Uusi viesti, monikulttuurisuuskriittinen blogi


Poliittisten päättäjien keskuudessa vallitsee nykyisin fanaattinen monikulttuurisuusideologia, joka pyrkii tukahduttamaan kaiken demokraattisen kansalaiskeskustelun maahanmuuttopolitiikasta. Tämä taistolaisuuden kaltainen uskonnollinen hurmoshenkisyys on vallalla myös sanomalehdistössä, joka ei julkaise mitään multikulti-ideologian vastaisia ikäviä tosiasioita. Yksityishenkilöiden ylläpitämät blogit ovat tällä hetkellä ainoa lähde, josta saa totuudenmukaista tietoa Suomessa ja muissa Euroopan maissa harjoitetun maahanmuuttopolitiikan seurauksista.

Toisin kuin Helsingin Sanomissa ja muussa propagandalehdistössä, täällä kerrotaan lukijoille vain tosiasioita. Kannatamme modernia länsimaista sivilisaatiota ja sen parhaita arvoja eli rationaalista ajattelua, tieteellistä tutkimusta, oikeusvaltiota, sananvapautta ja demokratiaa. Tästä syystä vastustamme monikulttuurisuutta, joka nykymenolla muuttaa Euroopan maat Afrikan tai Lähi-idän maiden kaltaisiksi parinkymmenen vuoden sisällä.

tiistaina, joulukuuta 09, 2008

Positiivisesta asenteesta

Halla-aho:


Olen saanut viime aikoina poikkeuksellisen paljon (ystävällismielistä) palautetta, jossa on toivottu konkreettisia ehdotuksia siitä, millaista maahanmuutto- ja kotoutuspolitiikan pitäisi mielestäni olla. Tapani keskittyä vallitsevan politiikan ja sen taustalla olevan ideologian arvosteluun on kenties luonut minusta kuvaa valittajana, jolta puuttuvat omat, rakentavat ideat.

Kritiikki ei kaikilta osin ole mielestäni aivan kohdallaan tai oikeudenmukaista:

a) Yhteiskunta, ja varsinkaan poliittinen eliitti ja media, eivät ole valmiita rakentaviin korjausehdotuksiin, koska ne eivät ole edes myöntäneet ongelman olemassaoloa. On tuuleen huutamista ehdottaa lääkkeitä ongelmavyyhdin nimeltä "maahanmuutto" ratkaisemiseksi, jos keskustelukumppani ei pidä "maahanmuuttoa" ratkaistavissa olevana ongelmana vaan jonakin, mikä on "luonnollista, väistämätöntä ja ihanaa". Olen keskittynyt maahanmuuttopolitiikan ja sen seurausten arvosteluun herätelläkseni ihmisiä siihen, että meillä on ongelma. Se, mitä tälle ongelmalle pitäisi tehdä, on seuraavan asteen kysymys.

b) Maahanmuutto on ongelma riippumatta siitä, onko minulla ongelman ratkaisemiseksi keinoja vai ei. Usein ratkaisut löytyvät ongelmaan perehtymällä. Täten maahanmuuttopolitiikan ja monikulttuurisuuden epäkohtien penkominen on varsin rakentavaa työtä, jonka pohjalta voidaan laatia todellisia (siis itse ongelmaan pureutuvia) eikä näennäisiä ratkaisuja. Niillä, jotka syyttävät minua rakentavuuden puutteesta, oma rakentavuus ja konkretia on yleensä tasoa "monikulttuurisuus onnistuu, jos näemme sen mahdollisuutena emmekä uhkana ja jos onnistumme voimavaraistamaan tulijat". Mitä tällainen sanahelinä muka tarkoittaa? Mikä on sen käytännön toteutus?




Tuosta tulee mieleen se kepun nuorisojärjestön somali, joka A-studion keskusteluohjelmassa vaati Johannes Niemiseltä ja Teemu Lahtiselta positiivista asennetta maahanmuuttajia kohtaan.

Jos nykyinen maahanmuuttopolitiikka aiheuttaa suuria yhteiskunnallisia ongelmia, miksi niihin ongelmiin pitäisi suhtautua positiivisesti?!

Valitettavasti tuon somalin lisäksi monet suomalaisetkin luulevat, että maahanmuuton ongelmat ratkaistaan jollain positiivisella suhtautumisella, tyyliin "monikulttuurisuus on nähtävä mahdollisuutena eikä uhkana".

Olisiko talvi- ja jatkosodan aikana voitu selvitä sodasta sellaisella asenteella, että Neuvostoliiton hyökkäykseen olisi suhtauduttu mahdollisuutena eikä uhkana?

5 kommenttia:

Jukka kirjoitti...

Juuri näin.

Niitä joitten mielestä talvisota oli mahdollisuus kutsuttiin siloin kommunisteiksi taui ryömäläisiksi äärivasemmistolaisen maanpetturi Mauri Ryömän mukaan.

Sen sijaan negatiivisuus ja viha ovat mahdollisuuksia torjua pahoja asioita:

http://asabiyah.blogspot.com/2008/10/viha-ja-kansallinen-liike.html

bondpoet kirjoitti...

Pian "negatiivinen asenne" muuttuukin sakolla rangaistavasta pikku erehdyksestä pitkään vankilareissuun:

http://www.ejpress.org/article/32645

Ketkä sanoivatkaan vielä vuonna 1995, että EU:n tarkoitus on yksinkertaisesti saada tavara liikkumaan paremmin Euroopan maiden välillä?????

Tähän sopiikin taas juttua yhteiskuntamme feminisoitumisesta. Alla pätkä, jonka kirjoitin eilen.

Marxist Statist diversity death cult training, because it feels good.

For women, feelings are always more important than facts. So, whence come their feelings and their "moods"? From social pressure, internalized as a conscience. That's the whole of their morality. It doesn't matter in the least what the consequences of their actions are in the real world, as long as they feel good.

That also means that women aren't really capable of objective thought, although they act as if the whole world ought to submit to their moral standards, and become extremely offended when it doesn't. Their dependence on the group means they always obey anyone managing to pass off as the voice of community or authority, and when the norm setters and culture-distorters don't have the good of the group in mind when coming up with their norms and "new things", there is trouble. That's the problem. For women, there is no right or wrong, only the feeling of right or wrong that comes from social pressure, imagined or otherwise.

In all my long years of trolling the many and various forums in the Internet, I have never yet met a single woman (or modern girl man) who was capable of abstract thought instead of enforcing group norms based on how they felt.

For the same reasons, women don't go to university to learn facts about the world, instead they go to be or to become. No adventure for them, but conformism. It's all about the group for them. Women loved Hitler. They are the wet dream of all tyrants who want to pose as benefactors of society. Women cannot go beyond appearances. The impression is everything for them.

Women want safety more than freedom. It's unconscious and biological: an instinct that evolved to give a survival benefit in an environment, where the woman had to submit to the man socially in order to survive. The state has supplanted the man as the protector and authority. The woman senses this and instinctually submits to the state. Women want security. Alas, it's enough that the state promises more security. It's enough that the state restricts the freedoms of the people, while telling them it's for their own good. Women and magical thinking go hand in hand. More restrictions? Oh, more safety. Good. The best invention of tyrants was a democracy where women can vote. They always vote for more state control, especially social control. They would like to send all dissenters to prison or gallows, even their own family, and very soon the state will grant them their wish. Women, or modern girl men, aren't really fit to decide anything concerning the life of others.

bondpoet kirjoitti...
Kirjoittaja on poistanut tämän kommentin.
bondpoet kirjoitti...

Hyvät sisäministeriön kätilöt, onko seuraava kirjoitus esimerkki "negatiivisesta asenteesta", joka tulisi kieltää lailla?

"Most Germans supported Hitler straight through."

The same cannot be said of the relationship between the British leadership and most Brits. An overwhelming number of Brits were against the war. Yet Britain declared war on Germany on the pretext that Germany had violated Poland's sovereignty. Funny how Britain never declared war on the Soviet Union, although the latter violated Poland's sovereignty just as well. Turns out Germany was more democratic than Britain. The Brits became supportive of the offensive war effort only after Germany began to bomb British cities. The British leadership understood the propaganda value of German bombings, which is why they had provoked Germany to initiate those bombings in the first place by bombing German cities right from the beginning. Hitler kept sending empathetic peace proposals to the British leadership all through that time. It took a year of British bombings for Hitler to decide Germany would have to start bombing back.

"Many adult Germans knew enough about the treatment of Jews, captives, and slave labor to understand the horrific nature of their government. They acquiesced."

Did the Americans know their government treated the Japanese-Americans the same way Germany treated Jews during the war? In fact, the Germans put in more effort to keep their slave labour alive than did the Americans. Hence all those delousing chambers and shower rooms. According to Red Cross figures, which don't cover the year 1944 or beyond, more Japanese died in American camps than did Jews in German camps.

"Hitler's overall plans for the future of Europe were much more radical than most people understand -- even today."

Surely, the same can be said of the plans of the Roosevelt-Churchill cabal.

"With a few exceptions, populations in the occupied countries did not mount serious resistance efforts."

With a few exceptions, Hitler took pains to disturb as little as possible in the occupied territories, such as France.

"The Wehrmacht knew fully about the Jews, the slave labor, the crimes against occupied countries. It's no good to argue that 'we didn't know.'"

Don't forget that those "crimes" were defined as crimes during the Nuremberg Trials, out of thin air, in fact. They didn't exist as concepts during the war. Also, don't forget that the Allies, including the Western Allies, committed similar "crimes", even after the war when they starved millions of Germans to death. I guess you just don't hear about that much, since it doesn't provide ideological support for your current regimes and wars.

"The Western Allies knew about the Genocide by 1942"

Hold on. There were mass murders, even a genocide or two taking place in the early 20th century, but the "Holocaust" is probably the most flimsy pack of old exaggerations and war propaganda anyone still believes. I recommend taking a look at Germar Rudolf's "Lectures on the Holocaust":

70.86.161.234/GB/Books/loth/

Or:

www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth/

Did you know he was imprisoned for three years for writing and publishing that book? Did you know there are many other doctors and former professors who have been imprisoned for three to five years in a German prison for expressing similar doubts about the official "Holocaust" story? Unfortunately, it's not possible for *most* historians to do proper historical research when they feel restricted by legal and extralegal taboos. So you're left with Jewish fanatics who write about the Second World War the same way they used to write about Moses: only bound by their own imagination.

"Of course, the Jews don't run the world - but they are very influential due to their generally high IQ, which explains their overrepresentation in leadership networks of all kinds - both good and evil."

The average IQ of Ashkenazim in Israel is 103, the average IQ of Germany being 107 (according to Richard Lynn in 2006). The IQ of Jews in America may be a little bit higher, but there are no thorough studies on the subject. Either way, there are far fewer Jews than people of German descent. Germans also have a flatter curve, meaning that they have proportionately more geniuses than Jews. Since there are more racial Germans, the absolute number of Germans with a very high IQ is even greater.

It's not the Jewish IQ that explains their over-representation in anything. It's mostly their extraordinarily tribal behaviour that explains it. This behaviour may be instinctual more often than consciously intentional, which I suppose would mean that it's not a conspiracy, even though they don't like it if you talk about it, and a portion of them will attempt to silence you or discredit you by any means necessary.

It's funny how you say Jews aren't the problem, but elites in general. That's a point-of-view that doesn't take inherited IQ and other differences into account. There is nothing wrong with native elites as long as they serve their own people rather than foreign interest groups. The problem with Jews in general is that, Jews being very materialistic, some of them always eventually get very wealthy, and when they do, they start setting up cartels on everything and buying off the native elites. Go on. Try to get a book like "The Culture of Critique" published by any major publisher in the West. You can't. You can't, because Jews don't merely own most of those publishers, they have also managed to create an atmosphere of social pressure where criticizing Jews is felt to be impossible without becoming an outcast or a fringe figure at best. In effect, they have set up a cartel on discourse: either speak like them, or don't speak at all. They have managed to create the atmosphere, not because they are more intelligent than any other group, but because they are more cohesive and more fanatic. They cite other Jews when doing science, they hire other Jews to important positions when deciding to share wealth and power. Since we don't discriminate against them, but they discriminate against us, it is to be expected that at some point they will manage to become over-represented in what ever activities they wish to dominate. That shouldn't be difficult to understand, and indeed, Professor MacDonald has made similar points in his books on Jews. As he points out, cohesive groups always outperform individualistic "groups" in the end. I suppose Jews could be a blessing for humanity. Alas, Jews as scientists and scholars and philosophers aren't interested in truth or progress. When they are, the mainstream media in the U.S., being Jewish, ignores them. You can't understand Franz Boas or Jacques Derrida or Sigmund Freud or Karl Marx or Stephen J. Gould or Richard Feynman or Stephen Hawking without understanding Jewish cunning in working toward their individual or, more often, collective goals, imagined or otherwise.

Talking about "evil bankers", or "evil corporations", or "evil elites" in general will never get you anywhere. People will yawn and move on.

Our native elites have their weaknesses, to be sure. However, you can't understand their seemingly bottomless moral falls without understanding the seducer and his powers. You think sociopathy an explanation enough? You don't understand sociopathy. Even sociopaths need a reason for doing something. Usually the reason is self-interest. A sociopath doesn't start wars for the benefit of Israel if there is no one to convince him that it's in his best interests to do so.

bondpoet kirjoitti...

Suomen valtio syyllistyy rasismiin.

"Opetushallituksen kirja on julkeaa ja häikäilemätöntä valehtelua ja huijaamista, äärimmäistä lakiemme vastaista antigermanistista rasismia, viha- ja valhepropagandaa ja ennen kaikkea lapsillemme suunnattua kauhupropagandaa. Lapsiamme johdetaan tietoisesti harhaan, ja niin heidän tulevalle elämänuralleen annetaan valheellinen pohja.

"Lapsillemme syötetään valhetta, ja heitä aivopestään propagandalla!

"Siitä syystä olen 14.7.2008 toimittanut arvosteluni pääministerille, opetusministerille, Opetushallituksen pääjohtajalle, oikeuskanslerille ja valtionsyyttäjälle (mahdollisia toimenpiteitä varten). Syylliset on saatettava oikeuteen, ja kirja on poistettava Opetushallituksen listoilta."

Tuskinpa menee läpi. Taas uutta näyttöä siitä, että sananvapautta rajoitetaan vain valtapuolueiden vallassapysymisen suojelemiseksi. Rajoitusten pääkäyttötarkoitus on siis poliittisena työkaluna.

Hänen kritiikkinsä Opetushallituksen holokaustikirjasta, jonka muuten ruotsiksi kirjoittivat kaksi juutalaista (kyseessä on käännös), on varsin hyvä:

http://www.vesailaurio.fi/68

http://www.vesailaurio.fi/69

http://www.vesailaurio.fi/70

http://www.vesailaurio.fi/71

http://www.vesailaurio.fi/72