Tag Archives: the multicult

Westminster Attack

3099

Yet another non-White alien attack. Specifics are still unclear. Here’s what we already know for certain.

Low-level government officials claim they are searching for more attackers, doing everything they can to prevent more attacks. None dare note any connection to race or immigration, that such incidents are part and parcel of the larger meta-attack, the ongoing invasion and colonization by hostile aliens aided and abetted by traitors at the very top of government.

The “left” jewsmedia speaks of race, specifically blaming White norms and attitudes. Their narrative is that the root problem is native “nativism”, “islamophobia”, “xenophobia”, “racism”, “hate”. Their solution is more “tolerance” and “diversity”.

The “right” jewsmedia speaks of religion, specifically blaming muslim ideology. Their narrative is that the root problem is “radical islamic terror”, which they see as akin to “fascism” and “nazism” (i.e. bad for the jews). Their solution is to drop more bombs on the jew state’s neighbors, provide more special protection and funding for jews.

High-level government officials parrot the jewsmedia narrative.

Shortly the furor will die down and the jewsmedia can go back to screeching about Russian influence and “anti-semitism”.

Charles Jewsplains The Difference Between Populists and Refugees

screenshot-from-2016-12-23-16-16-27

The Prince of Wales reads Thought for the Day:

We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive towards those who adhere to a minority faith. All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s.

I was born in 1948, just after the end of World War II, in which my parents’ generation had fought and died in a battle against intolerance, monstrous extremism and an inhuman attempt to exterminate the jewish population of Europe.

That nearly 70 years later we should still be seeing such evil persecution is to me beyond all belief. We owe it to those who suffered and died so horribly not to repeat the horrors of the past.

Normally at Christmas we think of the birth of our lord Jesus Christ. I wonder though if this year we might remember how the story of the nativity unfolds with the fleeing of the holy family to escape violent persecution.

And we might also remember that when the prophet Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medina, he did so because he too was seeking the freedom for himself and his followers to worship.

Whichever religious path we follow the destination is the same, to value and respect the other person, accepting their right to live out their peaceful response to the love of god.

That’s what I saw when attending the consecration of the Syriac Orthodox cathedral in London recently. Here were a people persecuted for their religion in their own country, but finding refuge in another land and freedom to practice their faith according to their conscience. It is an example to inspire us all this Christmas time.

Nearly two years after the invasion of Europe kicked into high gear the moral fraud justifying it remains the same.

Charles draws a clear distinction between the “populists” and “refugees”/”minorities”. The former he sees as inhuman and associates with intolerance, monstrous extremism, and evil persecution of the latter, whom he sees as peaceful people whose beliefs should be valued and respected. Another important distinction is that “refugees”/”minorities” have their own countries, but also have rights and freedoms to “find refuge” in “other lands” currently populated by evil “populists”, who don’t.

Charles is not just saying that “populists” are bad and “refugees”/”minorities” are good. He is explaining that this is the moral of stories told by the jews, the ur-“refugees”/”minorities”. He is echoing self-serving jew-centric moralizing to justify the ongoing dispossession and extermination of the European population of Europe and Whites worldwide.

The jews and the traitors who serve them are troubled. Every time they screech about “populism” they are in effect acknowledging their fraud, the unpopularity of their lies, the rejection of the pathological beliefs they espouse. They are increasingly expressing their fear and loathing for Whites, demonstrating that it has everything to do with the jews.

Sweden is Burning

Swedes Take to the Streets to Defend their Neighborhoods, Fria Tider, 25 May 2013:

Faced by another night of terror at the hands of predominantly immigrant rioters, Swedes grown tired of the police’s inability to put an end to the unrest took to the streets Friday night to defend their neighborhoods.

In the Stockholm suburb of Tumba the police decided to abandon their earlier non-intervention policy as a large group of police officers rounded up and dispersed a group of vigilantes trying to fend off rioters.

The decision to round up vigilantes while, according to Stockholm Chief of Police Mats Löfving, ”doing as little as possible” to stop rioters, met with a wave of protests in various social media and on the Internet. Representatives of some vigilante groups contacted Fria Tider to give their view of last night’s events.

– The number of police officers on the streets is simply staggering. The police appear to have focused all their resources on stopping the Swedes, Fredrik Becklin, spokesman for the nationalist youth organization Nordisk Ungdom (Nordic Youth), said Friday night.

– It makes me sick to see the police clamp down on us Swedes with full force and without warning, using nightsticks and tear gas, while they don’t do a damn thing about the immigrants. We are only trying to help maintain order, while the immigrants set cars and buildings on fire, said a young man who wished to remain anonymous.

Western jewsmedia accounts are more or less biased against the Swedes and in favor of the aliens – blaming Swedes for being too unwelcoming and unaccomodating to the poor, victimized aliens who are only violent because they want a better life for themselves and their needy families. In contrast this Fria Tider report comes across as almost fair, giving voice to Swedes who are justifiably sickened by a government which won’t actively defend the Swedes from aliens but will actively defend aliens from the Swedes.

Here are two Swedish nationalist sources (via /new/) run through Bing translator:

Vigilantes now confirmed (at nordfront.se).

400 nationalists defended Stockholm-beat down invandrarpöbeln (at nationell.nu).

Note also The Jewish origins of multiculturalism in Sweden, at The Occidental Observer.

The alien interlopers don’t belong in Sweden. Sweden is for the Swedes.

Enemy Media: Breivik’s Views Too Popular

In the wake of a very active first week, The Guardian’s Anders Behring Breivik page is relatively moribund today.

Anders Behring Breivik loses front-page power in Norway, published Friday, provides a hint why:

Silje Gloppen, a teacher, said however abhorrent Breivik’s views, lessons needed to be learned from him. “Norwegians and, I believe, the rest of the world have to consider the possibility that this man is speaking the truth when he says he believes our ‘Norwegian culture and ethnicity’ is threatened by multiculturalism,” she said.

Breivik’s outlook is shared by “too many”, she argued, citing the comment fields under articles on Norwegian newspaper websites, and a battle on Wikipedia pages related to the case between moderators and extremist writers trying to take hold of “the truth” on the internet.

“I am afraid the left side in politics have for too long failed to grasp that there are challenges with the new society that need to be discussed,” she added.

Paul Brennan (paulrbrennan) has been silent since court adjourned Friday.

Helen Pidd (helenpidd) twits today that she’s back in London where she will find it tricky to report further on the trial. She redirects those who are interested to Lars Bevanger (lbevanger) and Trygve Sorvaag (trygvesorvaag). She also cites Chris Elliott’s op-ed, Open door: The readers’ editor on … the problems of tweeting the Anders Behring Breivik trial, which in turn provides a reporter’s rationalizations about why reporting testimony directly from Breivik’s trial is bad:

A tweet goes straight from event to air – and stays there. It is a discrete package that may later form a strand of a larger, more complex, story, but which will, nevertheless, exist of itself, shorn of context.

It is an effective form of digital journalism and is increasingly first with the news – whether that comes from a journalist or a well-informed tweeter. However, it is reductive by nature. When the Guardian was planning coverage of the trial of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian extremist who has admitted killing 77 people, the Guardian’s editorial team discussed whether tweeting was an appropriate tool.

Helen Pidd, the reporter who is covering the trial, was concerned beforehand that reducing “his justifications to a stream of 140-character soundbites” would be giving Breivik the platform he sought.

Pidd fingers the most important reason: Despite the reduction and distortion, she finds her enemy’s position still too potent.

Pidd said: “I would say I have had far more comments from people thanking me for the ‘grim but necessary’ reports on Twitter than those complaining I was giving Breivik the platform he craved. Two followers tweeted me to say they were ‘unfollowing’ until I left Oslo because it was ‘too much’.”

She has gained almost 3,000 followers in four days, a number of whom were angry when she said she wasn’t going to tweet everything on day one “because … they accused me of censorship”.

She said she wasn’t “completely comfortable with tweeting the trial”, not least because so much of Breivik’s ideology was formed online. But she felt it was important to engage readers, plus it does drive traffic to the website.

Breivik correctly identified the media and it’s pundits as enemies. Those pundits are less forthright about it, but reading them closely it’s clear they agree. They understand, at some level, that their multicult ideology is unpopular, that the verdict on it is already in. Now that they’ve gotten enough to reduce Breivik to “the Norwegian extremist who has admitted killing 77 people”, that’s the only context they want to provide.

Breivik Trial, Day Five

Courtroom twitterers:

Paul Brennan (paulrbrennan) on Twitter
Helen Pidd (helenpidd) on Twitter
Trygve Sorvaag (trygvesorvaag) on Twitter

Selected twits from 20 April 2012, in chronological order.

@helenpidd: Breivik: “I am not a racist, I am an anti-racist.” Concerned with the “anti-European racism” in the Norwegian media.

@helenpidd: Breivik complains that “cultural conservatives” such as himself has no chance of having a letter published in a Norwegian newspaper.

@helenpidd: Breivik says he was influenced in a particular bomb making technique by Andreas Baader from the Red Army Faction/Baader Meinhof Gang.

@helenpidd: Breivik: “We consider the police our brothers, along with the military. if we are going to have a coup d’état, we are going to rely on them”

@paulrbrennan: “Starting point was not to kill as many as possible, but to send a message and ensure the compendium was distributed.”

@paulrbrennan: “If the building had collapsed, Utoya would have been unnecessary, and I could have driven straight to the police station…

@paulrbrennan: “I cannot claim to comprehend the suffering I have caused. If I were to try to comprehend the suffering I have caused, I wouldn’t

@paulrbrennan: “…have been able to sit here today, or even to *live* after July 22nd.”

@paulrbrennan: lawyer: how can you say that, but you cried when you saw your own film the other day (in court)…?

@paulrbrennan: says “What I love is not the same thing you love.”

@helenpidd: Breivik asked to describe Norwegian culture he wants to protect: “It’s everything in Norway ranging from door handles, patterns, beer…”

@helenpidd: “…The way we speak, act… school disciple, politeness, the way we address each other.” (Breivik’s idea of what is Norwegian culture)

@paulrbrennan: is being asked about journalists, and the fact he groups all together, but he differentiates between politicians. why so?

@paulrbrennan: says he differentiates between news and sports journalists….

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik is asked how he found out that 44 of his victims held leadership positions. #Breivik: “my assumption was that more than half would”

@paulrbrennan: After lunch, #Breivik will be asked more about the ‘categories of traitors’ which he outlined yesterday.

@paulrbrennan: MT @mmayson: Are you aware it’s Hitlers birthday today? Is that why #Breivik is dressed completely in black? Mike << I wasn't aware. Maybe. @paulrbrennan: #Breivik says he’s a third generation militant nationalist. Says he tried essays on internet, debate, “absolutely everything.”

@helenpidd: Breivik: violence was last resort: previously tried “everything that was possible through peaceful means until I lost my faith in democracy”

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik now to be asked about Cat A-B-C traitors.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik is being shown an image of the badge he photoshopped onto his uniform: “Marxist Hunter: Valid for Cat A,B,C only”

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik is told that about half of those he killed were less than 18 years old. #Breivik says he assumed they were older.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik psychiatrist asks him why he thinks they are lying. #Breivik “That is a good question, maybe you can tell me…?”

@helenpidd: Breivik tells psychiatrists that his meditation dulls all emotions – “from happiness to sorrow, despair, hopelessness, anxiety, fear”

@TrygveSorvaag: Prosecutor takes over and moves over to Utøya.

@TrygveSorvaag: #Breivik asks people to leave the room if they do not want to listen to this.

[Much twittering conveying Breivik’s recounting of the attack omitted.]

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik looked at his notes for a second there. Says he shouted “You are going to die today, Marxists!” at the tent site.

[More twittering conveying Breivik’s recounting of the attack omitted.]

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik says when he reached Lovers’ Path again he heard a helicopter in the trees above. Thought police must now be on island.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik: “And I thought, do I really want to survive this? I will be the most hated man in Norway. And I looked over and saw my Glock…”

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik: “…and I thought about shooting myself in the head.” Says he remembered his compendium and the plan to face judicial process.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik: remembers helicopter was very close, and wondered why, because new police had thermal cameras and didn’t need to be so close.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik: said he thought ‘my mission is over’, had no intention of firing on the police because they are not the enemy.

The journalists covering the story are the enemy however. Here they are fretting about how twitting makes it harder to spin the proceedings their way.

Reporting the Anders Behring Breivik trial | Online Journalism Features | Journalism.co.uk:

As the court’s live TV feed is subjected to a ban on broadcasting any of Breivik’s, or his victims’, testimonies, many people across the globe are likely to choose to follow the Twitter feeds of journalists inside the court room for updates.

But free speech blogger Daniel Bennett told Journalism.co.uk he believes substituting reporting Breivik for tweeting his quotes leads to coverage fraught with problems. He also blogged about the issue for Index on Censorship.

“The problem for live-tweeting journalists is that it is hard to do any more than simply relay what Breivik is saying,” Bennett said.

“Live-tweeting is a time consuming exercise and it is difficult to consistently provide background information, context and challenge Breivik’s unsavoury evidence.”

He added that the “natural news instinct” is to repeat Breivik’s “most shocking” comments, “potentially causing additional suffering or inspiring extreme right-wing nationalists.”

As Bennett flagged up in his Index blog post, Guardian reporter Helen Pidd, tweeted on Tuesday: “Heading to Oslo today for the Breivik trial. Should I live-tweet proceedings? I’m thinking not. Loath to give Breivik the platform he craves”.

And she went on to discuss the ethics of live-tweeting the trial with her followers and colleagues.

“@pollycurtis Well, I think with a report you have context. With tweets I’d feel I was publicising his warped soundbites without criticism.”

Twitter users who replied to Pidd’s comments were divided over whether she was justified in this self-censorship. However, Pidd disclosed that her colleagues at the Guardian had agreed that it was “not morally wrong to live tweet the trial” and went on to tweet the proceedings in its minutiae.

Bennett believes that the only way to overcome the ethical issues surrounding live-tweeting is incorporating the tweets into liveblogs, and longer articles where there is more space for additional analysis.

“But even then”, he says, “there is a difficult balance to be struck between accurate reporting and providing a platform for an abhorrent ideology which led to the killing of 77 Norwegians.”