Translate

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Rivers of blood


Soldier beheaded in London terror attack
A British soldier was beheaded Wednesday on a London street in a “sickening and barbaric” attack by a pair of cleaver-wielding jihadists, officials and witnesses said.

The brazen and heinous slaying occurred in broad daylight in front of stunned witnesses, who said the attackers screamed “Allah Akbar.” British Prime David Cameron Cameron said the atrocity appeared to be “terror-related.”

I am not sure what else is to be expected when the West invades barbarian lands and then invites the barbarians here. Cameron is a pathetic sissy calling this "terror-related." No, Prime Minister, it's far worse than anything you and the rest of the Cathedral's blank slate adherents can imagine. It's just the sort of thing that barbaric primitives in thrall to a hostile creed are going to do when placed in an unarmed, passive society. The immigrants are what they are; they do not belong and never should have been invited. If there's to be outrage, it should be directed to the people who dream up these awful social engineering schemes.

Enoch Powell was right, and there will be blood.

13 comments:

David Sager said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Anti-Gnostic said...

Have I not made myself clear over the years? It is the State that wants 'open borders,' because if there are no borders, then people get to draw their own.

David Sager said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Anti-Gnostic said...

No, the distinction is crucial. If there are no national borders, there is no such thing as an 'immigrant.' There are only owners, tenants and trespassers. 'Open borders' means the government gets to import more constituents.

The statement that 'closed borders' benefit no one is rather imprecise. You benefit from your home's closed borders. The original inhabitants of the Americas would have benefitted from closed borders from the Imperial powers, and etc.

elvisd said...

"An influx of foreigners allow the nationalist a convenient scapegoat to press for power."

Could you cite an example of "nationalists" inviting foreigners into a country for this express purpose?

David Sager said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lannes said...

right on, A-G !

elvisd said...

As far as nationalists benefiting from open border policies: John McCain.

Are you saying he merely derives some incidental benefit, or that his promoting of open borders was part of some master plan?

Are you defining "closed" as some kind of absolute? I assume that you understand there's a "restricted to whom we choose" option.


If a government cannot import new constituents, it also is going to be unwilling to let the existent ones leave.

There's countries who have a strict immigration policy that don't have much of a problem with their citizens travelling beck and forth- Japan for instance.

David Sager said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Anti-Gnostic said...

You've got one premise way wrong: John McCain is not a nationalist.

David Sager said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
elvisd said...

Exactly how do I benefit from closed borders?

Not so long ago, your question might have been phrased, "Exactly how do I benefit from citizenship in a nation?", but as AG has pointed out, American citizenship has become so debased that it warrants no particular consideration.

fnn said...

As far as nationalists benefiting from open border policies: John McCain.

As far as I can tell, McCain is an Israeli nationalist.

No one knows exactly what Israel's borders are-but they do have a very strict immigration policy.