6 Replies to “Geert Wilders’ Speech in Lyon, Congress of the Front National”
1. Pope says it is wrong to equate Islam with violence
(This is so patently insane it has to be part of some larger plan. There is no way that a Catholic Pope could possibly believe what he says here unless he is trying to sell us all something.
Have been saying for quite a while. Some six or seven years ago, I began to question how come all Western leaders, no exception, all sang the same hymn – Islam is a religion of peace, when all their security services, and their own eyes, told them not. Clearly, there was an agreed strategy as part of the “War on Terror”. It was obvious that such a policy had three immediate advantages. There are many others.
1. It maintained the fiction that we were not waging a war on Islam ie a new Crusade. A new Crusade woould have invoked huge oppositioin in the West. Clearly not the way. Besides, wars based on religion, were not the done thing anymore.
2. It allowed us to use Muslim countries as a base to destabilise or intervene in an adjacent nation. Thus Afghanistan provided a useful base to destabilise Pakistan, and attack it using drones, with the acquiesence of Pakistan.
3. It kept our home based Muslims quiet. Some Muslims could see what was happening, but they were not given attention.
The goal seems to weaken the entitre Muslim world. It does not matter if a particular Islamic nation was friendly or not. Its capabilitry was to be destroyed – Egypt, Libya. The calculation is that any “progressing” Islamic nation must be converted to a sharia one, using democracy as a tool. A sharia nation would then desytroy itself. The only exceptions would be the oil producing Islamic nations. But they would be so alarmed at what was going on, that their rulers would be at the feet of the West.
The success of this policy is clear.
So why are the same leaders letting Islam into the west through mass imvasion of muslims who are eager to replace us through higher birth rates and install a Sharia state?
Further
Moderately succesful nations, such as Egypt and Libya, are now fractured. Even thougn the military in Egypt has thrown out the Muslim Brotherhood, the the nation is rent apart, and its economy shattered. Its incapable of now even feeding irself.
Ditto Iraq. Under the guise of installing democracy, freedom for women etc (remember G W Bush& Donald Rumsfeld), the West fractured Iraq and made it a Shia Sunni sharia hellhole. Thus Iraq and Egypt, the most populous and powerful nations in the ME, are not shattered.
GW Bush, did state a year or so after 9/11, that this war was going to last 50 years or more. Recently, both David CVameron and Hollande have confirmed it.
If one accepts this proposition, then Obama is a very useful tool in this strategy. He keeps the left quiet, and the Muslim world wondering.
Corrected
Moderately succesful nations, such as Egypt and Libya, are now fractured. Even thougn the military in Egypt has thrown out the Muslim Brotherhood, the the nation is rent apart, and its economy shattered. Its incapable of even feeding irself.
Ditto Iraq. Under the guise of installing democracy, freedom for women etc (remember G W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld), the West fractured Iraq, and made it a Shia Sunni sharia hellhole. Thus Iraq and Egypt, the most populous and powerful nations in the ME, are shattered.
GW Bush, did state a year or so after 9/11, that this war was going to last 50 years or more. Recently, both David CVameron and Hollande have confirmed it.
If one accepts this proposition, then Obama is a very useful tool in this post 9/11 strategy. He keeps the left quiet, and the Muslim world wondering.
I have mainatined that the West, particularly the US and the UK are not content with just winning a military war. Tne real vicory ois when you have got the enmy to acknowlege thatr its ideology is in error.
After 9/11, the West was confronted with a difficult problem of who to attack in response (No such problem in WWII). The attackers were 19 individuals, with no clear links to any state – yet the entire Muslim world was overjoyed to see the US/West humbled.
Pres Bush must have asked his advisors to come up with a policy. The problem would have been passed down to strategists deep within departments we have never heard off. They would liassed with their counterparts in the UK and France. It took almost a year for the West to work out a step by step policy, lasting over 50 years.
If Marie lePen and Geert Wilders are voted into positions of power then it’s probable that Muslims will be subject to justifiable discrimination.
The obvious nonsense of multiculture dogma is accepted by the majority of Europeans.
The success of these two politically is an obvious decision !
From your keyboard to the Creator’s inbox.
Discover more from Vlad Tepes
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
1. Pope says it is wrong to equate Islam with violence
(This is so patently insane it has to be part of some larger plan. There is no way that a Catholic Pope could possibly believe what he says here unless he is trying to sell us all something.
Have been saying for quite a while. Some six or seven years ago, I began to question how come all Western leaders, no exception, all sang the same hymn – Islam is a religion of peace, when all their security services, and their own eyes, told them not. Clearly, there was an agreed strategy as part of the “War on Terror”. It was obvious that such a policy had three immediate advantages. There are many others.
1. It maintained the fiction that we were not waging a war on Islam ie a new Crusade. A new Crusade woould have invoked huge oppositioin in the West. Clearly not the way. Besides, wars based on religion, were not the done thing anymore.
2. It allowed us to use Muslim countries as a base to destabilise or intervene in an adjacent nation. Thus Afghanistan provided a useful base to destabilise Pakistan, and attack it using drones, with the acquiesence of Pakistan.
3. It kept our home based Muslims quiet. Some Muslims could see what was happening, but they were not given attention.
The goal seems to weaken the entitre Muslim world. It does not matter if a particular Islamic nation was friendly or not. Its capabilitry was to be destroyed – Egypt, Libya. The calculation is that any “progressing” Islamic nation must be converted to a sharia one, using democracy as a tool. A sharia nation would then desytroy itself. The only exceptions would be the oil producing Islamic nations. But they would be so alarmed at what was going on, that their rulers would be at the feet of the West.
The success of this policy is clear.
So why are the same leaders letting Islam into the west through mass imvasion of muslims who are eager to replace us through higher birth rates and install a Sharia state?
Further
Moderately succesful nations, such as Egypt and Libya, are now fractured. Even thougn the military in Egypt has thrown out the Muslim Brotherhood, the the nation is rent apart, and its economy shattered. Its incapable of now even feeding irself.
Ditto Iraq. Under the guise of installing democracy, freedom for women etc (remember G W Bush& Donald Rumsfeld), the West fractured Iraq and made it a Shia Sunni sharia hellhole. Thus Iraq and Egypt, the most populous and powerful nations in the ME, are not shattered.
GW Bush, did state a year or so after 9/11, that this war was going to last 50 years or more. Recently, both David CVameron and Hollande have confirmed it.
If one accepts this proposition, then Obama is a very useful tool in this strategy. He keeps the left quiet, and the Muslim world wondering.
Corrected
Moderately succesful nations, such as Egypt and Libya, are now fractured. Even thougn the military in Egypt has thrown out the Muslim Brotherhood, the the nation is rent apart, and its economy shattered. Its incapable of even feeding irself.
Ditto Iraq. Under the guise of installing democracy, freedom for women etc (remember G W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld), the West fractured Iraq, and made it a Shia Sunni sharia hellhole. Thus Iraq and Egypt, the most populous and powerful nations in the ME, are shattered.
GW Bush, did state a year or so after 9/11, that this war was going to last 50 years or more. Recently, both David CVameron and Hollande have confirmed it.
If one accepts this proposition, then Obama is a very useful tool in this post 9/11 strategy. He keeps the left quiet, and the Muslim world wondering.
I have mainatined that the West, particularly the US and the UK are not content with just winning a military war. Tne real vicory ois when you have got the enmy to acknowlege thatr its ideology is in error.
After 9/11, the West was confronted with a difficult problem of who to attack in response (No such problem in WWII). The attackers were 19 individuals, with no clear links to any state – yet the entire Muslim world was overjoyed to see the US/West humbled.
Pres Bush must have asked his advisors to come up with a policy. The problem would have been passed down to strategists deep within departments we have never heard off. They would liassed with their counterparts in the UK and France. It took almost a year for the West to work out a step by step policy, lasting over 50 years.
If Marie lePen and Geert Wilders are voted into positions of power then it’s probable that Muslims will be subject to justifiable discrimination.
The obvious nonsense of multiculture dogma is accepted by the majority of Europeans.
The success of these two politically is an obvious decision !
From your keyboard to the Creator’s inbox.