Waar komt de afkeer van moslims vandaan?

Uit de meest vreemde hoeken hoor je het geluid vandaan komen: zoals in een gesprek over emigratie: “Portugal. Want daar kom je niet op elke straathoek een hoofddoekje tegen.” Portugal is een prachtig land, hoor, met erg vriendelijke mensen, alleen is het daar economisch nooit zo voor de wind gegaan, dat ze zich veel socialisme konden veroorloven. Nu kan natuurlijk geen enkel land zich socialisme veroorloven (inclusief Nederland), maar hier hebben veelerlei Haagse clowns gedaan van wel (doen ze nu nog steeds) alsof dat wel het geval was, over de ruggen van de autochtonen, die ook nog es voor rotte, racistische vis werden uitgemaakt als ze bezwaar maakten tegen de ongegeneerde diefstal. Doordat veel autochtonen zo dom waren om op links te stemmen (vanwege genoemd beleid), en uit electoraal winstbejag verergerden linkserds hun gedrag, wat ertoe heeft geleid dat de sociale kloof permanent en onoverbrugbaar breed is geworden, Is de te grote staat door de aanhoudende agressie de mensen uiteen gaan drijven.
In Portugal heeft de junta nog nooit zoveel allochtonen kunnen lokken met “gratis” (door de autochtonen betaald) lekkers omdat ze domweg het geld niet hadden. Nederland ooit wel een beetje, al is dat geld nu flink opgeraakt. Maar nu zullen de daders zich niet intomen, maar juist het beleid waar zij zich zo mee hebben geïdentificeerd verergeren. Het gaat om de persoonlijke eer, niet om het volk.

Advertisements

Unwisdom

As the 2 Stans have demonstrated: following a leader is always a bad idea. But that is particularly true, when the leader chooses to single out one particular genus (ethnic group) for persecution to further his political success, look again at South Africa: the Apartheid doctrine was aimed at harming the interests of blacks, not whites. But whites that refused to play along, would get persecuted by the regime.
This makes me wonder: was the Apartheid-system instated in order to benefit the white population in general (as in not just the political elite)? If so, when the system turned against the white population, it should have been abolished. That did not happen because it was a political construct, thus never intended to serve any people at all.

So history repeats itself, now with muslims/Arabs (/Perzians) being the persecuted genus, politicians seeking political gain by claiming to wish to protect the white citizenry from primitive muslims.

Government of the people, by & against the people

Thinking of #apartheid got me thinking: the black South African suffered, but the white South African did too, especially when they spoke out against the government’s Apartheid-regime. That regime earned South African people sanctions which isolated South Africa socially and economically, which armed the interests of the people, which were against the government’s apartheid regime, something which they were powerless to do anything against, because it was the fucking government that did it. Sanctions against the people only help the government harm the interests of the people.

Different example: Sanctions against the Iraqi people over Saddam’s misbehavior. The guy was a fucking dictator! What was GWB thinking? “Oh, if we cause avoidable suffering among the people, Saddam might get a change of heart.” Yeah, cause his benevolence really shone in his torture prisons and his repeated executions of cabinet ministers. If he shot his relatives through the head in cabinet meetings, imagine how many qualms he experienced in governing several millions of people he did not know, that were only a statistic.

By the way: #Saddam was one of the many reasons for #9/11. Because Saddam received monetary and operational support from the western governments, the suffering people there developed feelings toward the puppet masters in the west. The #MiddleEast was an important play ground for the #ColdWar players in DC and Moscow. After the collapse of the #USSR, there was really only one country left to take revenge against; the USA, not the USSR (true, they could have attacked mother Russia, but they chose America. At least they chose to attack the white house & Pentagon, 2 valid military targets: on top of the WTC-towers which were civillian, but they were important cogs in funding the war machine that caused such suffering among Middle-Eastern people. So it was not the American people that were under attack, but the regime, that frequently sent the people’s children to die (whether in an electric chair for a crime, or on the battle field, for the greater glory of the regime, in a needless & unprovoked war, like those in Vietnam, both cases of Iraq, Bay of Pigs (Cuba) – which only served to oust Castro – objectively a good thing, but not if they wanted to install a pro-Amerucan puppet like General Fulgencio Batista, which would lead to a new communist dictator taking the place of Batista Jr., with who knows what violence resulting from that)…
So here, the American people suffered the consequences of the DC regime’s actions (which they had 0 influence on, so the lie of a “demoratic government” must be annulled now. Governments can by definition not be democratic. Ststelessness is democratic, having a bunch of infantile nonos tell people what to do and what not, is the opposite of democratic).
Somehow it’s always the people that suffer from the blowback from a government’s misdeeds. Not also how the atomic bombs were not dropped on the cause of theJapanrmese government’s aggreelssve behaviour (the Japanese government in Tokyo, itself), but on the Japanese people that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this case, by dear providence, the Japanese government surrendered, possiby not out of concern for the people in the two towns, or