Tuesday, February 9, 2016

INTERVIU CU UN ZOMBI


Fredrick Reinfeldt, fost prim ministru, este convins că Suedia trebuie să continue să primească imigranti, pentru a deveni astfel “o super putere a umanității”. Jacques Attali declară că imigrația musulmană va transforma Europa “în prima putere a lumii”. Jean Christophe Cambadelis își dorește ca “Franța să devină o mare națiune de primire” (sic).  Dan Eliasson, șeful poliției suedeze, își manifestă compasiunea față de “ororile” și “traumele” prin care a trecut și pe care le-a suferit, în copilărie, azilantul somalez care a ucis cu lovituri de cuțit o tânără suedeză. Procurorul suedez Daniel Jonsson refuză să ceară extrădarea unui somalez care a continuat să-și violeze victima suedeză și după ce aceasta murise. Odata ajuns în Somalia, criminalul ar reprezenta un pericol pentru femeile de acolo – justifică procurorul! Dacă lui Reinfeldt, Attali, Cambadelis, Eliasson, Jonsson, și celorlați, mulți, ștanțați cerebral aidoma lor, li s-ar cere să răspundă rațional unor întrebări și să-și explice declarațiile, reacțiile și faptele, raportându-se la realitate, aceștia ar avea același tip de “discurs” standardizat ca și funcționara suedeză intervievată de Gatestone Institut. Într-o Europă, în care mankurtizarea elitelor a devenit o realitate, zombificarea birocrației îi este pandant logic. Autorul Rosaly a publicat pe site-ul dreuz.info un articol ce dezvăluie o realitate pe cât de halucinantă pe atât de înfricoșătoare.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
“Sub pretextul de a compensa o demografie europeană în bernă – stare mult favorizată, în realitate, de măsurile propriilor politici menite a accelera deficitul nașterilor – Uniunea Europeană continuă să încurajeze, în ciuda haosului care se generalizează, imigrația de masă, și face asta nu numai din considerente umanitare.
Cu scopul de a calma popoarele și de a evita creșterea rapidă a popularității mișcărilor calificate cu dispreț drept “populiste”, infernalul trio din fruntea UE a anunțat câteva decizii cosmetice, fără prea mare importanță, pentru stoparea fluxului de imigranți.
Dar ce gândește în realitate guvernul suedez? Își va menține el nebunia umanistă, care pune dreptul de azil deasupra securității propriului popor? Citiți acest interviu siderant, realizat de Gatestone Institut pe subiectul în cauză. Răspunsurile zombi-ului intervievat, Sofia Häggmark, o funcționară imparțială de la Biroul Drepturilor Migranților din Departamentul Justiției, cu creierul lobotomizat de reglementările UE, ilustrează perfect modul în care responsabilii politici duc, în cunoștiință de cauză, țările noastre spre sinucidere, fără nici o mustrare de conștiință.

Întrebare: În Suedia, dreptul de azil ar trebui acordat oricui, chiar cu riscul ca acest lucru să ducă la pierderea Suediei?
Sofia Häggmark: Dreptul de azil este foarte puternic. Avem reguli internaționale și reguli ale UE, care stipulează că o persoană care sosește în UE are dreptul să ceară azil.
Ați putea spune “Nu”, dacă, de exemplu, există grupuri în țara dumneavostră – ca tigani, evrei și alte grupuri minoritare indigene – care sunt puse în pericol de către solicitanții de azil? Sau Suedia nu poate să-și permită acest lucru?
Sofia Häggmark: Nu! Dacă o persoană are motive întemeiate pentru a solicita azil, dacă ea riscă pedeapsa cu moartea sau tortura în țara sa de origine, nu-i puteți refuza dreptul la azil.
Prima datorie a guvernului suedez nu este aceea de a proteja Suedia și pe suedezi?
Sofia Häggmark: Noi trebuie să respectăm regulile internaționale; suntem obligați să facem asta. Putem fi chemați în fața Curții de Justiție europene, dacă nu le permitem oamenilor să ceară azil.
Ce este mai important? Viața Suedezilor sau riscul de a fi chemați în fața Curții de Justiție a UE?
Sofia Häggmark: Nu vă pot răspunde la această întrebare. Există reguli, acesta este singurul lucru pe care vi-l pot spune.
Așadar, sunteți pe cale să spuneți că, dacă 30 de milioane de indivizi sosesc aici pentru a ne ucide, noi suntem lipsiți de apărare, pentru că nu-i putem aresta?
Sofia Häggmark: Ceea ce va pot spune, este că dreptul de azil va acorda o foarte mare protecție.
Dar nu și pentru Suedezi?
Sofia Häggmark: Dacă o persoană ucide pe cineva în Suedia, sistemul judiciar penal se va ocupa de caz și va emite o sentință. Noi trebuie să examinăm fiecare cerere de azil în parte.
Credeți că în istoria umanității a existat vreodată o țară care să aibă mai multă grijă de străinii veniți de aiurea, decât de propriii cetățeni?
Sofia Häggmark: Nu pot să raspund la această întrebare. Dar nu există nici o regulă care să limiteze numărul de solicitanți de azil, pe care Suedia îi poate accepta.
Așadar, nu este prevăzut niciun plan, în cazul în care țara este acoperită de imigranți, prin care să se vină în sprijinul cetățenilor înspăimântați?
Sofia Häggmark: Nu, nu există.
Dumneavoastră, personal, credeți ca aceasta situație este normală?
Sofia Häggmark: Nu pot să răspund la această întrebare. Nu este treaba mea.
Dacă milioane de musulmani sosesc aici și instaurează Sharia, înseamnă că dreptul de azil va contribui efectiv la abolirea democrației în țara noastră, la înlocuirea poporului suedez și la anihilarea a însuși conceputului de Suedia. Nimeni dintre voi nu s-a gândit la aceste consecințe fatale?
Sofia Häggmark: Vă înțeleg gândurile.
Răspunsuri stupefiante, care par date de un robot.”
© Rosaly pour Dreuz.info.
Sweden : Death by immigration! by Ingrid Carlqvist

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Finnish TV Releases Ridiculous PSA Teaching Women How to Stop Rapists

http://renegadetribune.com/finnish-tv-releases-ridiculous-psa-teaching-women-how-to-stop-rapists/
finnish psa
A comment from Jani Laaksonen left on the video on Facebook:
To all the foreign women. In case of getting sexually harassed in Finland:
1. Face the molester and raise either of your hands, palm forward, preferably with a mitten on it. The mere sight of this unerotic winter garment is usually enough to deprive your average assailant of any sexual expectations he might have had about the scenario.
Note: beware! Raising your hand to more than 90 degree angle might be interpreted as racist! This might attract any free roaming circus clowns in the area. That’s right – circus clowns. This is Finland.
2. So the attacker seems to be either resistant or very much into the mitten thing? Time to raise the stakes!
Now use BOTH your hands the way you did with only one previously. This will create an invisible denser-than-air mass of so-called life-force. Thrusting your palms forwards zaps this ethereal field, sending the sexually deviant white hetero man flying to his milky little behind.
The menacing effect can also be amplified verbally by a resolute “EI!” (meaning “No” but as all of the rapists and molesters are probably your typical Finnish carnivore males, an “Ei” will do). If you want to have a little fun with it you can add some hilarious subcontext with an 80’s Console Era war cry, such as the infamous “Hadouken!”. Heheh, get it? Because of the way your hand– never mind.
3. Okay, so the darned polar mongol still won’t back down and your Midi-chlorian count simply isn’t enough for yet another Force Push?
Fair enough – don’t panic! Remember the OC spray you ordered from Ebay last week? Yes, the one advertised to “make the f*cker bleed his eyes to Primordial Soup”, yes that’s the one!
Don’t use it. Leave it in your bag and let it give your swing some serious extra momentum as you crush the horny devil’s cranium to smithereens with your awesome weapon of makeup and selfie-device carrying Leather Sledge. You know you didn’t want to do this but he just gave you no choice. The man was basically begging to be pursed to death.
Unfortunately there’s nothing to be done with the sinister Steven Seagal-Inspired background action tune. We do not have any experience with it as it is a new phenomenon and here we embrace everything new and exciting. Cope with it.

Friday, January 8, 2016

Sexual Terrorism In The Heart Of Europe

The festive revelry of New Year’s celebrations abruptly turned into a horrible nightmare of sexual terrorism for at least 100 German women in the city of Cologne. The large-scale attack seems to have been planned well in advance and coordinated among the nearly 1000 “refugees” that took part in it, and the widespread fear that it instilled in the population is leading to a backlash against the authorities. The hyper liberal-progressive elite that dominate the German political scene enabled the attack by virtue of their blind adherence to the ideology of “human rights”, which dogmatically stipulates that each and every non-Western individual scurrying to enter the EU is a “victimized refugee” that is automatically entitled to a swath of affirmative action-provided legal and economic benefits.
Of course, behind the “human rights” veneer lies the cynical imperative for young, cheap, and uneducated imported labor to fuel Germany’s continued rise, but by and large, the majority of the “human rights” adherents in the country aren’t aware of this hidden objective and sincerely believe in their country’s unofficial (albeit institutionalized) ideology. On the other hand, an increasingly critical mass of citizens are awakening from their state-induced slumber and coming out in protest against the authorities, with some of the grassroots opposition regretfully taking on a fascist and racist tint.
By and large, it appears as though the “refugee” crisis is wildly succeeding in its ultimate US-scripted objective of destabilizing the EU from within. Washington has engineered and choreographed the forceful imposition of identity-driven divide-and-rule tactics right into the heart of Europe, all with the end goal of making the continent’s strongest actors overwhelmingly vulnerable to on-demand Color Revolution threats. It’s this Damocles’ Sword of a matrix of uncontrollable violence between the citizens and the state, locals and “refugees”, the far-left and the far-right, and “refugees” and the state, that is expected to scare Europe’s most important decision makers (Angela Merkel chief among them) into continuing their subservience to the US.
Sexual Terrorism
The savagery that occurred in Cologne on New Year’s Eve can be described as nothing less than sexual terrorism. As shocking as this neologism might be for those who have just read it for the first time, it’s actually the only way to accurately depict the event itself and the implicit motivations behind it. Terrorism has always been about making the target feel so afraid that it coweringly complies with whatever the aggressor demands of it, it’s just that in the recent conception of this tactic it’s popularly taken the form of killing (notoriously by means of beheadings, explosions, and indiscriminate shooting) in order to advance a Wahhbist agenda. In this case, the Wahhabist agenda is still implied, but the means are a bit different. Instead of wanton killing sprees, a wave of wanton sexual assaults is being used.
In what might be the first time this has happened in recent memory, it appears as though all media outlets reporting on this attack are in agreement about every one of the facts. It’s universally recognized that around 1000 teenagers and young men of Mideast and North African heritage descended on a crowded square in Cologne right outside the local train station and historical church. In the pandemonium that soon followed, this riotous gang used glass bottles and fireworks to intimidate the locals that were present and then proceeded to systematically grope as many of the women that were there as possible. Some of the victims were even raped, and one account states that the helpless women were forced to run a gauntlet of unspeakable terror as hundreds of frenzied “refugees” grabbed every part of their body as they could while the victims haphazardly attempted to flee to safety.
The word “refugee” is obviously being used tongue-in-cheek by the author as no genuine refugee would ever dream of sexually assaulting anyone in the host nation that’s doing everything it can to help them start a new and safer life. Only individuals that had arrived in the country motived by greedy or ideological pursuits could ever fathom to commit such a crime, let alone to plot it with around 1000 conniving cohorts. Speaking on the former motivation, it’s already been widely suspected that many of the “refugees” are actually economic piggybackers who hope to get rich at the expense of the German taxpayer or literally die trying as they make their overseas journey there, while the latter are Wahhabist/Muslim Brotherhood supporters that want to exploit the hyper liberal-progressive values system of the EU in order to impose strict Sharia law on their hosts.
It’s this second group of individuals that is thought to comprise a sizeable proportion of the “refugees”. These ideological flunkies (be they from Syria, Somalia, or elsewhere) know quite well that their warped ideological crusade is on the downswing in their homelands and they’ve chosen instead to engage in a tactical and “human rights”-draped retreat to a new battleground. The “refugee” label and the popular perception that these individuals are destitute, poverty-stricken individuals on the brink of starvation has served as the perfect cover for infiltrating the unsuspecting and ultra-naive continent. They envision taking advantage of the rampant political correctness in the EU in order to intimidatingly carve out Sharia-compliant zones in the host countries. These Wahhabist nests would then be used to incubate additional radicals and serve as a staging ground for launching further terrorist attacks (be they of the violent or sexual manifestations) in order to expand the reach of their ‘urban caliphates’. Basically, they plan on transplanting their “Arab Spring” tactics from the Mideast to Europe, with all of the resultant bloodshed and destabilization associated with these “democratic demonstrations” and similarly carried out with a wink and a nod (if not outright on-the-ground organizational support) from the US.
To get back to the events that horrendously unfolded on New Year’s Eve, it must be underscored that the perverted perpetrators are not representatives of true Islam but of the freakish Wahhabist misinterpretation thereof. Secular Muslims in Syria, for example, have always treated women with the utmost of respect, while their radicalized Saudi counterparts have less respect for women than they do for cattle. After all, female cattle can graze wherever they wish without being “supervised” by a male counterpart, and Saudi men don’t lust about gang raping bovine. What the Wahhabists do dream of is militantly enforcing their fringe ideology on everybody else, and it’s evident to all that the ravenous behavior that was on stark display in Cologne is emblematic of a crazed and possibly captagon-fueled conquering force enacting punishment on a defeated population. Historically speaking, foreign forces sometimes engage in massive sexual attacks against native populations after having first conquered or colonized them, and while it’s much too early to say that Europe has been totally defeated by Wahhabi jihadists, it’s obvious that the latter are already preemptively ‘celebrating’ with ‘victory rapes’ and ‘gauntlet gropes’ (outside of a church, no less) in order to terrorize the local population into Sharia-compliant submission.
European Enablers
None of the sexual atrocities that took place in Cologne would have been possible had it not been for the hyper liberal-progressive policies of an indoctrinated European elite. Much has already been written about the practical fallacies underlying this ‘utopian’-inspired ideology, but comparatively less has been said about the on-the-ground enablers that shied away from stopping the New Year’s Eve attacks. The local citizens are not to blame at all, let alone the victims themselves, but much guilt rests on the hands of the police officers that were present at that scene and did nothing. It’s already been acknowledged that they were critically understaffed and totally ill-prepared in all capacities to deal with the sexually marauding mob, but a few more words need to be said about the extent to which this was the case.
European police are notoriously renowned for being unarmed and highly adverse to using any manner of (lethal) force against active criminals. They’re pretty much the opposite of their American counterparts, both of which are equally radical in their extremes most of the time. In this instance, the Germans’ extreme unease at resorting to violent crowd-control and anti-criminal measures seems to have been the most direct enabler for what happened. It’s not to suggest that the police should have randomly shot into the crowd and killed anyone that looked like they were up to trouble, but they should have at least made a forceful attempt in some physical manner to stop the multitude of crimes that were being carried out before their eyes. To have cowardly pulled back to passively observe the sexual terrorism that was transpiring (ostensibly because there weren’t enough cops to stop it), despite having made an oath to protect their fellow citizens, much makes them complicit in the staggering savagery.
Understood from another perspective, it’s conceivable that they may have been given an order to stand down or decided to do so on the own will out of “politically correct” reasons, although this by no means whatsoever is an excuse. With the government treating all “refugees” as first class citizens in a “New (post-modern) Germany” and giving this collective group millions of dollars’ worth of welfare benefits with no preconditions whatsoever, the police and/or their overseers may have felt that taking any resolute and potentially violent action against them (no matter how justified and limited) could have created a public relations disaster of epic proportions and automatically cost them their careers. Plus, it’s very likely that they literally didn’t believe their own eyes at what they were seeing, nor could their supervisors believe their own ears when they heard the on-the-ground reports from the officers at the scene, so indoctrinated were they in the hyper liberal-progressive “human rights” ideology of their state. The consequent cognitive dissonance explains why they stood by in semi-paralyzed shock and abandoned their legal responsibilities to the townspeople. Remember, none of this justifies their lack of a response, but it realistically explains quite a lot if the reader reflects on it.
To be fair, even if they had decided to take action against the out-of-control “refugees”, they might not have been as successful in their crowd control attempt as they would have thought, whether they had lethal weaponry with them and were prepared to use it or not. Although the “refugees” were only armed with glass bottles and firecrackers, it’s quite probable that some of them may have also had concealed knifes and other sharp objects with them as well, thus upping the potential for bloody close-quarters combat. The sheer numerical superiority of the “refugees” could have easily overwhelmed even the most well-trained officers, and the glass bottles and fireworks could have proven to be effective weapons against the authorities. It’s enough to harken back to the early days of the EuroMaidan urban terrorist movement just two years ago to recall just how efficient such simplistic weapons could be in the hands of die-hard radicalized fighters and career criminals.
When one thinks about it, if the under-prepared and completely inexperienced German police had bravely attempted to put a stop to the chaos, it’s probable that the sexual terrorist spree would have turned into an urban terrorist uprising and resulted in mass casualties, both on the side of the “refugees” and the law enforcers. Understanding the doublethink inherent to the hyper liberal-progressive ideology, if this scenario would have taken place, the media-driven narrative would have been one of “overreactive”, “racist”, “fascist” cops beating/killing “helpless”, “innocent”, “systemically victimized” “refugee” youth and would have been held up as an example of the type of response that European police should never repeat at any cost. Of course, this kind of skewed thinking would only enable even more outbreaks of sexual terrorism, but the brainwashed bureaucrats wouldn’t have thought twice about it and likely would have been convinced that they were doing the ‘right’ thing.
The Master Plan
Europe has really gotten itself into a trap by falling hook, line, and sinker for the “human rights” ‘bait’ that the US had tantalizingly used to destabilize it. The Wars on Iraq, Libya, and Syria created an acute humanitarian crisis where millions of people were forced from their homes and into external or internal refugee status. Working hand-in-glove with Erdogan’s Turkey, the US tempted millions of Syrians to flee their country and settle in the lands of their northern neighbor, only to later be strategically ‘released’ and pushed out to Europe via intelligence agency-linked drug- and human-trafficking networks and routes.
The US knew full well that the EU’s ideology predisposed it to a naively favorable response to the “refugee” crisis, no matter that a critical amount of these individuals weren’t legitimate refugees at all, but were economic piggybackers and Wahhabist/Muslim Brotherhood fighters, sympathizers, and sleeper agents. The demonstration effect that was created by the EU’s “come one, come all” approach and the lavish welfare supplements indiscriminately handed out by the Germans, Swedes, and others lured hundreds of thousands of non-Syrian and non-Iraqi individuals along the same paths. Eventually, just about anyone from the non-West that wasn’t Caucasian, Hispanic, or East Asian could illegally reach the EU and claim that they were a Syrian, Iraqi, or Libyan “refugee”, potentially even with false documents to ‘prove’ it.
As expected, the EU and the Balkan transit states were wholly overwhelmed by the unprecedented human flows that had strategically been directed against them, which, it must be reminded, was the entire objective that the US had been wanting to achieve. The domestic political and identity cleavages that this physical onslaught exacerbated soon developed into chasms of polarizing positions and physical activism, culminating in a predetermined and unstable mix of social ingredients that has heightened the Color Revolution threat in all of the Northern and Western European countries (with a similar risk being experienced in the Balkans, particularly Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia).
On command and with minimal guidance, these competing domestic factors (the pro-“refugee” camp, the anti-“refugee” camp, and the “refugees” themselves) can be manipulated into an all-out Hobbesian conflict amongst themselves and/or against the government, presenting a latent asymmetrical threat that’s sure to keep any wavering political leaders (i.e. those that are entertaining pragmatic relations with Russia and China) firmly under the US’ socio-political blackmail influence. For the most part, the US has actually succeeded (and in a very rapid time, it must be noted) at demographically engineering the situation in key EU states so as to maximize the potential for identity tension and create the situational requirements for on-demand Color Revolution-esque destabilizations in countries which had hitherto not been socially preconditioned for such.
No Way Out
As it stands, the EU, and especially Germany, is in the ultimate dilemma. There are only three possible responses that decision makers can take in dealing with the spree of sexual terrorism that broke out on New Year’s Eve, each of which are guaranteed to only galvanize the opposite political camp to the extreme and quite possibly even provoke an active anti-government movement in response. The realistic courses of action are as follows;
A: Business As Usual
Governments choose not to do anything in response and effectively pretend like the incident never happened, using high-sounding rhetoric and symbolic moves to deflect attention away from their lack of physical action.
B: Security Overload
In lieu of deporting all “refugees”, this demographic comes under intense, Orwellian surveillance and oversight in order to preclude any frightening repeat of the New Year’s Eve sexual attacks, with unprecedented security measures being taken against them (e.g. 24-hour police observation) that could lead to some critics justifiably or unjustifiably panning the “refugee” facilities and supervision process as modern-day ‘concentration camps’ run by a ‘neo-Gestapo’.
C: Deportations
It’s absolutely unlikely that blanket deportations will be decided upon in which thousands of “refugees” are systematically removed and sent back to their original non-European transit state of Turkey, but such a practice could foreseeably be applied against any “refugee” engaged in any manner whatsoever of illegal or suspected illegal activity, with all of the obvious potentials for abuse to take place.
In all likelihood, a combination of B and C will probably be undertaken to varying degrees depending on the given state, which of course will produce a strong reaction among those that are dead-set against it (the “refugees” themselves and their domestic supporters) and those who think that the state isn’t doing enough (depending on the specific situation, this could be either pragmatic patriots and/or fascist fanatics).
Option A is the worst possible choice of the three because it could easily lead to instantaneous, widely inclusive anti-government demonstrations and would obviously enable even more sexual, and eventually even violent, terrorism to take place. Choices B and C might present a win-lose mixture (again, dependent on context and how they’re physically carried out), but it’s without a doubt that option A is a lose-lose in every single way, accomplishing only the limited and painful rhetorical prolongation of the failed hyper liberal-progressive ideology.
No matter what is finally decided upon, however, it’s unquestionable that every course of action carries with it unique strategic opportunities for the US to exploit, in which the anti-government sentiment that’s been engineered over the past year via the manipulation of this manufactured crisis can be called upon to enact extreme pressure against the target government. It’s through this manner that the US can sustain decades-long influence over the less Russophobic portion of the EU, relying on the ideology of external hate to control the east while depending on its easily guided domestic demographic equivalent (in co-equal terms of “refugee”-on-local and local-on-“refugee” factors) to do the same with the west.
Concluding Thoughts
The “refugee” crisis was organized from the beginning by the US as a means of rapidly engineering a politically and socially divisive demographic shift in key EU states, with importance being attached to the perception of such less so than the actual numbers and relative percentages of change involved. The domestic discord attached to this looming demographic time bomb wouldn’t be so pronounced if there were barely any Wahhbist/Muslim Brotherhood individuals attached to this human flow, as legitimate refugees that are genuinely interested in assimilating and integrating into their host countries pose close to no asymmetrical threat whatsoever.
Unfortunately for those sincere, well-intentioned, and needy individuals, the large-scale infiltration of nefarious forces into their ranks has sadly served to undermine their cause and associate it with unwanted Islamism. It seems inevitable that the real refugees among the bunch will end up being the ones who suffer the most from the fallout of Cologne’s New Year’s Eve spree of sexual terrorism, but it needs to be repeated that none of this would have been possible had it not been for the combination of American and NATO militancy and the EU’s naive but obsessive adherence to hyper liberal-progressive ideological facets.
At the end of the day, the US looks to have succeeded in its plot to plant the seeds for demographic destabilization right into the heart of Europe, but that doesn’t mean that enterprising leaders and patriotic societies can’t theoretically find an innovative way to neutralize this threat, provided of course that these actors still exist in a significant enough manner to make any difference.

'Colossal Political Failure': Angela Merkel’s Imaginary World Ruined

German Chancellor Angela Merkel made neither public nor personal statements about the terror alert in Munich or the violent attacks on women in Cologne.

Both events occurred five or six days ago and left the German population in the state of shock.
“Who has been waiting for a clear, or at least compassionate word of the Chancellor during the emergency meeting on Tuesday […] was disappointed,” German newspaper Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (DWN) wrote.
Instead of some appropriate reaction to the recent events, Merkel continued to persuade Germans that “some things may develop for the better,” DWN wrote.
“Many events will accompany us this year. But we must not let them discourage us, we must always persuade each other that we can change something for the good. Some things may develop for the better,” Merkel argued.
The New Year’s holidays turned out to be a mess for some Germans. On January 1, French intelligence agencies have warned Munich authorities about two suicide bombers and five accomplices who were said to be preparing terrorist attacks in the city.
A day earlier, on the New Year's Eve, some 90 women in Cologne were robbed, threatened and sexually assaulted by small groups of aggressive men allegedly of Arab and North African origin.
According to DWN, Merkel seems to be out of touch with reality which became totally different after the New Year’s celebrations. The newspaper called the Chancellor’s speech “a colossal political failure” and said that the Chancellor does not want to recognize the real security threat in her country.
“She wants Germany to show ‘friendly face’. It is unclear whether the pastoral Chancellor would go so far as to advise people to turn the other cheek,” the article said.
The recent events caused a lot of criticism regarding of Merkel's policy of open-doors towards migrants and refugees. According to the latest data, over a million of refugees from the Middle East and Africa arrived in Germany over the course of the year.





Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Furie in Germania, dupa tentativa de MUSAMALIZARE a violurilor: „Ajunge, imi vine sa strig. Deci strig”

cologne-429949
Ce s-a intamplat exact in Piata Domului din Koln? De ce politia, presa, clasa politica germana au reactionat tardiv si alaturea cu drumul? Si ce impact are inadecvarea lor in actualul context politic german si european?
Mandra Germanie e sub soc. Europa e sub soc. Intr-un tarziu au aflat ambele ce li s-a intamplat in noaptea Anului Nou in tara, candva a linistii si ordinii, care conduce in prezent Batranul Continent. Si care, in prag de 2016, pare sa fi devenit, la Koln, scena unei secvente tipice pentru cartea lui Huntington, „Ciocnirea Civilizatiilor.” Pentru coliziunea unei culturi in care femeile sunt libere si respectate, cu alta, dominata de misoginism.
Dar care sunt oare cauzele intarzierii neobisnuite, pentru o democratie ce se respecta, impiedicand mult timp informatiile despre abjectii de dimensiuni fara precedent in istoria postbelica a Germaniei sa patrunda in presa si sa devina virale? S-a incercat oare, spre a nu se incinge inutil spiritele in Republica Federala, sa se omita sa i se dea tarii in vileag unele din detaliile cele mai sinistre ale pataniei din piata domului koelnez?
Iata una dintre cele mai tulburatoare intrebari pe care le ridica, post-festum, episodul hartuirilor sexuale in masa de la Koln. Temandu-se, probabil, sa nu fie cotati drept extremisti sau vulnerabili la extremism de dreapta, daca abordeaza chestiunea onest si frontal, politia, politicienii si, last but not least, mass media publica germana, s-au indurat abia dupa un amplu si pudic interval de tacere sa lamureasca Batranul Continent.
Nimeni n-a deranjat deci, zile in sir, linistea grea care a acoperit agresiunile sexuale comise in masa, in noaptea de revelion, asupra unor trecatoare, de insi inhaitati in grupuri, aratand, conform marturiilor, a „arabi si a nordafricani”. Si vorbind ca atare. Cand accesul de mutenie voluntara a birocratiei, autoritatilor si elitei politice si mediatice a luat, in fine, sfarsit, am constatat lipsa, din buletinele de stiri initiale ale televiziunii publice, a multor amanunte concrete.
Care, totusi, erau notorii si circulau pe net. Fragmente din marturiile continand detaliile sordide si-au facut loc si mai greu in relatari sau au fost suprimate definitiv. Nu putine informatii au fost supuse celor mai diverse operatiuni de modificare, edulcorare si cenzura. Caci pareau „xenofobe”, „rasiste”, „islamofobe”, „populiste”.
E deci util sa recapitulam. Zeci, poate sute de adolescente si tinere femei si-au vazut transformata petrecerea de revelion in cosmarul vietii lor. In fata impunatorului Dom in stil baroc, simbolizand Germania catolica, la o aruncatura de bat de gara principala a liberalei metropole renane, nemtoaicele venite sa petreaca la cumpana dintre ani s-au trezit silite sa treaca prin rusinea unor furci caudine.
Surprinse in ochiul ciclonului unei mase furioase de zeci, sute sau poate mii de tineri barbati, in mare parte, conform martorilor, „refugiati”, „migranti” si „nou veniti”, femeile s-au prefacut scurt in prada si vanat, fiind atacate, hartuite, abuzate si molestate sexual. Concomitent s-au vazut talharite. Li s-au rupt pana si chilotii de pe unele din cele care, alesesera, vai, imprudent, sa se adecveze atmosferei de petrecere si sa imbrace fuste sau rochii sic. Cel putin una ar fi devenit victima abominatiei unui viol.
Zeci, poate sute de alte femei au trecut prin alte multiple injosiri, fiind pradate, umilite, blestemate, batjocorite. Nici in fata politistelor, care s-ar fi repezit tardiv sa dea o mana de ajutor spre a opri jaful, molestarile si tentativele de viol, dezlantuitii refugiati n-ar fi gasit cu cale sa puna capat orgiei lor de mojicii si josnicii, s-a spus.
Dar cine sunt faptasii? In ce masura s-au amestecat refugiati intre ei? De ce n-au fost impiedicati sa se constituie in bande, sa se dedea furtisagurilor si dezgustatoarelor pipaieli, agresiuni si tentative de viol? De ce n-au fost arestati? Au fost aparati ori li s-au tolerat nemerniciile pentru ca sunt arabi, refugiati, migranti? Spre a nu se alimenta xenofobia? Spre a se proteja o inexistenta idila a paradisului german al refugiatilor?
Chiar cred politia si primaria ca vor rezolva problema, pe viitor, cu inmultirea camerelor de luat vederi in preajma garii si o mai buna organizare a protectiei marilor manifestatii? De pilda a carnavalului renan? De ce legea actuala stipuleaza ca, daca hartuitorii sunt depistati si gasiti vinovati nu ar putea fi expulzati? Iata doar cateva intrebari care se cer articulate clar si fara echivoc. Nu sunt singurele, insa.
Nu mai putin alarmante, pentru adeptii democratiei liberale, sunt alte inadecvari. La loc de frunte, cea a presei. Care, timp de 4-5 zile, a trecut sub tacere si nenumarate faradelegi similare, petrecute la scara mai mica in diverse alte orase germane, precum Hamburg ori Stuttgart, in aceeasi noapte de revelion?
Sau cea, inca si mai grava, caci vizeaza primele doua puteri, a clasei politice democratice. O reactie tipica i-a apartinut ecologistei si feministei Claudia Roth. Care a simtit nevoia sa para hotarata sa-i caineze mai degraba pe nou veniti, decat victimele. Caci Roth nu s-a multumit in prima ei luare de pozitie sa califice faptele petrecute drept „insuportabile”, ci a ales sa avertizeze sever sa nu se considere comportamentul sutelor, poate miilor de faptasi din garile germane, „tipic”. Pentru cine? Pentru refugiati.
Or, e indubitabil ca trebuie evitate orice generalizari abuzive. Si cu atat mai mult unele de natura sa dea apa la moara populismelor si fascismului in ascensiune in Germania si Europa. Dar cat de tipic este un delict pentru anumite segmente ale societatii ar fi bine sa se stabileasca dupa cercetari sociologice serioase. Si asidue.
Mult mai alaturea cu drumul, de-a dreptul halucinanta, desi, din nou, ilustrativa pentru deplorabila forma mentala a elitei politic corecte, s-a dovedit interventia primaritei orasului Koln. Injunghiata nu de mult de un descreierat xenofob pentru ca se pronuntase in favoarea ospitalitatii nelimitate in chestiunea refugiatilor, Henriette Reker le-a recomandat fetelor si femeilor, dupa molestarile sexuale in masa din Koln, sa se fereasca pe viitor de rele, pastrand „o distanta” sigura de aglomerarile de barbati. „O distanta de mai bine de lungimea unui brat”, dupa cum, culmea, a tinut ea sa precizeze.
Revoltatoarea iesire trimite, practic, femeile sa se cuminteasca pe maniera inaintaselor lor din societatile pre-moderne, sau poate, cine stie, a purtatoarelor de burca. Declaratia politicienei a starnit hazul in retelele de socializare, dar e, in fapt, cu atat mai traumatizanta cu cat apartine unui glas feminin si feminist, social-democrat.
Oare sa nu priceapa elitele germane ce fac? Sa nu inteleaga ca pun in acut pericol nu doar drepturile femeilor, ci pacea interna, germana? Pe cea a Europei? Sa nu vada oara ca plaseaza Continentul in offside democratic, intrucat, cosmetizand sau escamotand din lene, prostie, frica de hoarde teroriste, ori superbie relativista, un adevar lesne determinabil, se cantoneaza intr-o lasitate si ignoranta usor de convertit in hrana pentru cele mai gregare pulsiuni extremiste?
Ajunge, imi vine sa strig. Deci strig.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Pour Valls, les juifs de France sont plus importants que les chrétiens


TRIBUNE
Declarațiile trimis la Paris, la evreii din Franța de către Benjamin Netanyahu au cauzat o controversă nu numai în Franța, ci și în Israel, și aș încerca să mă gândesc prin caracterul lor complex.
Conținutul discursului său se reduce la aceasta: anti-semitism care unii fanatici musulmani par la tine în Franța, prin acte de crimă și teroare, ar trebui să te facă să vină în adevărata ta țară, Israel. Numai atunci va veti simti in siguranta ...
Această declarație are ceva adevăr pe care nu te poti ascunde. Într-adevăr, unele dintre evreii din Franța, și, probabil, o proporție semnificativă dintre ei sunt acum nu numai recunoscute de către lor religios, capac, pălării negre, bărbi și bucle, dar mai ales din cauza instituțiilor lor vizibil cu ochiul liber: sinagogi, scoli, magazine de specialitate, centre comunitare și, uneori, orașe sau zone de locuințe comune.
Fanatici musulmani se bucură de cetățenie franceză complet, stăpânirea limba și obiceiurile franceză, sunt capabili, ușor, pentru a comite răul lor planuri aproape nestingherit. Pentru că, la urma urmei, este imposibil de a atribui un polițist în fiecare evreu, și ar avea nici un efect asupra terorismului, acesta autor este gata să moară și a căror puternic distructiv este foarte mare. Acesta este motivul pentru acest apel Netanyahu evrei pentru propria lor siguranță poate părea destul de realiste. Desigur securitatea israelienilor este departe de a fi perfect, fie pentru persoane fizice (în special în teritoriile ocupate), sau dacă la nivel colectiv, cu atacuri cu rachete inamice țările, dar aproximativ cadrul general pentru apărarea națională rămâne puternică și se mai aplică.
Un cronometru, cum ar discurs critică Franța ca o țară în imposibilitatea de a-și apăra în mod corespunzător cetățenii, care este de a impune un afront la adresa democrației franceză. Și de aceea Daniel Shek, fostul ambasador al Israelului în Franța, a avut dreptate să se opună că cetățenii francezi, dacă, în timpul ultimei campanii din Gaza, prim-ministrul francez a sfătuit cu domiciliul în Israel Ashdod sau Ashkelon pentru a reveni în Franța pentru a scăpa de amenințarea rachetelor trase din Gaza, care ar putea părea la fel de logic, această propunere ar fi provocat un val de proteste în Israel ...
Cu toate acestea, există unele diferențe între aceste două declarații. Pentru că, de-a lungul istoriei, evreii au aspirat să se întoarcă sau emiterea țara lui Israel. "Anul viitor în Ierusalim" nu este un cuvânt gol. Deci, atunci când Netanyahu deține aceste remarci, aceasta nu a dus la mie mi se pare numai problema de securitate, dar, de asemenea, problema de identitate. Și discursul său reflectă aceste preocupări.
Cu toate acestea, trebuie să recunoaștem, din păcate, că motivația profundă și evidentă pentru returnarea de teren evreiești din Israel și crearea statului Israel a apărut din antisemitism, în special laic și antisemitism naționalist născut în al XIX-lea -lea  secol Europa. Fără acest antisemitismului dăunător, care a atins apogeul cu Holocaustul, este îndoielnic că Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), vizionarul de statul evreu și fondator al Congresului Sionist, ar putea fi folosite pentru a populariza ideile sale.
Acesta este motivul pentru scurgere sionismul și teamă rămâne puternică decât sionism sa mutat de identitate, spiritualitatea și religia. Și de aceea, de asemenea, în cazul în care prim-ministrul francez, Manuel Valls, cu mare generozitate de spirit, a declarat că plecarea lui o sută de mii de evrei aplicate o lovitură pentru Franța decât o sută de mii de creștini l are datoria și guvernul său, să lupte nu numai împotriva fanatici islamice, ci și împotriva exceselor antisemite care au loc între dușmanii de moarte ai acestor fanatici, adică extrema dreaptă franceză. Pentru creștin antisemitism fluxuri dreapta indirect islamiste antisemitism.
Dar Netanyahu nu ar trebui să fie scutite de o revizuire a conștiinței politice. Căci nu există nici o îndoială că conflictul prelungit cu palestinienii alimentând flăcările de antisemitism. De asemenea, împreună cu sfaturi pentru evreii din Franța, este de datoria lui de a asigura securitatea israelienilor și a evreilor, printr-o efort serios pentru a pune capăt ocupației și colonizarea, precum și pentru a obține rezoluția de problemă palestinian, asigurarea securității Israelului, conform formulei bine cunoscut și acceptat de toată lumea, inclusiv o mare parte a lumii arabe în timp ce.
Traducere din ebraică a lui Jean-Luc Allouche.
TRIBUNE
Les propos adressés, à Paris, aux juifs de France par Benyamin Nétanyahou ont provoqué une controverse non seulement en France, mais aussi en Israël, et je voudrais essayer de réfléchir ici à leur caractère complexe.
La teneur de son discours se résume à ceci : l’antisémitisme que certains musulmans fanatiques manifestent à votre égard en France, par des actes meurtriers et de terreur, doit vous inciter à venir dans votre véritable pays, Israël. Ce n’est que là que vous vous sentirez en sécurité…
Cette affirmation recèle une part de vérité qu’on ne peut occulter. En effet, une partie des juifs de France, et sans doute une part non négligeable d’entre eux, sont repérables aujourd’hui non seulement par leurs caractéristiques religieuses, calotte, chapeau noir, barbes et papillotes, mais surtout à cause de leurs institutions visibles à l’œil nu : synagogues, écoles, magasins spécialisés, centres communautaires et, parfois, cités ou quartiers d’habitations communs.
Des fanatiques musulmans bénéficiant de la pleine citoyenneté française, maîtrisant la langue et les coutumes françaises, sont ainsi en mesure, facilement, de perpétrer leurs desseins diaboliques presque sans entraves. Car, après tout, il est impossible d’affecter un policier à chaque juif, et ce serait sans effet sur un terrorisme dont l’auteur est prêt à mourir et dont la puissante destructrice est énorme. C’est pourquoi cet appel de Nétanyahou aux juifs pour assurer leur propre sûreté peut paraître assez réaliste. Certes, la sécurité des Israéliens est loin d’être parfaite, que ce soit pour les individus (surtout dans les territoires occupés) ou que ce soit au plan collectif, avec les attaques de missiles de pays ennemis, mais, grosso modo, le cadre général de la défense nationale demeure plus solide et plus appliqué.
A rebours, un tel discours fustige la France comme un pays incapable de défendre convenablement ses citoyens, ce qui revient à infliger un affront à la démocratie française. Et c’est pourquoi Daniel Shek, ancien ambassadeur d’Israël en France, a eu raison d’opposer que si, au cours de la dernière campagne à Gaza, le Premier ministre français avait conseillé aux Israéliens citoyens français demeurant à Ashdod ou à Ashkelon de revenir en France pour échapper à la menace des missiles tirés depuis Gaza, ce qui pourrait sembler non moins logique, cette proposition aurait suscité un tollé en Israël…
Néanmoins, il existe une certaine différence entre ces deux affirmations. Car, au long de l’histoire, les juifs ont aspiré au retour ou à la délivrance en terre d’Israël. «L’an prochain à Jérusalem» n’est pas qu’un vain mot. Aussi, quand Nétanyahou tient ces propos, il n’a pas en tête, me semble-t-il, uniquement le problème sécuritaire, mais aussi la question identitaire. Et son discours reflète ces deux préoccupations.
Cependant, il nous faut reconnaître, hélas, que la motivation profonde et flagrante du retour des juifs en terre d’Israël et de la création de l’Etat d’Israël tirait son origine de l’antisémitisme, en particulier l’antisémitisme séculier et nationaliste né au milieu du XIXe siècle en Europe. Sans cet antisémitisme ravageur, qui atteignit son point d’orgue avec la Shoah, on peut douter que Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), le visionnaire de l’Etat juif et fondateur du Congrès sioniste, se serait employé à populariser ses idées.
C’est pourquoi le sionisme de la fuite et de la peur demeure plus fort que le sionisme mû par l’identité, la spiritualité ou la religion. Et c’est pourquoi, aussi, si le Premier ministre français, Manuel Valls, avec une grande générosité d’esprit, a proclamé que le départ de cent mille juifs infligerait un coup plus dur à la France que celui de cent mille chrétiens, il a le devoir, ainsi que son gouvernement, de lutter non seulement contre les fanatiques islamistes, mais aussi contre les dérives antisémites qui ont cours parmi les ennemis jurés de ces fanatiques, c’est-à-dire l’extrême droite française. Car l’antisémitisme chrétien de droite nourrit indirectement l’antisémitisme islamiste.
Mais Benyamin Nétanyahou ne doit pas être exempté d’un examen de conscience politique. Car il ne fait aucun doute que le conflit prolongé avec les Palestiniens alimente la flamme de l’antisémitisme. Aussi, parallèlement à ses conseils aux juifs de France, il est de son devoir d’assurer la sécurité des Israéliens et des juifs en déployant un effort sérieux pour mettre fin à l’occupation et à la colonisation, et pour parvenir à la résolution du problème palestinien, tout en garantissant la sécurité d’Israël, selon la formule bien connue et acceptée par le monde entier, y compris par une grande partie du monde arabe.
Traduit de l’hébreu par Jean-Luc Allouche.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Ponta a furat și financiar cu doctoratul, nu numai intelectual: a luat 200.000 RON pe baza plagiatului

http://prisacariu.ro/2014/12/30/exclusiv-ponta-a-furat-si-financiar-cu-doctoratul-nu-numai-intelectual-a-luat-200-000-ron-pe-baza-plagiatului/
Între anii 2004 și 2010, inclusiv, Victor Viorel Ponta a fost, pe rînd, lector universitar (doi ani, 2004 și 2005) și conferențiar universitar (cinci ani, între 2006 și 2010, inclusiv) la Universitatea Româno-Americană (URA). În 2004, venitul de lector universitar al lui Ponta a fost modest: doar 16.000 RON (sursa). Dar, la un moment dat, s-a triplat.
Astfel: în 2005, tot ca lector, Ponta a mai luat 16.000 de lei (sursa). Din 2006, Ponta a devenit conferențiar universitar la URA. Iar veniturile au crescut: doar 16.500 lei în 2006 (sursa), cu peste 50% mai mult în 2007 – 25.850 lei (sursa), aproape 37.000 de lei în 2008 (sursa), aproape 48.000 de lei în 2009 (sursa) și puțin peste 32.000 de lei în 2010 (sursa).
În total, între 2004 și 2010, Ponta a cîștigat de la Universitatea Româno-Americană aproape 200.000 de lei din pozițiile de lector, respectiv conferențiar universitar.
Singura problemă este că, pentru ambele poziții universitare, era nevoie de doctorat. Pe care, ce-i drept, Ponta îl avea din 2003. Numai că, acum, Victor Viorel Ponta semnează chiar o OUG ca să scape de acest doctorat. În condițiile acestea, după ce doctoratul îi va fi retras la cerere, e logic că atît poziția de lector, cît și cea de conferențiar universitar, au fost ocupate imoral și, mai ales, ilegal.
Practic, acum, Universitatea Româno-Americană s-ar putea îndrepta împotriva lui Ponta pentru a-i cere atît banii pe care actualul premier i-a primit de la URA, cît și daune, pentru că Ponta a obținut poziții universitare pe baza unui plagiat. Pe care acum Victor Viorel îl admite, fie și fără să o spună textual.
Despre toate normele universitare încălcate de Ponta cu furtul grosolan al unui text însușit ca propriul doctorat nu mai sînt multe de zis, s-a zis totul și ceva în plus.
ponta