This is a very moving video. Not translated by one in our network (we can’t catch them all!) and thus the quality of the translation is not up to our usual standards, but, it does convey the greater point this 16-year-old German girl is making:
And what are the ‘Western feminists’ doing to protect these girls from being sexually harassed and even raped by these rapefugees?
By these fake refugees?
Because once they transit one safe country without applying for a refugee asylum, they are legally no longer ‘refugees’ – and the moment they enter the second safe country without applying for asylum they are criminals, according to currently valid international law.
So, in no uncertain terms, Europe is being overrun by criminals who are mostly young, able-bodied Muslim men who are Sharia Supremacists, with no desire to work (international statistics show that only about 20% of Muslims who migrated to Europe or are 2nd generation European Muslims even seek employment) who openly express the desire to kill European natives and rape Europena women.
And they do live up to their threats!
And why would they feel this entitled to take Western European monetary support without feeling obligated? Because they believe that all European money is really Allah’s money and it is the duty of the Europeans to financially support all Muslims due to their religious superiority.
This is called Sharia supremacism.
Yet, not everyone is buying into it. (Disclosure – I have done several of these translations.)
So, what are our feminazis doing about all this oppression of women and actual rape culture?
It turns out that they spend their time staring at Batman’s butt:
It makes me want to get off this planet!!!
Our society has devolved so much that people are afraid to yell “FIRE!” in a burning theatre!
For fear of becoming a pariah in our society, we are going to let ourselves be slaughtered.
Sure, mos Muslim immigrants are nice people, just trying to get away from Sharia lands.
But not all are.
And we must not be cowed into pretending that just because there are nice Muslims, people who come here to seek freedom just like I did, that we do not point out those who are hiding among them in order to murder as many of us and destroy our society through fear and intimidation.
Neighbors of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook told ABC Wednesday that they noticed “suspicious activity” at Farook’s home recently, but did not report it for fear of being called racist.
And the shooter’s mother’s neighbour…
“She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it,” Elswick explained, “but she said she didn’t want to profile.”
So, we keep quiet and let ourselves be slaughtered.
‘Cause, you know, we’re no racists!!!
Yes, I usually post my never-humble-opinions.
But this time, I know I would be out of my depth had I offered one….
Still, the question itself has kept me up on more than one night.
Granted, my early schooling came behind the Iron Curtain – so, perhaps the very premises of my question are flawed. Yet, I have read enough (among the little bits of ‘H’istory that I have indulged myself in) here, in The West, that suggests to me that this question may, indeed, be more valid today than it has been in, well, almost a century.
Therefore, my dear reader, I beg you to indulge me in asking my question and, if you can, in enlightening me with the answer.
Now, for my long-winded question:
Before World War 1, the movement of peoples between nations was not regulated.
At least, it was not regulated in the manner in which it became regulated later on in the 20th century.
Yes, of course, there were border controls: but these were meant mostly for economic purposes (import/export taxes) and to apprehend criminals.
After all, it was not so long ago that mainland Europe was still using the Feudal System of governance, where the freedom of movement of country folk was under complete control of their landlords.
And the aristocracy was not limited by borders: crossing them freely and unencumbered to pursue political marriages. The land they held was their only anchor to the kingdom in which they held it.
The craftsmen were also not anchored in place by ‘kingdom-governance’ (I cannot think of a proper term for this), but by the self-regulated guilds of their region, under which they were permitted to practice their craft: guilds were built upon the apprentice-based artificially created scarcity of their products within various regions, calculated to ensure higher-than-market value of their work and thus inflating guild-members standard of living and social standing.
Similarly, scholars and artists moved freely between kingdoms, based on where they could find private patrons willing to fund them and their works. (Note: painters may be regarded as ‘artists’ today, but, prior to accessible photography, they were considered craftsmen and thus subject to the guild system.) For example, consider the alchemical court of Rudolph the Second.
After centuries of feudalism, it took a bit from when the shackles were shattered to when people gathered the courage to reach for freedom and travel to far-away lands – not just to learn, or as a right of passage, but to settle for good.
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the human migrations truly became unfettered and populations began to migrate.
From my own cultural background – this is where the huge exodus of Czechs into Texas began: so great was this migration that it was not until the 1970’s that Spanish overtook Czech as the second language of Texas. The University of Austin still has the largest Czech Studies department outside of the Czech Republic… And don’t even get me started on ‘Miss Czech Texas’..
Yes, I realize that I am providing just one example here, but, I am no historian: which is why I hope to get responses which will enlighten me.
Now that I have set the stage…
It has been suggested that one of the most important ‘behind-the-scenes’ reasons for the First World War was the absence of proper regulation on
the migration of populations across political borders.
Yes, of course – there were the ‘obvious’ reasons: but I have heard the claim that these ‘obvious’ reasons were, in fact, brought about because of the cultural instability and tensions brought about by, in practical terms, unregulated migration of populations across culturo-political borders.
It would be difficult to argue that what we are seeing now, in the EU in particular and in all of Europe in general is exactly the same type of unregulated migration of populations across cutluro-political borders!
But, it is even more pointed now than what it had been prior to WW1: at least back then, the migrations did not tend to cross religio-cultural borders – something that is most definitely happening now. The new migrants flooding Europe, without any true governance, are not just politically and culturally different, they are also religiously different: subscribing to an intolerant, supremacist religion that permits exploitation and violence against non-members of said religion and refuses to recognize any culture other than its own…
Finally, the question:
Are the current, practically unregulated migration conditions into Europe as dangerous, if not more, than the ones that sparked World War 1?
Major Stephen Coughlin will be in Montreal on Wednesday, the 16th of September, Ruby Foo’s Hotel, 7655 Decarie Blvd. .
And, he will be right here in Ottawa on Thursday, 17th of September, at the Lord Elgin Hotel, 100 Elgin Street, at 7pm.
Both events are brought to you by Act!ForCanada.
For more information on Islamic laws on marriage, please see my previous posts:
It is also important to note that the Islamic Prophet Muhammed said that men and children are not, under Sharia, required to cover their hair: only women who are either available for marriage or married are to cover their hair. It is the role of the father (or, in his absence, the female’s wali, or ‘male guardian’, since women are never considered independent humans under Sharia) to determine at which age she is available for marriage and that this guardian is to signal this availability to the Umma (the Muslim community) by ‘imposing the veil on her’.
While the customary age for this is 9 lunar years of age, under Sharia, the female’s wali is the one who decides her eligibility for marriage, regardless of physical age or maturity. There is no lower limit and under some Islamic rulings, even an infant may be married off and her husband consummate the marriage – though if she is physically damaged by this, the husband will be responsible for her maintenance for the rest of her life (but she will not count towards his total of maximum of 4 concurrent wives).
And then, there is muta’a: the temporary ‘pleasure marriage’… Of course, if the girl is young, under muta’a, it is her wali who collects the mahr ‘bride gift/price’… because while a woman is entitled to own property, under Sharia, it is her wali who controls it for her – as a proper guardian should.
Isn’t Sharia wonderful? It can take something sordid and despicable and turn it into something virtuous that pleases Allah himself!