This kind of swarm-attack has happened before, will happen again, and in less dramatic fashion, has been happening all over France, more and more, over the last few decades. The French government does not publicly announce the racial or ethnic background, or even in most cases the names, of malefactors. The word “Muslim” nowhere appears in the news account. But everyone reading this news article will know at once that the word must be supplied, and all that it tells us about the state of France, and the despair of so many, waiting for the most obvious measures to be taken for civilisational and physical security of the French, besieged by Muslims in their midst.
- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
8 Responses
No one should be surprised by this attack. The French did it to themselves when they permitted unvetted mass Muslim immigration into their country. Now they are compounding their error by denial. Charles de Gaulle sought raprochement with the Muslims after the Algerian war, but he was unalterably opposed to mass Muslim immigration. In his book, C’etait de Gaulle, Alain Peyrefitte relates how De Gaulle told him that oil and water don’t mix and neither do the French and Arabs. If they come the churches will become mosques. He saw it clearly.
Mohammed the warlord/ bandit / gang boss and his Companions – his fellow banditti – robbed caravans.
Modern mohammedans, in France, rob trains. They are doing exactly as Mohammed did.
Tell me this: Has The Iconoclast ever published an article unequivocally urging France, Britain, or any other country to stop admitting Muslim immigrants? No, I didn’t think so. It’s much easier (and in your kingdom where political correctness is enforced by the law and the courts, safer) to View With Alarm.
Naturally I don’t expect this comment to be approved.
You have not been reading this site very closely, or very often. Simply google “Hugh Fitzgerald” “halt Muslim immigration” “The Iconoclast” and see what comes up. That should answer your question.
I did as you suggested. All that came up was, ‘We can halt Muslim immigration to the West, and make conditions such that the conduct of Muslim life becomes more and more subject to review, critical scrutiny, open discussion.’ We can is not the same as we should, or we must. The line is buried in a long piece published in 2010 and reprinted in 2012. Not exactly a regular theme for you.
But I suppose in the Cultural Marxist totalitarian state of Britain, publishing that took courage.
In fairness, it was otherwise a sensible and well-written article.
You are careless in your research. Try again. And don’t limit yourself to “The Iconoclast” nor to the word “halt.” Here: google “Hugh Fitzgerald” and “halt Muslim immigration” and then google “Hugh Fitzgerald” and “end Muslim immigration” and then google “Hugh Fitzgerald” and “stop Muslim immmigration.” That should be enough to prove to you that I have been discussing this most obvious of self-defense measures for at least ten years. Furthermore, your remark that “can” does not mean “should” is absurd, and you know that perfectly well. Finally, why do you assume that I live in what you describe as “Marxist Britain”?
First you say I should search Hugh Fitzgerald + halt Muslim immigration + The Iconoclast. When that turns out to be a (nearly) dry well you tell me I’m careless in my research and give me a new bunch of search terms.
You write, “That should be enough to prove to you that I have been discussing this most obvious of self-defense measures for at least ten years.” Go back and read my original comment. I don’t doubt you have been “discussing” the subject for a long time. What I wrote, however, was “Has The Iconoclast ever published an article unequivocally urging France, Britain, or any other country to stop admitting Muslim immigrants?” Unequivocally urging, get it?
Of course “can” does not mean “should.” Either of us can jump out the window. Are you saying that means we should?
Okay, so you are not located in the U.K. I made an unwarranted assumption based on the title New English Review.
You may have the last word in your reply. I’m not trying to start a feud and recognize you are playing your chosen role in opposing Islamization. I just want to see people proposing action instead of griping about how awful the Muslim takeover is.
Oh for god’s sake. Of course one googles as directed, finds a few examples, and then uses one’s head to vary the verbs in order to find many more. You seem to want to blame me for not directing you initially as to how to find more examples of which you had initially claimed there were none. And your not understanding when “can” can mean “should” (we “can halt Muslim immigration” even if many people say we can’t” clearly means “we can and should.” As for your final complaint, that I mention this a dozen or dozens of times but in your view have not devoted a full article to that subject alone, shows cowardice or is otherwise reprehensible — Ma va la!