[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 03 March 2018 06:32.
Donald Trump is flanked by Dianne Feinstein, right , who literally strikes the hand-clasping pose of “the happy merchant.”
1:21Trump Backs Broad Gun Reforms: In a meeting with lawmakers, President Trump expressed support for a “comprehensive” gun bill that would include stronger background checks and temporarily take guns away from high-risk individuals.Published OnFeb. 28, 2018CreditImage by Tom Brenner/The New York Times.
In a remarkable televised meeting in the Cabinet Room, the president appeared to stun giddy Democrats and stone-faced Republicans by calling for comprehensive gun control that would expand background checks, keep guns from the mentally ill, secure schools and restrict gun sales from some young adults.
ZOG’s forces will have a huge advantage over bolt-action weaponry.
Trump: “I told N.R.A. leaders its time to stop this nonsense” ... “I like taking the guns early ... Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
And if the second amendment can be compromised twice in this way, on the basis of spurious mental diagnosis and age restrictions, then they can violate it again, until eventually, functionally, you don’t have it at all ....“we define an assault weapons as”...
New York Times, “Trump Stuns Lawmakers With Seeming Embrace of Gun Control”, 28 Feb 2018:
In a meeting with lawmakers, President Trump expressed support for a “comprehensive” gun bill that would include stronger background checks and temporarily take guns away from high-risk individuals.Published OnFeb. 28, 2018CreditImage by Tom Brenner/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Trump stunned Republicans on live television Wednesday by embracing gun control and urging a group of lawmakers at the White House to resurrect gun safety legislation that has been opposed for years by the powerful National Rifle Association and the vast majority of his party.
In a remarkable meeting in the Roosevelt Room, the president veered wildly from the N.R.A. playbook in front of giddy Democrats and stone-faced Republicans. He called for comprehensive gun control legislation that would expand background checks to weapons purchased at gun shows and on the internet, keep guns from mentally ill people, secure schools and restrict gun sales from some young adults. He even suggested a conversation on an assault weapons ban.
At one point, Mr. Trump suggested that law enforcement authorities should have the power to seize guns from mentally ill or other dangerous people without first going to court. “I like taking the guns early,” he said, adding, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”
The declarations prompted a frantic series of calls from N.R.A. lobbyists to their allies on Capitol Hill and a statement from the group calling the ideas Mr. Trump expressed “bad policy.” Republican lawmakers issued statements or told reporters that they remained opposed to gun control measures.
“We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the president talked to today doesn’t like them,” said Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska.
Democrats, too, said they were skeptical that Mr. Trump would follow through.
“The White House can now launch a lobbying campaign to get universal background checks passed, as the president promised in this meeting, or they can sit and do nothing,” said Sen. Murphy, (D) of Connecticut.
At the core of Mr. Trump’s suggestion was the revival of a bipartisan bill drafted in 2013 by Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Despite a concerted push by President Barack Obama and the personal appeals of Sandy Hook parents, the bill fell to a largely Republican filibuster.
The president’s embrace did not immediately yield converts. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said after the meeting that he was unmoved, repeating the Republican dogma that recent shootings were not “conducted by someone who bought a gun at a gun show or parking lot.” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican who sat next to Mr. Trump looking alternately bemused and flustered, emerged from the meeting and declared, “I thought it was fascinating television and it was surreal to actually be there.”
When a gunman walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14, he was carrying an AR-15-style rifle that allowed him to fire upon people in much the same way that many American soldiers and Marines would fire their M16 and M4 rifles in combat.
But Mr. Trump suggested that the dynamics in Washington had changed after the school shooting in Florida that claimed 17 lives, in part because of his own leadership in the White House, a sentiment that the Democrats in the room readily appeared to embrace as they saw the president supporting their ideas.
“It would be so beautiful to have one bill that everyone could support,” Mr. Trump said as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and a longtime advocate of gun control, sat smiling to his left. “It’s time that a president stepped up.”
Democrats tried to turn sometimes muddled presidential musings into firm policy: “You saw the president clearly saying not once, not twice, not three times, but like 10 times, that he wanted to see a strong universal background check bill,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. “He didn’t mince words about it. So I do not understand how then he could back away from that.”
Just what the performance means, and whether Mr. Trump will aggressively push for new gun restrictions, remain uncertain given his history of taking erratic positions on policy issues, especially ones that have long polarized Washington and the country.
The gun-control performance on Wednesday was reminiscent of a similar televised discussion with lawmakers about immigration last year during which the president appeared to back bipartisan legislation to help young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children — only to reverse himself and push a hard-line approach that helped scuttle consensus in the Senate.
Mr. Trump’s comments during the hourlong meeting were at odds with his history as a candidate and president who has repeatedly declared his love for the Second Amendment and the N.R.A., which gave his campaign $30 million. At the group’s annual conference last year, Mr. Trump declared, “To the N.R.A., I can proudly say I will never, ever let you down.”
But at the meeting, the president repeatedly rejected the N.R.A.’s top legislative priority, a bill known as concealed carry reciprocity, that would allow a person with permission to carry a concealed weapon in one state to automatically do so in every state. To the dismay of Republicans, he dismissed the measure as having no chance at passage in the Congress. Republican leaders in the House had paired that N.R.A. priority with a modest measure to improve data reporting to the existing instant background check system.
“You’ll never get it,” Mr. Trump told Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House Republican whip who was gravely injured in a mass shooting last year but still opposes gun restrictions. “You’ll never get it passed. We want to get something done.”
Mr. Trump also flatly insisted that legislation should raise the minimum age for buying rifles to 21 from 18 — an idea the N.R.A. and many Republicans fiercely oppose. When Mr. Toomey pushed back on an increase in the minimum age for rifles, the president accused him of fearing the N.R.A. — a remarkable slap since the association withdrew its support for Mr. Toomey over his background check bill.
“If there’s a Republican who’s demonstrated he’s not afraid of the N.R.A., that would be me,” Mr. Toomey said after the meeting.
The president appeared eager to challenge the impression that he is bought and paid for by the gun rights group. While calling the N.R.A. membership “well-meaning,” he also said he told the group’s leaders at a lunch on Sunday that “it’s time. We’re going to stop this nonsense. It’s time.”
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 24 February 2018 13:17.
What stands logistically in the way is that the Kurds seek a homeland, and that would entail a piece of Syria, which Assad does not want to relinquish. However, the Kurds do seem prepared to negotiate with Assad for the right, somehow, to live alongside the Syrians, within what Assad would like to maintain or re-claim as greater Syria - parts of which Assad was forced to abandon in 2012. We should encourage their reconciliation and alliance; and for other ethnonations to ally with them despite the shit-hole nations of Turkey and Israel in opposition.
The Guardian, 23 Feb 2018: “Why are world leaders backing this brutal attack against Kurdish Afrin?”
Islamist militants – with Turkish army support – are wreaking havoc with a pocket of peace and sanity in the Syrian war.
‘Afrin’s population doubled during the conflict, as hundreds of thousands of mostly Arab refugees had come to shelter with its original, overwhelmingly Kurdish, population.’
Three years ago the world watched a ragtag band of men and women fighters in the Syrian town of Kobane, most armed only with Kalashnikovs, hold off a vast army of Islamist militants with tanks, artillery and overwhelming logistical superiority. The defenders insisted they were acting in the name of revolutionary feminist democracy. The Islamist fighters vowed to exterminate them for that very reason. When Kobane’s defenders won, it was widely hailed as the closest one can come, in the contemporary world, to a clear confrontation of good against evil.
Today, exactly same thing is happening again. Except this time, world powers are firmly on the side of the aggressors. In a bizarre twist, those aggressors seem to have convinced key world leaders and public opinion-makers that Kobane’s citizens are “terrorists” because they embrace a radical version of ecology, democracy and women’s rights.
Turkey’s attack on Syrian Kurds could overturn the entire region.
The region in question is Afrin, defended by the same YPG and YPJ (People’s Protection and Women’s Protection Units) who defended Kobane, and who afterwards were the only forces in Syria willing to take the battle to the heartland of Islamic State, losing thousands of combatants in the battle for its capital, Raqqa.
An isolated pocket of peace and sanity in the Syrian civil war, famous only for the beauty of its mountains and olive groves, Afrin’s population had almost doubled during the conflict as hundreds of thousands of mostly Arab refugees had come to shelter with its original, overwhelmingly Kurdish population.
At the same time its inhabitants had taken advantage of their peace and stability to develop the democratic principles embraced throughout the majority Kurdish regions of north Syria, known as Rojava. Local decisions were devolved to neighbourhood assemblies in which everyone could participate; other parts of Rojava insisted on strict gender parity, with every office having co-chairs, male and female, in Afrin, two-thirds of public offices are held by women.
Turkey’s attack on Syrian Kurds could overturn the entire region.
Today, this democratic experiment is the object of an entirely unprovoked attack by Islamist militias including Isis and al-Qaida veterans, and members of Turkish death squads such as the notorious Grey Wolves, backed by the Turkish army’s tanks, F16 fighters, and helicopter gunships. Like Isis before them, the new force seems determined to violate all standards of behaviour, launching napalm attacks on villagers, attacking dams – even, like Isis, blowing up irreplaceable archaeological monuments. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of Turkey, has announced, “We aim to give Afrin back to its rightful owners”, in a thinly veiled warning to ethnically cleanse the region of its Kurdish inhabitants. And only today it emerged that a convoy heading to Afrin carrying food and medicine was shelled by Turkish forces.
Remarkably, the YPG and YPJ have so far held off the invaders. But they have done so without so much as the moral support of a single major world power. Even the US, the presence of whose forces prevents Turkey from invading those territories in the east, where the YPG and YPJ are still engaged in combat with Isis, has refused to lift a finger to defend Afrin. The British foreign secretary Boris Johnson has gone so far as to insist that “Turkey has the right to want to keep its borders secure” – by which logic he would have no objection if France were to seize control of Dover.
The result is bizarre. Western leaders who regularly excoriate Middle Eastern regimes for their lack of democratic and women’s rights – even, as George W Bush famously did with the Taliban, using it as justification for military invasion – appear to have decided that going too far in the other direction is justifiable grounds for attack.
To understand how this happened, one must go back to the 1990s, when Turkey was engaged in a civil war with the military arm of the Kurdistan Workers’ party, or PKK, then a Marxist-Leninist organisation calling for a separate Kurdish state. Whether the PKK was ever a terrorist organisation, in the sense of bombing marketplaces and the like, is very much a matter of contention, but there is no doubt that the guerrilla war was a bloody business, and terrible things happened on both sides. About the turn of the millennium, the PKK abandoned the demand for a separate state. It called a unilateral ceasefire, pressing for peace talks to negotiate both regional autonomy for Kurds and a broader democratisation of Turkish society.
This transformation affected the Kurdish freedom movement across the Middle East. Those inspired by the movement’s imprisoned leader, Abdullah Öcalan, began calling for a radical decentralisation of power and opposition to ethnic nationalism of all sorts.
Turkey starts ground incursion into Kurdish-controlled Afrin in Syria - Read more
The Turkish government responded with an intense lobbying campaign to have the PKK designated a “terrorist organisation” (which it had not been before). By 2001 it had succeeded, and the PKK was placed on the EU, US, and UN “terror list”.
Never has such a decision so wreaked havoc with the prospect of peace. It allowed the Turkish government to arrest thousands of activists, journalists, elected Kurdish officials – even the leadership of the country’s second largest opposition party – all on claims of “terrorist” sympathies, and with barely a word of protest from Europe or America. Turkey now has more journalists in prison than any other country.
The designation has created a situation of Orwellian madness, allowing the Turkish government to pour millions into western PR firms to smear anyone who calls for greater civil rights as “terrorists”. Now, in the final absurdity, it has allowed world governments to sit idly by while Turkey launches an unprovoked assault on one of the few remaining peaceful corners of Syria – even though the only actual connection its people have to the PKK is an enthusiasm for the philosophy of its imprisoned leader Öcalan. It cannot be denied – as Turkish propagandists endlessly point out – that portraits of Öcalan, and his books, are common there. But ironically what that philosophy consists of is simply an embrace of direct democracy, ecology, and a radical version of women’s empowerment.
The religious extremists who surround the current Turkish government know perfectly well that Rojava doesn’t threaten them militarily. It threatens them by providing an alternative vision of what life in the region could be like. Above all, they feel it is critical to send the message to women across the Middle East that if they rise up for their rights, let alone rise up in arms, the likely result is that they will be maimed and killed, and none of the major powers will raise an objection. There is a word for such a strategy. It’s called “terrorism” – a calculated effort to cause terror. The question is, why is the rest of the world cooperating?
• David Graeber is professor of anthropology at the LSE and author of Debt: The First 5000 years; he was involved in the Global Justice Movement and Occupy Wall Street
Related Story: Watch for The PKK as a revolutionary group fighting for ethnonationalism
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 06:02.
Nick Fuentes vs. RC Maxwell | Civic Nationalism Debate.
Fuentes stakes-out some classic arguments against civic nationalism and specifically in this case, against those arguments for inclusion of blacks within the nation. While a full endorsement is not implied, he establishes a plateau from which to elaborate, differ and/or transform.
ContraPoints has done his/her homework as well, also enough to stake out a polemic - by contrast to Fuentes, ContraPoints argues in defense of blacks - giving explanations/excuses for what are taken by those who dislike them to be typical black behavior (bad) - again, providing a position for difference, elaboration and/or transformation.
A new PhD, “Mexie” the Vegan and anti-capitalist activist, considers that to be her favorite ContraPoints video, one that all “racists” (and anti-racists) should see.
Going Vegan: A Discussion with Mexie | ContraPointsLive
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 14 February 2018 06:22.
Her kind, anyway, since this particular woman is spoken-for. She’s an ingenious pioneer, living off the grid in the “North-West Front” ...she isn’t bad looking either.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 09 February 2018 06:09.
Take away the Trojan Horse that is Christianity, and replace it with a moral order that is authentic to European ethno-national interests and you’ve got an example of a sound ethno-national coalition in the Visegrad Group.
Visigrad Post, Why so much fuss about the Visegrad Group?”
By Gabor Toth, President of the V4-China association, 8 Feb 2018:
Visegrad Group – In the recent years, the international media has helped make the profile of the V4 rise significantly. It is fair to say that the V4 have never been so important and well-known around the world as nowadays. But why is that? This formation has been around since 1335! In its modern form, it has been active since its resurrection in the 1990s. So how come we haven’t really heard about it until about 2015-16?
And why the fuss about the V4, especially in European politics?
The story goes back to 2015, when a great number of both refugees and migrants mainly from the Middle East and Africa arrived at the borders of Hungary. They wanted to pass through, so they can go to Germany, Sweden and other western European countries. The Hungarian government did not allow this, saying that entering the territory of the EU can only be done legally, based on the existing treaties. The other three V4 countries quickly joined Hungary’s position, while some western countries criticized Hungary for the move.
As the burden of the crisis became heavier, the profile of the V4’s stance grew stronger. Today, only two years later, the situation has escalated so much that many experts see the V4, being the leading formation of CEE, as the only viable and strong enough opposition to the politics of Western Europe. A very clear divide has taken shape between East and West. To the west, countries that have accepted migration and multiculturalism, to the east, countries that wish to remain as they have always been. To the west, countries that are abandoning the idea of nation states and Christianity as the foundation of Europe, to the east, countries that want to stick to this foundation. Of course, this is not that simple, but these are the basic differences between the two sides.
In other words, the V4, lead by Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, have emerged as representatives of a future Europe that keeps its traditions, historic background and spiritual foundation, while some western countries, such as France, Belgium and Holland represent a future Europe with mixed societies and a way of life based on a progressive idea that the continent can be great without clearly separated nation states and many different religions can coexist, because it has happened in other places before, such as the United States.
But what will the peoples of Europe choose? Or is it really a choice they face?
History has the answer, and it is clear.
Europe and its people cannot and will not simply erase or even compromise their Christian roots and national pride. It is foolish for anyone to think that they will. It is rooted too deep in their genes, their traditions, even in their everyday habits…
This article does not mean to judge who is right or wrong. These are facts of history and those of us that live on this continent know it, even if this is something we don’t think about on a daily basis. However, when European people feel that their way of life and long spiritual foundations are questioned or even threatened, they raise their voice. This has been going on since the end of 2015, and it’s been getting more and more vocal. All eyes on Italy and Germany now. Will they take the position of the V4 and Viktor Orban? Those that say they will not, are likely to lose their bet, because all indicators show that the “opposing” side cannot come up with a clear vision for a future Europe where all peoples can live in peace and prosperity without having to change their foundations drastically. And even if that side did have a clear alternative, chances are high that the peoples of Europe would reject it, because in their mind Europe can hardly be greater than it was in those times when it was leading the world…
In football, there’s a saying: “don’t change a winning team”. Europeans love football, but more importantly, this is the way they think about being a collection of strong, Christian nation states, too. They have absolutely no reason to change their ancient, winning formula.
Interestingly, however, some western countries call for a “United States of Europe”, which is considered by some to be the alternative to the V4’s position.
But this is not entirely true, because individually strong, Christian nation states must also find a way to unite and work out a way to organize themselves into a strong, unified block. Europe is crying for a strong leader to finally get it out of the rut it’s been stuck in for a long period now. With troubles mounting on the borders of Europe and inside as well, this becomes more and more essential. Especially, if military conflicts escalate around her borders.
We can predict, that the dispute between East and West may very easily be settled in a way that Europe will turn back to its original strength by becoming a “United States of Europe”, but not at all the way some western countries imagine it, instead, as an empire of strong nation states, coordinated by the already existing, soon-to-be drastically reformed European institutions, such as the Council and the Committee. The issue is NOT with the way the EU was born and developed. It is with the way it is organized and lead.
Weak leadership and governing without a solid ideological foundation that people agree with is what’s causing the difficulties the EU is facing. Reorganizing the institutional system and placing strong leaders in their top seats, with a Council president, given that the council goes back to being the strongest of the three main institutions, which it was always meant to be. Recognizing that Christianity will make Europe great again, and instead of fighting it, using it as a starting point to reestablish the relationship of church and state, bringing back the “winning formula”. These are the steps Europe is going to take, if it follows the clear pattern of history.
Time will tell how quickly the so-called “Hungarian model” (having found a modern way of church and state relations) will spread further, but the process has begun and is speeding up notably.
The next question is Europe’s future partners in trade, because this major resurrection of the “old” Europe means a totally new alliance system as well. As power shifts from the West to the East, China’s new silk road seems to be the clear alternative. China needs a strong Europe, and Europe needs China, and the “One belt, One Road” initiative presents itself as this new alliance system with the potential to make Europe great again.
Moreover, China’s approach toward CEE countries is also evident, with the 16+1 platform and several projects already underway.
Interestingly, the V4 are in an historic position, because they hold the key to Europe’s revival, as well as the success of the 16+1. Hungary holds the presidency of the V4 until July 2018, which gives a significant advantage to the Hungarian prime minister, Orban, who is considered to be the leader of the conservative camp in Europe, and considered to be the most friendly and pragmatic leader in Europe by the Chinese.
Ironically, the “United States of Europe” that Mr. Schulz talked about would also need a strong leader, and today, there is simply no match to the success of Mr. Orban as a politician in the EU, so even if the people voted for a European President, it would not be surprising at all, if they voted for him. Of course, this is not what Mr. Schulz or other EU leaders would be happy about. While current EU leaders struggle to find solutions to their problems, something powerful is happening in the eastern front. The V4 have started to build the new Silk Road, and China appreciates this enormously.
In the coming years, as the divide between western and eastern Europe deepens, watch for the rapidly developing sentiment, that opening to the East is what will provide the solution.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 02 February 2018 09:21.
Click image to hear Roper Report: Kawczynski comes on min. 30:00
Part of the tragedy of right wingers, besides going by and espousing misleading maps, is that they can indeed by very intelligent and spot-on in many crucial ways as well. “Grandpa Lampshade” - one of two podcsaters that I’m sampling here from the Right Wing, “Radio Aryan Network” - has many of the characteristic right-wing foibles: a Christian; he’s supposedly wise to the J.Q., but “Trump is alright”; probably espouses a ridiculous level of concern about the homos that he’d have to go far out of his way as a straight White man to find and who knows why he would care so much about them where they are because they aren’t competing for his women anyway. On the other hand, some of his observations are surprisingly refreshing by contrast: In his show, “Nowhere to Run” Grandpa Lampshade talks about how “I knew that when they put those housing projects in the middle of nowhere that it had to be goverment sponsored housing for black people; and so it came to pass - out in the country (where it was peaceful, where there were no blacks) they brought a bunch of blacks and the area started having criminal problems.” In the same show he calls the bluff of liberal American feminists, saying “you think we’re afraid of your free sexuality? You’re damn right, it’s like a fire outside of a fireplace; whereas it can be an element that saves your life with some sort of limiting condition or structuring around it; outside of that it can burn everything down, and the first person to burn is usually the closest to it - the girl/woman.”
It can be tragic to be at odds with them. Nevertheless, while holding some dubious beliefs, some of their Christian members, like Billy Roper, will Not come out shooting secular Whites first and foremost. Racial self defense and coordinating on that basis is an overriding matter for him, as it is for us:
In this episode of “The Roper Report”, Billy highlights our argument about Mike Enoch’s (((heritage))) and the inappropriateness of Enoch being a prominent representative and exponent of White advocacy. That talk can be found beginning in minute 27:30; and shortly thereafter, beginning in minute 30:30, he interviews Tom Kawczynski (not to be confused with “unibomber” Ted Kaczynski lol).
Along with promotion of his own PLE (Pioneer Little Europe) in the Ozark Mountains, Billy interviews a rising star in White Nationalism, Tom Kawczynski, founder of “The New Albion Ethnostate” movement, a PLE project for Northern Maine. Tom is using that platform to spearhead a broader initiative to promote explicit White self defense, particularly by this kind of White ethnostatism and its coordination.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 28 January 2018 11:56.
Diversity Macht Frei, “It’s too late for Germany’: German feminist SJW admits she got it wrong on immigration, plans to emigrate to Poland”:
In 2012 Rebecca Sommer founded the refugee aid association Arbeitsgruppe Flucht + Menschen-Rechte (AG F+M) [Working Group Asylum + Human Rights]. At the end of 2015, this artist, photographer and journalist and documentary maker applauded Angela Merkel’s decision to open German’s borders to the “refugees” who had been blocked in Hungary, despite the vacuum effect this would create. “At that time I wanted to help everyone and truly believed that all these people were fleeing hell and were in a state of complete distress,” the German activist explained in an article published by the conservative Polish weekly Do Rzeczy on 15 January, discussing how she woke up to reality.
In 2015, her NGO had almost 300 volunteers who were giving German courses to the new arrivals.
…”I thought their medieval view was going to change with time…but after having seen these situations occur repeatedly and observing what was happening around me, as a volunteer, I have had to recognise that the Muslim refugees have grown up with values that are totally different, they have undergone brainwashing from childhood on and are indoctrinated by Islam and absolutely do not intend to adopt our values. Worse, they regard we infidels with disdain and arrogance.”
“It was a jarring perception when I noticed that these people I had helped, who were eating, drinking, dancing and laughing with me, who didn’t pray, who didn’t go to the mosque, who didn’t respect Ramadan, who made fun of religion and deeply religious people, called me ‘the stupid German whore’ when they were eating my food and were in my garden.”
…Rebecca Sommer says she is not an isolated case, that many other volunteers also came ultimately to have the same perception and that there are now far fewer volunteers ready to work with the new arrivals today in Germany. She also acknowledges that, through their numbers, these Muslim immigrants pose a threat to the German way of life, and that this will get worse with family reunification.
She also told the Polish weekly magazine Do Rzeczy that she personally knows Germans who are getting ready to emigrate to Poland because they had have enough, and she added: “If Poland and Hungary do not give in on this question, you could become countries that some Germans and French will flee to. You could become islands of stability in Europe.”
Islands of stability but also democracy because Rebecca Sommer also notes that democracy no longer really exists in Germany….When the human rights activists wanted to denounce forced conversions to Islam in Indonesia, her account was blocked.
This Berlin woman no longer dares to go out on her own on New Year’s Eve and she has already been attacked five times by men speaking Arabic!
She thinks it is already too late for Germany and she plans to emigrate for her retirement. Political Islam is present everywhere, including in the government, in political parties, in the police and schools. With family reunification, millions of additional Muslim immigrants are going to come. In the German capital where she lives, entire districts are already dominated by the Muslim community which forms a parallel society.