wrong sort and women are removed of their self determination, that you take a way for your own pleasure."

Oh, I see where you're coming from: Jews rated the capital letter, above muslims and christians. That's quite the give-away.

Also, you're so viciously anti-white that a vision of the future where white children exist and are not abused or raped offends you.

Blogger megatherium100 January 21, 2015 4:29 AM  

As a Mexican, contemplating the notion of 11 million compadres returning home is, to put it mildly, terrifying. Just the logistics of it are inhumane in scale, if this was achieve in 1 year, México´s infrastructure is sure to collapse, and this surely will result in a second Mexican revolution.

Moreover, if this deportation policy were to be applied more broadly, say they deport all mexicans, regardless of there citizenship, we are now talking about between 40 to 60 million compadres coming back home, this will result in an absolute catastrophe for Mexico, regardless of the time scale. Even if this is done by the deporting each year 1 million compadres continuously, Mexico´s economy and infrastructure will never be able to handle this strain on its resources, I just don´t see how.

This is a problem for México and Mexicans to handle, I´m well aware of that, and this is a problem that the mexican government is responsible for, not the USG. That the deportations can be achieve without recourse to violence in the US, I´m more skeptical about that, especially if we are talking about deporting ALL Mexicans and Latinos. The scale of it is just to massive, and many of the states that the crackdown is going to hit the hardest, like California and Texas, many counties and cities had been taken over by latinos, were they are now the majority and had been for decades, for all intensive purposes, they are mexican and people being people, are not going to be very happy being taken away from places that they considere their homes.

I´m not contesting that americans do not have a right to maintain and conserve their country and to choose which people are in and which are out, just the practical considerations and possible outcomes of all this.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts