About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

14 Replies to “OSCE clip. Greek speaker on Turkish treatment of Greek minorities in Turkey”

  1. The “government” of islamist Erdogan’s Turkey not only does “not investigate” hate crimes against minorities, but sponsors them!
    Regarding the Turkish genocide on the Armenian people: The NSW government of Australia has just passed a resolution to recognise this genocide. The screechingly strident reaction from the Turkish representative in Australia was swift: No member of the NSW government will be allowed to pay their respects to the Australians, fallen in Gallipoli – a very important tradition for Australians from now on.
    http://littlenotesfromparis.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/anzac-day.html

    The French, not surprisingly, deflated before Erdogan’s blackmail…:

    http://littlenotesfromparis.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/trojan-horses-made-in-germany.html

    Oh, and speaking of returning stolen countries: I think it would be time for the Arabs/Muslims to return Egypt to the Christian Copts.

  2. Constantinople will become Christian once Islam is dead. That Islam will die is only a matter of time. Historians will write that 9/11 was the biggest, and certainly a fatal mistake of Islam.

    I’ve argued that the war we have been waging in Islamic countries, one nation at a time, is a very well thought out strategic policy. Part of the policy is to appease Muslims in the West, as we don’t want trouble within, when waging an external war. This policy is adhered to by the entire political leadership of the Western world – no exceptions. Even Sweden, that most neutral of all Western nations, which has never taken part in NATO actions since WWII, has troops in Afghanistan. That is something to note.

    The effects of this war is now very apparent. The Islamic world is tottering, economies of even oil countries are crumbling. The rest are barely able to feed themselves, even with Western aid. Even the Saudis are feeling the pinch, as the West is going to full steam ahead for frakking. They also find their oil wealth reducing in real value, as Western nations deliberately engage in QE.

    The writing is on the wall. Wise Muslims should see the writing and get out of Islam. A Muslim who knew his people very well, said that Muslims will always go with the stronger horse.

  3. Nonsense. Islam is expanding aggressively. The war in Iraq and Syria destroyed the Christians in the levant. Where are you getting the idea that Islam is on the ropes?

  4. Before Mohammad Jews made up 1/3 of the population of the Arabian peninsula and were over half of the population of Medina. Free Arabia from the occupiers.

  5. DP111

    When would the political leadership of the West have gotten together to plan such a strategy? Who and how long ago? I have trouble imagining that.

    It seems to me that the Islamic world is in bad shape because of tribal social organization, massive corruption, oppression of women, inbreeding, mismanagement of human resources, sloth, arrogance, lack of curiosity, inability to do science, failure to read anything except the Koran and general brainwashing with Islam. I wouldn’t say that that means that Islamic states are not a threat to us, but I don’t think they need our help being disaster zones.

  6. don c

    Thanks for replying

    The leadership of the US and the West did not come up with a plan. That is not their job, and they are not qualified to do so. This would have been left to strategists in the US, UK and NATO. Quite obviously the US and the UK, would have taken the lead in the formation of a plan, with contingencies and minor alterations, if a plan went askew. There would have been several plans, short term plans, and long term strategies. These would have been thrashed out within the relevant agencies. Two or three would have been submitted to the top leadership, and then discussed at top level within US, UK and NATO. That is how we dealt with the Warsaw pact.

    9/11 was different, as it was the act of a disparate bunch of Jihadis. No Muslim nation could be blamed for 9/11. Yet the USA, a superpower, could not allow an act as large as Pearl Harbour to go without a response. If the US had let it go, then the US would have lost prestige, and the Islamic world would be cock-a-hoop – they had dealt a mighty blow on America. America had to respond – but how, and using what strategy and reasons, was the question?

    Note that after 9/11, the US did not respond immediately. Almost a year passed before any intervention took place. Then when the response came, every nation in the West sent troops to Afghanistan. Even Sweden, and amazingly Switzerland, both fiercely neutral nations, stood shoulder to shoulder with the US and UK, and sent troops. The other thing to note was that not one Western nation demurred from the intervention. Not one parliament, not one PM or president – socialist, liberal, conservative leadership, said a word against the intervention. Even when the character of a government changed, the top leadership never demurred. This is so unusual, nay unheard of, that at the least, requires examination.

    Will close now. But remember that Western civilisation has no equal in history. It is at one, the most civiliised, humane, tolerant, and law abiding society, and at the same time the most ruthless, determined enemy one is likely to face. For this civilisation to lose to a bunch of nomads, encumbered by a rigid and backward ideology, is unthinkable. So even if I’m wrong that there is no grand strategic plan, we will win and Islam will lose. On the other hand, the West has never set out on a war on several fronts, and different locations, over a prolonged period, without a plan. And the other, this could just be a continuation of the Great game.

  7. DP111

    Thank you for elaborating.

    It’s a provocative idea, and I wouldn’t say there was nothing in it. For one thing, it would help explain the frequently baffling response of Western leaders to the Islamic threat. But I have trouble making much of what I read and see every day fit your thesis.

    For example, surely there were ways to destabilize Afghanistan and Iraq less costly in lives and resources than the two wars that at this stage seem almost pointless. I understand that Iraq is now a de facto province of Iran. Afghanistan appears be turning back into pretty much what it was before the war.

    And then, why allow Iran to have nuclear weapons?

    Why ramp up Muslim immigration to the West in the same period that our social and intellectual betters are supposed to have been plotting the destabilization of Muslim countries? Muslim immigration is destabilizing our own countries.

    I run across the idea everywhere that Islam is imploding, that it has pretty much run its historical course and soon Muslims themselves will get sick of it and try something else. I simply can’t square that with my own experience of Muslims. I know they have had this attraction to the stronger horse of the West, but I think there is an inevitability to the reaction against that attraction that has also become familiar. Islam is almost in the genetic code of most Muslims, it doesn’t rinse out.

    I certainly wouldn’t dispute that Western civilization is vastly superior to what passes for civilization in Islam. But barbarians have brought ruin to civilization before.

  8. Don c

    Sorry for not replying earlier.

    1. Iraq had one of the strongest armies in the Arab world, so defeating it on the battlefield was necessary to show all Muslims that “the Crusaders were all powerful, and that Allah was not on their side”. The last is what most Muslims think of Westerners- we are all Christians and Crusaders in their eyes. Also as Muslims believe that Allah has granted Muslims victory in battle against non-Muslims, the realty that Christian infidels defeat Muslims repeatedly, and without breaking sweat is galling, demoralising, and destructive of the faith.

    2. The reason to invade Afghanistan was not to economically destroy it (it was a ruin anyway), but to use it as a base to destabilise Pakistan.

    Some commentators that we failed in our leaders stated aim to bring democracy, and freedom for women, to the above countries. I see it differently. That aim was merely to beguile the public. We succeeded in our real aim. Besides, in the terms of withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, both these countries had to acquisce to the stationing of US bases in their countries. In time after the euphoria of our withdrawal has died down, Muslims will see that they are still under the thumb of Christian Crusaders.

    Don C

    And then, why allow Iran to have nuclear weapons?

    Why ramp up Muslim immigration to the West in the same period that our social and intellectual betters are supposed to have been plotting the destabilization of Muslim countries? Muslim immigration is destabilizing our own countries.

    Both very pertinent questions. First, I will say that our leaders may be fools, but the people whose job is to define long term strategies, that will cost lives, and money running into the trillions, are not. Our politicians may not be intellectual stars, bur when it comes to lying with a straight face, they have no equals. Heck, they have been fooling the likes of you and me to vote for them, even though we hold them in contempt.

    On Iran’s nuclear weapons. Iran has never been an aggressive nation. Its people are not tribal Arabs or as Pakistanis who have adopted the Arab tribal code. Iranians are a Eurasian group, and that is reflected in their mannerisms. On Iran’s birders is Pakistan, a Sunni Muslim state that has nuclear weapons. This gives the Sunnis an edge over a shia state. One of the ways the Western policies world is “Balance of power”. Iran’s nukes, though not existent at the moment, provides a balance of power, as well as an instrument to keep the Sunnis in check.

    Once our populations refused to accept reasons such as WMDs, democracy and Human rights as excuses to invade, we started to use even al Qaeda types to destroy Muslim nations that were mildly useful to us – Egypt, Libya, Tunisia. This is cynicism at its highest.

    On allowing mass Muslim immigration – this is really tricky.

    In the early 1980?s, when I started to warn people, that allowing Muslims into the West was going to be a disaster – rapid population growth etc. I also warned at the time, that Muslims would set off bombs. I was treated with kindness and tolerance. Even on sites such as LGF (the only one at the time that looked ay the issue of Islam), immediately after 9/11, it was uphill to convince LGFers of the seriousness of the threat.

    My reason for thinking so, was based on the rationale that Muslims would behave themselves, be model citizens, do lots of charity work, and then one fine day, Britain would wake to a Muslim majority in parliament, and sharia the law of the land. Fortunately for us, Muslims jumped the gun and did a 9/11, 7/7, Spain, Beslan etc.

    The question of mass Muslim immigration still remains – I conjecture that any attempt to stop Muslim immigration after 9/11, specially at a time when we were intervening in Islamic countries, would be seen as an all out war on Islam. That is not what the strategy called for – the strategy was deception, and using one Islamic country as a base to attack another, to give the impression that we were not at war with Islam. Note, the vehemence with which all the leading politicians of the West, rush to state that Islam is the ROP after each vile mass atrocity. They insist that we are not at war with Islam. Its every time – no exceptions. Not one. You would have thought that atleast one Western leader, over a period of 12 years, may have doubts – but never.

    Even though there has been mass immigration of Muslims to the West, the worst is France – but even here they are barely 10%.

  9. DP111

    Thanks for taking time to address my questions so thoroughly.

    Obviously you’re familiar with what might be thought of as the standard model, the general consensus I think at counter-jihad blogs, of which a fine example is the introduction to the Brief History of the Transatlantic Counterjihad at Gates of Vienna. It includes this paragraph about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of Western institutions in the 1990s:

    These preparations left the Ikhwan fully prepared to neutralize any serious attempts by Western governments to deal with radical Islam within their societies. Brotherhood operatives developed a shrewd understanding of modern Political Correctness and Multiculturalism, which allowed them to exploit the weak spots in Western culture by invoking the shibboleths of “racism” and “xenophobia”.

    It looks to me like there is a substantial body of evidence to support those contentions. That doesn’t rule out the scenario you’ve outlined, but do you have to then presume that those MB operatives are themselves being played in a sort of complicated double game? And by Obama, for example – or that he himself is being played by various others?

    I don’t say it’s out of the question, but it does seem simpler to suppose that it is what it looks like, that the culture has been devastated by decades of political correctness / cultural Marxism / cultural relativism, and that with their sudden access of oil money, the Gulf country hillbillies have been able to hugely corrupt almost every Western institution, political, educational, informational – there is just about nothing that that money hasn’t touched. So people who ought to be looking out for us can’t think clearly and/or have been bought off.

    Even so, the construction you’ve put on events will keep me watching the political class with another perspective and the possibility that our leaders, whose apparent folly and incompetence does strain credulity, are acting according to the designs of people who actually know what they’re doing.

    Whatever is driving the policy of Muslim mass immigration at this point, I can’t see it ending any way but badly both for Muslims and for the populations they’ve been inflicted upon. I think 10% is already a distressingly high number.

  10. Don C

    I will be concise as I think we both get where we are.

    The situation is complex, and it has been made unnecessarily so, because the left has imposed the rule of Political Correctness, and “Racism” as the worst sin in human history. It sometimes masquerades as liberalism, but in reality, it is simply the left trying to destroy the West, in its objective of socialist world government. It is from the socialist EU that mass immigration has been forced down the throats of European people, quite against their will. Only to some extent has it been helped by globalisation. The recent statement by the president of the EU confirms that.

    The MB exploits “multicultism” and “racism”, thinking that it is using the left as its cats paw – the reverse holds true as well. This would be the death of us, but I see that people are either wising up, or have had enough. Parties of the Right are now increasingly getting more support, and that in itself is going to stop mass immigration, even if they are not elected to power.

    The last three decades have been very good for Islam. But that is coming to an end. Arab oil is not that important to the West. QE is also destroying their accumalated wealth. Whatever it is, the circumstances that led to the rise of Islam, is coming to and end. In addition , our interventions around the Islamic world, have knocked the wind of their sails. Obama or no Obama, the strategic policy that I think is in place, will continue.

    In the end, what will matter is the size of the Muslim population in the West. In France it is about 10%. In the rest of Europe, it is around 5%. We have a time window of about 40 years, to stop or reverse this situation. I believe we will, for no reason that to admit defeat is unthinkable.

    —————————————————————————

    As I write this, police commissioner of Ottawa is talking of the wonderful diverse nature of Canada.

    http://vladtepesblog.com/2013/10/04/news-links-for-oct-4-2013-2/

    http://proxy.autopod.ca/podcasts/chum/20/16320/LNC-ATPC%2003.10.13.mp3

    The police have either been brainwashed, or they are afraid they will lose their pensions, if they speak their minds. And the compere of the show is stating that “moderate” Muslims are “outraged” that radical Muslims are allowed to speak in mosques. The compere knows of Taqqiya, but thinks that only the radicals practice it. Long way to go, but we will get there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*