«(...) The most excessive piece of propaganda I saw during the recent EU election period was an article on EUobserver.com about Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom. Written by one Andrew Willis, and entitled “Netherlands embraces far right in EU elections,” the author decried the party as “far-Right” and “xenophobic.” This despite the fact that the Party for Freedom is a staunch defender of Israel, and that Wilders spent some of his youth in thecountry, and still visits it regularly. Particularly troubling, however, was a photograph of a group of skinheads accompanying the text, along with the caption: “Neo-nazi youth look on as Geert Wilders campaigns in Leeuwarden, Netherlands.” The suggestion was of course that “neo-Nazi youth” are the real voters of the Party for Freedom, because the party is really neo-Nazi. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth (and curiously, there is not the slightest hint of Wilders or his party in the photograph). Although it opposes mass immigration, especially from Muslim countries, the Party for Freedom wants its immigrants to assimilate into Dutch society and enjoy the benefits of democracy and liberty. The party also ran on an essentially libertarian platform of defending women’s rights and protecting gays from street violence perpetrated by Muslim gangs (the extent of the latter problem was revealed last year after fashion model Mike Du Pree was dragged from the catwalk and assaulted by ten Muslim youths, shocking the Netherlands). Additionally, Wilders has been careful to distance himself from actual far-Right parties, for example, telling the Guardian last year that, “My allies are not [Jean-Marie] Le Pen or [Jorg] Haider, We'll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I'm very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.” Fascists, the far-Right, neo-Nazis and skinheads are not really fond of Israel, Jews, women’s rights, or gay rights. They are not interested in the West’s Judeo-Christian heritage, democracy, or freedom. As it turns out, they are fond of Islamism. Islamism and Nazism have had an on-off relationship since the 1930s. However, only last year Abraham H. Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, observed a “[…] burgeoning relationship of far-right and Muslim extremists who increasingly are working together to promote anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.” The Holocaust is key to Islamist and neo-Nazi propaganda, and the latter has enthusiastically adopted the arguments of the former. If supporters of Israel are now portrayed as far-Right, the Jews are portrayed as the new Nazis, or “Zio-Nazis” by pro-Hamas agitators in Britain and Europe. At Durban II recently, a member of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's entourage even accosted Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel, and repeatedly screamed “Zionazi” at him. In this applied historical revisionism - Britain’s and Europe’s politicians and media - Muslims must be portrayed as the new Jews, and Palestine as the new or real Holocaust. (...) As Wilders said about the other parties in the Netherlands recently, they like to call themselves “progressive,” but “We [in the Party for Freedom] are doing their work. Why are we the largest party (in a poll held) on the website of (gay magazine) Gay Krant? Is anybody thinking? Because homosexuals experience the consequences of Islamisation every day in their neighbourhoods.” The other parties, he said, “should be combating […] the dire position of women, unbelievers and homosexuals.” I think we can safely say, these are not the sentiments of a politician on the “far-Right.” (...)»
«Racism: The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society. Individual Racism: The beliefs, attitudes, and actions of individuals that support or perpetuate racism. Individual racism can occur at both an unconscious and conscious level, and can be both active and passive. Examples include telling a racist joke, using a racial epithet, or believing in the inherent superiority of whites. Active Racism: Actions which have as their stated or explicit goal the maintenance of the system of racism and the oppression of those in the targeted racial groups. People who participate in active racism advocate the continued subjugation of members of the targeted groups and protection of “the rights” of members of the agent group. These goals are often supported by a belief in the inferiority of people of color and the superiority of white people, culture, and values. (...) Cultural Racism: Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers. Institutional Racism: The network of institutional structures, policies, and practices that create advantages and benefits for Whites, and discrimination, oppression, and disadvantages for people from targeted racial groups. The advantages created for Whites are often invisible to them, or are considered “rights” available to everyone as opposed to “privileges” awarded to only some individuals and groups. Source: Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, 1197 eds. Adams, Bell & Griffin.»A publicação do referido documento provocou reacções enérgicas que levaram à sua substitiuição por esta outra página., da qual destaco esta frase:
«(...) It is our hope that we can explore the work of leading scholars in the areas of race and social justice issues to help us understand the dynamics and realities of how racism permeate throughout our society and use their knowledge to help us create meaningful change. (...)»A palavra mágica: change!  - a página é um cache da página original, posteriormente retirada.
«(...) Historian Speros Vryonis observes that “since the beginning of the Arab razzias [raids] into the land of Rum [the Byzantine Empire], human booty had come to constitute a very important portion of the spoils.” As they steadily conquered more and more of Anatolia, the Turks reduced many of the Greeks and other non-Muslims there to slave status: “They enslaved men, women, and children from all major urban centers and from the countryside where the populations were defenseless.” The Indian historian K. S. Lal states that wherever jihadists conquered a territory, “there developed a system of slavery peculiar to the clime, terrain and populace of the place.” When Muslim armies invaded India, “its people began to be enslaved in droves to be sold in foreign lands or employed in various capacities on menial and not-so-menial jobs within the country.” (...)
Besides being practiced more or less openly today in Sudan and Mauritania, there is evidence that slavery still continues beneath the surface in some majority-Muslim countries as well -- notably Saudi Arabia, which only abolished slavery in 1962, Yemen and Oman, both of which ended legal slavery in 1970, and Niger, which didn’t abolish slavery until 2004. In Niger, the ban is widely ignored, and as many as one million people remain in bondage. Slaves are bred, often raped, and generally treated like animals. (...)»
 Speros Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, Berkeley, 1971. P. 174-5. Quoted in Bostom, Legacy of Jihad, p. 87.  K. S. Lal, Muslim Slave System in Medieval India, Aditya Prakashan, 1994. P. 9.
«As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000. We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force. A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born. Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size. The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control. Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock. Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions. Compulsory abortions would be legal. The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children.»As frases supra são da autoria (em coautoria com Paul R. Ehrlich e Anne H. Ehrlich) de John P. Holdren, publicadas no livro Ecoscience. E por que razão, pergunta o leitor, é que estou a citar estas frases assustadoras de um lunático revolucionário, que encarna as mais temíveis pulsões totalitárias, aplicadas por um governo global? Porque o lunático revolucionário, eugenista, tiranete em potência foi nomeado Science Czar (uma espécie de Alto Comissário para a Ciência, sem poderes executivos, mas com a particularidade de trabalhar na dependência directa do presidente americano, como conselheiro estratégico)2) pelo presidente Obama. Leia sobre este assunto todo o artigo com a contextualização das citações supra e discussão sobre as mesmas, com fotografias do livro. Certo é que quem pensou desta maneira há 30 anos, já homem maduro, e propôs aquelas soluções é alguém que deve ser temido. Via Hot Air. 1) “Mentalidade revolucionária” é o estado de espírito, permanente ou transitório, no qual um indivíduo ou grupo se crê habilitado a remoldar o conjunto da sociedade – senão a natureza humana em geral – por meio da ação política; e acredita que, como agente ou portador de um futuro melhor, está acima de todo julgamento pela humanidade presente ou passada, só tendo satisfações a prestar ao “tribunal da História”.
«(...) Obama’s decision to release the five terror-masters comes while the Iranian regime (a) is still conducting operations against Americans in Iraq, even as we are in the process of withdrawing, and (b) is clearly working to replicate its Lebanon model in Iraq: establishing a Shiite terror network, loyal to Iran, as added pressure on the pliant Maliki to understand who is boss once the Americans leave. (...) President Obama’s release of the Quds terrorists is a natural continuation of his administration’s stunningly irresponsible policy of bartering terrorist prisoners for hostages. As I detailed here on June 24, Obama has already released a leader of the Iran-backed Asaib al-Haq terror network in Iraq, a jihadist who is among those responsible for the 2007 murders of five American troops in Karbala. While the release was ludicrously portrayed as an effort to further “Iraqi reconciliation” (...), it was in actuality a naïve attempt to secure the reciprocal release of five British hostages — and a predictably disastrous one: The terror network released only the corpses of two of the hostages, threatening to kill the remaining three (and who knows whether they still are alive?) unless other terror leaders were released. (...) Barack Obama is a wolf in “pragmatist” clothing: Beneath the easy smile and above-it-all manner — the “neutral” doing his best to weigh competing claims — is a radical leftist wedded to a Manichean vision that depicts American imperialism as the primary evil in the world. You may not have wanted to addle your brain over his tutelage in Hawaii by the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, nor his tracing of Davis’s career steps to Chicago, where he seamlessly eased into the orbit of Arafat apologist Rashid Khalidi, anti-American terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and Maoist “educator” Michael Klonsky — all while imbibing 20 years’ worth of Jeremiah Wright’s Marxist “black liberation theology.” But this neo-Communist well from which Obama drew holds that the world order is a maze of injustice, racism, and repression. Its unified theory for navigating the maze is: “United States = culprit.” Its default position is that tyrants are preferable as long as they are anti-American, and that while terrorist methods may be regrettable, their root cause is always American provocation — that is, the terrorists have a point. (...)»
«A former Guantanamo Bay inmate is leading the fight against U.S. Marines in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, a senior U.S. defense official confirmed to FOX News on Tuesday. Mullah Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, surrendered in Mazar-e-Sharif in Northern Afghanistan in 2001, and was transferred to Gitmo in 2006. He was released in late 2007 to Afghan custody. (...) Explaining why Zakir was released from Gitmo, the defense official said, "We were under incredible pressure from the world to release detainees at Gitmo. You just don't know what people are going to do. "He was no worse than anyone else being held at Gunatanamo Bay," the official added. "He was not going to be tried for war crimes so we decided to release him. Either he was not thought to have committed a crime or we didn't have enough evidence to prosecute him."(...)»Ler aqui sobre Guantanamo. Via Hot Air.
«(...) [S]ays Aje Carlbom (...) a social anthropologist at the Malmö College [who] lived in Rosengård for three years to write his PhD thesis. “A forgotten cause of the vandalism is the complex combination of culture and manliness in Rosengård. The boys are in a situation where different interests try to compete for their ideal of manhood. To show aggressiveness, courage, and to “fight the man” is a way to show that you are a enough of a man, belonging with the other men. “Many families want their boys to adapt to the norms of patriarchy and become authorities that provide for and decide over women and children. Moslem congregations want them to adapt to religious norms. Criminal gangs offer fast cash. Finally the school and social services want to impart Swedish values about gender equality to the boys.” Aje Carlbom thinks the Swedish values come dead last in the competition for the attention of the boys. “The Swedish norms offer a very fussy image of what an admirable man is or should be. “What happens when society can’t live up to the expectations of these guys? “They see society as weak. Firefighters aren’t allowed to turn their hoses on stone throwers, but perhaps they should do so anyway. As an experiment. These boys need to face stiffer opposition.” “How?” “Show more seriousness. The boys meet no consequences for their acts today. Even youths should be arrested in order to show clearly where the limits are. Schools should employ zero tolerance concerning, for instance, insults to girls. “If you seek acceptance for a multicultural, diverse society among the broad masses, you have to show that you are on top of the situation. Unless you do that, there will be an uprising against multiculturalism.” “Most people think these riots are caused by exclusion, unemployment and poverty…?” “I have a very hard time seeing that connection. There are many unemployed but a vanishing minority that goes out throwing stones. I don’t know how much the Intifada and the uprising in Gaza inspires the stone throwers. Unfortunately, nobody’s done any research on the subject.” “Why?” “Many think the subject is too sensitive to research. In Sweden, many people show a immense tolerance toward the intolerance of the immigrants, but no tolerance at all for native Swedish intolerance. One can be tolerated, not the other. It is strange.” “How can the problems be solved?” “The more immigrants that come to Malmö, the larger the market for various ethnic products and extreme interpretations of Islam. It becomes ever easier to live as back home even if you live in Sweden. “Segregation must be broken. The only way to do so is to stop the further inflow of immigrants to Malmö. But nobody in our political system supports that. What we see now is just the beginning. It will become worse.”»
«(...) The president pandered to Muslims: praised their accomplishments, commiserated with their grievances, and apologized for injustices done to them by centuries of colonialism -- without once mentioning the history of rampant and violent Arab colonialism. He avoided any mention of Jihadi tenets, or of the Islamic political ideology of supremacy over non Muslims -- principles embedded in Sharia law. These are taught and sanctioned openly by Al-Azhar, the university that hosted him, the foremost center of Sharia studies. Obama underscored the supposed American mistreatment of terrorists and apologized for torture in
, forgetting that Islamic regimes are brutal to their own people. The president also repudiated significant Guantanamo U.S.contributions in both the lives of its soldiers and humanitarian aid to Muslims across the globe made throughout history -- despite Muslim attacks against and Americans. In short, parts of his speech sounded like a new Pan-Arab messiah come to usher the Arab world back into its rightful world dominion. (...) Obama sidesteps the acute state of affairs in the Islamic world with flattery, failing to encourage accountability (...). I did not hear an exhortation to the Islamic world to open itself to diversity, to accept women as equal citizens with the same rights and protection under law as men. I did not hear a challenge to the Muslim world to accept other religions and their ability to practice openly within the Islamic world -- where the practice of Christianity, Judaism and other religions could cost an individual his or her life. I did not hear a call to erase for all time, Dhimmi racism -- the Sharia law-based dictate that Christians and Jews are inferior and should be suppressed. Are these “…the principles of justice, tolerance and dignity for human beings”? (...)» America