Halal & Hypocrisy III: Dignité, Égalité, Identité—VANITÉ!

Uh oh, Chango! Looks like them crazy Muzzies just won’t let up! Not content with conducting high-intensity jihad on kafirs like me, in the form of suicide attacks and blasphemicide, they also continue their low-intensity jihad on their own womenfolk right under our noses.

Their weapon?

The blight known as—burqa!

Yes, my readers—with the aid of said garm, those atrocious abdullahs conspire to keep their sisters-in-Allah in silent subjugation.

Thus, you can be sure that every breath beneath the burqa is a breath benighted—and wretchedly so, at that!

image1

What can the West do to thwart this Salaamic scourge?

Looks like those Sisters-in Submission could use a nice, strong Big Brother to protect them, huh?

Enter Sarkozy!

We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity, that is not the idea that the French republic has of women’s dignity.

Dignité, égalité, identité…

légalité

France’s lower house of parliament has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public.

…démocratie…

There were 335 votes for the bill and only one against in the 557-seat National Assembly.

Yes, another success story for Madame Liberté in the Free World…

…if you’re as gullible as fuck, that is!

Anyone who really thinks that imposing one’s tastes on others equates to “liberation” has really been done in by doublethink, that selfsame mindset that allows sanctimonious Dworkinites to “liberate” their fellow females from the oppression of making a choice.

Which reminds me…

Many of the opposition Socialists, who originally wanted the ban limited only to public buildings, abstained from voting after coming under pressure from feminist supporters of the bill.

Sure, I don’t doubt that some patriarchal abdullahs force their wives and daughters to shroud up, nor that such behaviour is troubling from a standpoint of liberty.

No more so than forcing the female faithful who want to shroud up to do otherwise—and yes, my bleeding hearts, they do exist.

cBIylpL

So far, many of the rationalizations for banning have run along “female emancipation” lines. I call bullshit on this; if helping Muslim females really is the objective, how the fuck do you explain this?

It envisages fines of 150 euros (£119) for women who break the law…

Seems like the only thing these Salaamic sisters are being “liberated” from is their daily bread.

It also seems the democratards and feminazis failed to consider a possible knock-on effect of their “liberating” legislation:

A husband has vowed to keep his wife indoors after she became the first woman in Italy to be fined for wearing a burka in public.

Own goal, feminumpties!

Other excuses play up the “security threat” aspects of facial concealment, noting that it’s easier for the veiled to commit crimes with impunity.

Sooo…what are we dealing with here: poor, pious princesses petrified under purdah, or hardened, wilful crims? Methinks this script suffers from continuity errors!

Besides, the last time I checked, suicide bombers weren’t known for fleeing the scene of the crime.

Also, once you consider this…

Although government officials insist that the ban is not discriminatory against Muslims because it applies to everyone, exceptions to the ban exist including motorcycle helmets, and masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals.

…the whole “security threat” aspect falls into collapse.

How many Crimewatch clips do you watch where some chancer robs a bank or rapes a bird whilst wearing a niqab? When did the bike helmet and ski mask cease to be designer items for those sneaky cunts? And if you wanted to commit a random act of violence, wouldn’t a crowded carnival, with its relative security in numbers, prove a useful cover in addition to your festive false face?

I reckon them there bank-robbing ninja rapists won’t shift in their sleep over this one! What kind of criminal observes the law, anyhow?

It seems much of the brouhaha over the burqa—in France and beyond—comes down to vague feelings of “intimidation”. Might as well ban hooded tops; gangsta rap; heavy metal; body-building; violent media; porn; and intelligence, then! After all, someone, somewhere, might just shit bricks over ‘em!

That, or get the lurgies.

Replace “intimidation” with “temptation”, “burqa” with “bosoms”, and you’ve got something approaching the justification for pro-burqa legislation in certain Middle Eastern lands. Arrogant ayatollahs spit down their edicts and prohibitions from their bully(!) pulpits, viciously punishing anyone who deviates from their idea of utopia.

It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking theocratic mullahs enforcing Sharia upon the populace; or state-secularist mullahs of Belgium, Spain, Italy, and France limiting female clothing options to pacify their majorities (thus securing votes)—I know affirmative action when I see it!

“Ah, m’sieur MRDA, it izz différent in France—here we have laïcité!”

Ah, laïcité—the sacred principle of the Republique Française that forbids religion from infringing on affairs of governance.

Such a shame that, in practice, it fails to work the other way round.

As I see it, all this wanton banning of religious apparel signifies nothing less than jealousy. Yup, you read that right—jealousy of the type ironically exemplified by Yahweh’s edict: “Thou shalt have no other Gods but me!”

On your knees, Christlings! Face down, arse up, abdullahs! Hindus, observe the new varna! All you believe in is fraud! In the name of Democracy, bow down and worship at the altar of Totalitarian Humanism!

Napoleon once said: “Vanity made the Revolution; liberty was only a pretext.” I view the burqa ban in a similar vein.

Whether the French Constitutional Council (and European Court of Human Rights) will see it that way in September is another matter….

~MRDA~

This entry was posted in Halal & Hypocrisy, Politics, Religion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

84 Responses to Halal & Hypocrisy III: Dignité, Égalité, Identité—VANITÉ!

  1. Aresh Nyokuretzung says:

    the choice of a french speaking arabic woman is no choice at all: which oppressor doth she prefer, France or Fatwa

  2. N. says:

    Ugh!
    Where do I even start?!

    Many things could and will be said, but one could, would and in fact does end this fuckery of ‘po’ Muslim women can’t “freely” practice their oppressing religion in Europe” right from the start. NO Muslims in Europe. Period.

    Yes, right from the start. This is where it all went wrong. Right from the start.

    Why is Europe even talking about this in the first place? This is THE question.

    But lemme, still, dissect this cheerleading for Muslim women’s rights in evil Europe, cheerleading masquerading as some kind of cry for personal, individual right. Because surely nothing says personal, individual right, as flying around the world, covered from head to toe, looking like a faceless ghost.

    First of all, Jew Sarkozy has no right to be in France in the first place, much less sitting on a pavement, with his little feet breezin’ it up, and marching around like some kinda president. Second, him being so concerned about po’ Muslim women (and a Jew is concerned about Muslim rights only in Europe, of course), while some black dude freely rapes 12 or so French (read: white) women in their homeland France, and mocks France in her court by saying how he raped white women to get back at whitey. In whitey’s home land, nonetheless, and gets 1 year for each evil white hoe. So much about Jew’s concern about women’s dignity in France.

    Next.

    >>>Many of the opposition Socialists, who originally wanted the ban limited only to public buildings, abstained from voting after coming under pressure from feminist supporters of the bill. <<>>So far, many of the rationalizations for banning have run along “female emancipation” lines. I call bullshit on this; if helping Muslim females really is the objective, how the fuck do you explain this?
    It envisages fines of 150 euros (£119) for women who break the law…

    Seems like the only thing these Salaamic sisters are being “liberated” from is their daily bread.<<>>A husband has vowed to keep his wife indoors after she became the first woman in Italy to be fined for wearing a burka in public. <<>>Besides, the last time I checked, suicide bombers weren’t known for fleeing the scene of the crime.<<>>Also, once you consider this…

    Although government officials insist that the ban is not discriminatory against Muslims because it applies to everyone, exceptions to the ban exist including motorcycle helmets, and masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals.

    …the whole “security threat” aspect falls into collapse. <<>>And if you wanted to commit a random act of violence, wouldn’t a crowded carnival, with its relative security in numbers, prove a useful cover in addition to your festive false face?<<>>It seems much of the brouhaha over the burqa—in France and beyond—comes down to vague feelings of “intimidation”. Might as well ban hooded tops; gangsta rap; heavy metal; body-building; violent media; porn; and intelligence, then! After all, someone, somewhere, might just shit bricks over ‘em!<<>>Replace “intimidation” with “temptation”, “burqa” with “bosoms”, and you’ve got something approaching the justification for pro-burqa legislation in certain Middle Eastern lands. Arrogant ayatollahs spit down their edicts and prohibitions from their bully(!) pulpits, viciously punishing anyone who deviates from their idea of utopia.<<>>It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking theocratic mullahs enforcing Sharia upon the populace; or state-secularist mullahs of Belgium, Spain, Italy, and France limiting female clothing options to pacify their majorities (thus securing votes)—I know affirmative action when I see it!<<>>As I see it, all this wanton banning of religious apparel signifies nothing less than jealousy. Yup, you read that right—jealousy of the type ironically exemplified by Yahweh’s edict: “Thou shalt have no other Gods but me!”<<>>On your knees, Christlings! Face down, arse up, abdullahs! Hindus, observe the new varna! All you believe in is fraud! In the name of Democracy, bow down and worship at the altar of Totalitarian Humanism!<<<

    I'm not used to such weak arguments coming from you, MRDA. Even when I don't agree with you, I can easily say you still made a strong argument for your claims. But this is not worth 1/5 of the Fatima locked in Ahmed's basement.
    My response was not one of Christling (if that must even be pointed out, along with the fact that a good, yet not enough, number of Europeans are not Christians; in all actuality – no European is, in fact a Christian), but one of European, who, as an atheist, strictly, thoroughly and completely despises and is against all 3 Ambrahamic, non European installations, bringing nothing but destruction to Europe for centuries.
    My response was not one for ''in the name of democracy'', but one for ''In the name of Europe''.

    I'm still semi allowed, as a bona fide European, to say I want my house to remain my house, right, or am I gonna be jailed or stoned?
    My response was that of a European woman, who is concerned for the future of Europe. If I have children, I do not want them to go through the same fate as my Serbian brothers and sisters went, when Turks were enslaving, raping and murdering them – for not wanting to accept Islam. for 600 years, might you. See, being a daughter of a proud Serbian, and a European, I KNOW what it means if burkas come into your house. First, they stay in the hallway, all nice and shit. Then Ahmed and Fatima have 10 kids, who cannot stay in the hallway anymore. So they take the living room. And bathroom. And kitchen. And eat form your fridge.
    And then you see yourself living on a street, and your child impaled, while Fatima and Ahmed are high fiving themselves in your house. Their house, now.

    Just ask Serbs in Kosovo. Ummm… actually, you can't ask them. Muslims committed genocide upon Serbs, raped and murdered them, and set whole villages and towns on fire. And finally stole Kosovo. Yep, it happened in real life.
    And it all started, decades ago, with burka and typical shit of Muslims being po' minorities, who just wanna live in peace. Step by step. Burka, kebab stand, mosque, your house, your country. Your life. Lives of your children.

    Game over.

    Now I eagerly await for peaceful Turkey, and its tens of millions of fucking burkas to enter EU.

    It's not (just) about burka, Daniel. But it starts with it, and that's why I am against it – right here and right now. There's been too much blood in the past, and if nothing is done in the present, there will be no more European blood at all in the future.

  3. N. says:

    Fuck it! My long reply is fucked up, basically nothing I’ve written showed up.

  4. N. says:

    Ugh!
    Where do I even start?!

    Many things could and will be said, but one could, would and in fact does end this fuckery of ‘po’ Muslim women can’t “freely” practice their oppressing religion in Europe” right from the start. NO Muslims in Europe. Period.

    Yes, right from the start. This is where it all went wrong. Right from the start.

    Why is Europe even talking about this in the first place? This is THE question.

    But lemme, still, dissect this cheerleading for Muslim women’s rights in evil Europe, cheerleading masquerading as some kind of cry for personal, individual right. Because surely nothing says personal, individual right, as flying around the world, covered from head to toe, looking like a faceless ghost.

    First of all, Jew Sarkozy has no right to be in France in the first place, much less sitting on a pavement, with his little feet breezin’ it up, and marching around like some kinda president. Second, him being so concerned about po’ Muslim women (and a Jew is concerned about Muslim rights only in Europe, of course), while some black dude freely rapes 12 or so French (read: white) women in their homeland France, and mocks France in her court by saying how he raped white women to get back at whitey. In whitey’s home land, nonetheless, and gets 1 year for each evil white hoe. So much about Jew’s concern about women’s dignity in France.

    Next.

    • MRDA says:

      “But lemme, still, dissect this cheerleading for Muslim women’s rights in evil Europe, cheerleading masquerading as some kind of cry for personal, individual right. Because surely nothing says personal, individual right, as flying around the world, covered from head to toe, looking like a faceless ghost.”

      No masquerading here; this is an explicit “cry” for “personal, individual right”.

      And if someone chooses to dress in a way you dislike, does it magically become a non-choice?

      “First of all, Jew Sarkozy has no right to be in France in the first place, much less sitting on a pavement, with his little feet breezin’ it up, and marching around like some kinda president.”

      When did you become anti-Hebraic and pro-“whitey”?

  5. N. says:

    ”Many of the opposition Socialists, who originally wanted the ban limited only to public buildings, abstained from voting after coming under pressure from feminist supporters of the bill.”

    Do I need to give back my feminism membership? Did I not understood the memo? Did I even get one?

    Feminists support women running around France like faceless ghost as per misogynist Abrahamic dogma? *scratches head*

    Feminists believe that it was the women that came up, somewhere in the middle of a bumfuck desert, to be covered from head to toe, like a faceless ghosts?

    This can only lead to ”feminists” opposing a ban on female genital mutilation. After all, it’s tradition down there. And as per women, who have their vaginas ravished and mutilated, it’s something that is normal to them. Not to mention, the ”value” it raises for them to get married.

    One of these days, I will read how some po’ Muslim dad had to lock his daughter in the middle of Italy, because she is mutilated, and evil discriminating Italians are not having that shit in their Italy.

    I’m exaggerating? No, I am not.

    It has to start somewhere, in order to spread. Step by step. These Muslims came to Europe all docile and shit. Just being happy to be away from Muslim countries, in the middle of a racist non Muslim Europe, where evil Europeans discriminate against their peaceful religion.

    100s of years ago Europeans had no idea about another non European creature – Christianity. Slowly but surely it crept into Europe, spreading like a diseased mutilated Abrahamic cunt, bringing, among many other great Israeli things, Dark Ages. Setting Europe back tremendously, while leaving stein, errr stains till this day. We’re barely and slowly getting rid of this non European stink called Christianity, while on the other door, Islam is pushing its dick right up into Europe. And some even dare to bitch if Europe says no, since she has no right – take it up your ass, you bitch, less you wanna be called Islamophobic racist cunt that should be mutilated anyway.
    And don’t even get me started on 1st part of this fucking trilogy – Judaism and fucking Jews, who are behind importing this Muslim scum into Europe. Europe has been kicking them, too, out of her vagina for centuries.

    • MRDA says:

      Feminists support women running around France like faceless ghost as per misogynist Abrahamic dogma? *scratches head*”

      Quite the opposite.

      “This can only lead to ”feminists” opposing a ban on female genital mutilation. After all, it’s tradition down there. And as per women, who have their vaginas ravished and mutilated, it’s something that is normal to them. Not to mention, the ”value” it raises for them to get married.”

      Big difference between choice of clothing and non-consensual “traditional” violence, no?

      • N. says:

        No, not really. It never started as a choice, which many cases of violence against Muslim women, who do not wanna be covered, speak. As you can see, this is not simply about clothing, or choice of clothing. It never has been. It’s something that is Muslim and wants to be forced upon non Muslim Europe. As I said, it starts with ”clothing”, the leads to you being raped, murdered, and your land stolen. True story, yes, indeedy.

        No need to put traditional into quotation marks. It is tradition, period. And it’s a non European tradition (non Europeans are big on male and female genital mutilation; how one desert tradition forced, sneakingly itself onto male population in Europe and America, is also known, right?).
        And another thing should be pointed out about this tradition: it’s other women, who are mutilating young women. Women, willingly mutilating other women.
        If Muslims have it their way, all women, eventually, would be forced into this. If I ever have a daughter, I do NOT wanna see her being mutilated.

        • MRDA says:

          “It never started as a choice”

          Neither did nation states. Look how virulently you defend those.

          “It’s something that is Muslim and wants to be forced upon non Muslim Europe.”

          I haven’t read anyone push for a mandatory dress code of non-abdullah females; I have, however, read people in favour of just that for Muslim residents of the West–hence my post.

  6. N. says:

    ”So far, many of the rationalizations for banning have run along “female emancipation” lines. I call bullshit on this; if helping Muslim females really is the objective, how the fuck do you explain this?
    It envisages fines of 150 euros (£119) for women who break the law…

    Seems like the only thing these Salaamic sisters are being “liberated” from is their daily bread.”

    How the fuck do I explain this? Easily. THIS is Europe. If Europe says either walk around like a normal woman – at least pretend – or pay. Don’t like it? Get the FUCK out of Europe! Why even bother coming into a non Muslim Europe, forcing Europe to bend over to you and your fucking burqa, when you could ”freely” and with NO fucking fee, fly around like a faceless ghost somewhere in Somalia, Saudi Arabia?!

    And THIS is the point. They come to non Muslim Europe and then have the audacity to bitch when (rarely, far far too rarely) Europe says: This is not how it’s done HERE! This is NOT Saudi Arabia.

    Now, if I were to go to Saudi Arabia (for example purpose ONLY!), and not do as it is expected from women there, do you think I’d get away with only a 100€ fee?! Have you seen lately any news how foreigners are treated there?! But hey, HEY! That’s not important.

    • MRDA says:

      Are you saying you support Europe effectively becoming a secularized Saudi just to keep it from becoming an Islamic one?

      Last time I checked, this wasn’t Saudi fucking Arabia, yet Sarkozy, Wilders and the other Western ayatollahs seem intent on making it so.

      • N. says:

        Secularized Saudi is an oxymoron.
        But let me, if I haven’t before, point out WHAT I support: European Europe.
        How could me, supporting – nay – demanding – a European Europe, possibly mean this would make Europe a secularized Saudi? I mean, I know what kinda point you wanted to make, but, it missed the target.

        I semi agree with you last sentence. This most certainly isn’t fucking SA. No. It’s not. And I’m trying to fucking keep Europe as European as possible.
        Sarkozy is not Western anything. Sarkozy is not, therefore, European anything. Thus, no surprise he and his ilk are, indeed, working on making Europe as non European as possible. But not for the reasons nor out of the reasons you name. For a dumb, naive European, Sarkozy speaking against burkas in France might seem like Sarkozy is against Islamisation of France. And that could translate to dumb naive European’s brain as pro France. Smoke and mirrors. Give dumb naive French something, while you work on complete destruction behind their backs: taunt French how they must breed with non French people or else.
        Once there’s no French people, or are tiny minority, who’s gonna talk about burkas at all?
        Sarkozy is not against Muslims in Europe. He’s only against Muslims in Israel. And this is a synonym for every European country.

  7. N. says:

    So, instead of giving a fuck about some Muslim faceless ghost paying 100€ for – wait for it – NOT OBEYING THE LAWS OF EUROPE, let me be a good bleeding heart human rights activist, and deport this po’ Muslim woman back to her home, where she can ”freely” enjoy liberties, and keep that 100€ bill.

    ”A husband has vowed to keep his wife indoors after she became the first woman in Italy to be fined for wearing a burka in public.”

    Awww, po’ husband. Check this – he will keep her in the house. Makes you kinda warm at heart, doesn’t it? So romantic, they could make Notebook II. about this loving couple. Where can I sign for such a husband? Do they have Muslimmatch. com, where I can submit (pun very fucking much intended) my pic, where I am totally covered, so that some Ahmed would pick me as his 22nd wife?

    I, for one, will not fall for this blatant blackmail from this loving husband. Instead, I will propose he, along with locked up hoe, to be deported from evil discriminating Italy at ONCE! Somewhere nice, where he can keep his hoe not only locked, but covered, too! And keep that money he’d otherwise have to pay bad bad Italy, for hookers. And booze. Oh, and some bacon, too.
    See, see how caring I am for Muslims?

    And you have the audacity to say how not bending to Muslims and their fucking burka, this leads to a loving husband locking up his wife?! Excuse me?! Europeans are to be blamed for a fucking Ahmed vowing to keep Fatima locked up?! Oh yeah, let’s just give in to Ahmed’s demands, in the middle of Italy. What’s next?! Kosher slaughterhouse in the middle of Toskany, or Ahmed will lock his Fatima up?

    Btw, has anyone locked Ahmed up for imprisoning Fatima? Or is being Fatima locked up by husband (if you can catch this paradox) something that’s done willingly, like wearing burka – eventually; it’s not like a brainwashed slave has an option or knows of chance.

    • MRDA says:

      “I, for one, will not fall for this blatant blackmail from this loving husband. Instead, I will propose he, along with locked up hoe, to be deported from evil discriminating Italy at ONCE!”

      I’d probably be a hardcore bastard on this one: let wifey stay and kick hubby back to his homeland.

      • N. says:

        Yeah, but Fatima staying in Italy means she will spit out 10 Ahmeds like her husband.
        Deport one Ahmed, let one Fatima stay, and you got 10 Ahmeds. I’m not a fan of this math.

        It’s not just France. Or Italy. Look at Sweden; whole Scandinavia in fact. One town by one, getting ruined by Muslims. Formerly Swedish schools, where Swedish pupils are now not only tiny minority, but foreigners in their own country! Taunted, bullied, beaten in their own countries (allowing anything else, would amount to being called racists, who are taking away liberties from po’ Muslims in this oppressing Europe). And it started with only one pregnant Fatima. And her burka. What used to be known only in USA, is now becoming daily occurrence in Europe as well: white flight. Swedish people leaving their homes. For how long and where TO can whites run?! And WHY in the first place?! Just like Kosovo. It’s happening all over Europe.
        Democracy? No. Majority objects this, yet, minority does at it pleases.

        Something is very wrong. The average European knows it, can see it, can feel it, but doesn’t know exactly what it is, cannot exactly pin point it. Cannot pin point the source. I know. I was once this average European. I know how propaganda works.

        • MRDA says:

          I’m actually starting to think that restricting immigration from the lands of Islam wouldn’t be such a bad idea as a means of protecting liberty in Europe. It’s a lot better that curbing the liberties of peoples already here, in order to pander to Western prejudices or Islamic stupidities.

  8. N. says:

    ”Besides, the last time I checked, suicide bombers weren’t known for fleeing the scene of the crime.”

    True.
    So, instead of coming to a point where Europe even has to deal with a subject of burka on her own ground, let’s finally and once and for all start dealing with the main problem: Muslims in Europe. No Muslims, no crying for po’ Muslims, who wanna be covered up.
    And no Muslims, no suicide bombers – whether they are fleeing or flying.

    ”Also, once you consider this…

    Although government officials insist that the ban is not discriminatory against Muslims because it applies to everyone, exceptions to the ban exist including motorcycle helmets, and masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals.

    …the whole “security threat” aspect falls into collapse.

    o_O
    You cannot be serious! Simply, refuse to believe you are. What a weak argument, what a weak comparison, what a weak analogy.
    Again, I could use just one argument, which would answer it all, and dismiss saying anything else: Muslims have no place in Europe.
    But, to intellectually resignate so majorly as to compare a motorcycle helmet with a fucking burka?! Priceless.
    I do not wear a helmet on my bike to appease some desert pedophile, along with my loving husband who’d otherwise either lock me up, or stone me to death if I were to disgrace him by allowing to be raped by Shamir for not being covered from head to toe.
    I wear helmet FOR security reasons. So, in case I kiss the pavement, I don’t splatter my brains out. Just another non Muslim European invention to keep us safe. As opposed to loving peaceful Ahmed, running up, in the middle of Europe, to a European, nearly beheading him for daring to speak against peaceful Islam in the middle of Europe.
    I do not wear helmet, or skiing mask 24/7! I wear it when I need to wear it for safety reasons, not because I wanna push my helmet wearing religion in Afghanistan! They wanna wear burka ALL the time. In public places, even when taking a fucking ID photo!
    Yet, you don’t see a difference?!
    Please, let me know when Alois threatens to lock up Heidi in the middle of Austria or Saudi Arabia for not being allowed to wear helmet while riding their Vespa.

    But that’s besides the point. The point is – today burka, tomorrow mosque, next week female genital mutilation, next month Sharia Law, until the whole Europe is locked up in Islam. And this is the plan and has been all along. One step at the time. And every time, some Ahmed will blackmail will locking up Fatima if he doesn’t get it his way, or there will be (are) riots, and a destruction of Europe.

    Why else would they run to Europe, where racist discriminating non Muslims live?
    Would I, an atheist, run to Saudi Arabia? Rhetorical question.

    • MRDA says:

      “I wear helmet FOR security reasons.”

      As do bankrobbers who don’t wanna be identified–it happens enough round these parts. You seem to have missed that part, hence your chiding my “weak argument”.

      • N. says:

        I have to, again, say your argument is weak.
        You jumped on this like ”deaf one on telephone” (Yugoslav saying, lol).
        What exactly does wearing a helmet have to do with burka? If you ask me, this is a rhetorical question, standing on its own merits.
        Nothing. Comparing anything that Europeans wear (or do in general) with why shouldn’t Muslims wear or do what they want in Europe, holds no argument; there’s no logical if A then B, because what Europeans do in Europe is our business and does not give Muslims any right to follow upon that. Bank robbers wear wool hats as well. Pantyhose. So, if I say I do not allow burkas in Europe, and if I follow your logic, does that mean I should not be allowed (!!!) to wear pantyhose BECAUSE bank robbers in Europe use pantyhose to disguise and THAT should somehow give Muslims the right to wear burkas?! Come on now!
        Let’s say I come to your house. You have a rule that people coming to your house, should – must – take off the shoes. Now here I am, saying how I won’t take off my shoes, because I don’t ask my visitors to take off their shoes in my house. A what the fuck moment should follow. Who the fuck am I to even compare what I do in my house to what you do in your house and who the fuck am I to have the audacity to force my practice of wearing shoes around house onto you? If I wanna enter YOUR house, I will respect YOUR rules. Or not enter at all.
        As simple as that. Or would you want me to create a scene, and you’d get slapped with order to allow any schmuck walking around your house in dirty rain boots?!
        If you’re not allowed to make your rules in your house, then you have no liberties at all left. House –> country!
        You are not paying attention to the micro environment, which quickly turns into macro.
        Let me ask you this: what does me, wearing a helmet for security reasons in Europe, have to do with Fatima wearing burka in Saudi Arabia?
        Why should I not allowing Fatima to wear burka in Europe, have to do with me wearing a helmet in Europe?
        Are bank robbers, wearing pantyhose, really the same as Muslims wearing burka in Europe? The reasons and consequences are the same?

  9. N. says:

    ”And if you wanted to commit a random act of violence, wouldn’t a crowded carnival, with its relative security in numbers, prove a useful cover in addition to your festive false face?”

    Well, I am not familiar with Tony protesting to the world how he’s gonna lock up Lucienne if she’s not allowed to wear a mask to a traditional Venice carnival. And so far, I haven’t heard of Italians blowing themselves up while wearing masques in Venice. Not to say it won’t happen. One day, we will hear about ”Italian” Ahmed bin Abdulah, blowing himself up in the middle of Venice carnival. But not to worry. Instead of banning Muslims from Italy, they will ban traditional Italian festivity. To do otherwise, would be racist and discriminating and would step on Muslim liberties.

    ”It seems much of the brouhaha over the burqa—in France and beyond—comes down to vague feelings of “intimidation”. Might as well ban hooded tops; gangsta rap; heavy metal; body-building; violent media; porn; and intelligence, then! After all, someone, somewhere, might just shit bricks over ‘em!”

    Intimidation might be a good word, for starters. However, this starters should have happened a long time ago – or in fact – should not have a need to start at all in the first place. Today, you see 1000 intimidating burkas flying around you. Tomorrow 100,000.
    You’ve thrown in things that do not carry an argument for brouhaha over ”innocent” burkas. You do not even see the symbolism in burkas, nor the actual meaning of them and the meaning it has for tomorrow’s Europe.
    Because, yes, intelligence has so much to do with burkas.

    While I’m asking myself: how have we even come this far to even dealing with burkas in Europe. Bending over for far too long, suppressing intimidation not to be labeled as racist, Islamophobic, and the rest from the assortment of adjectives reserved for Europeans in Europe (OK, around the world) only.
    Threatening Danes in their own country for practicing freedom of speech, destroying Danes’ Denmark – that’s just a blip compared to fucking burka.

    • MRDA says:

      “You do not even see the symbolism in burkas, nor the actual meaning of them and the meaning it has for tomorrow’s Europe.
      Because, yes, intelligence has so much to do with burkas.”

      Symbolism? Last time I checked, “symbolism” was subjective, not static.

      And my point about intelligence was that a lot of people claim to be intimidated by it, much like with burqas.

      • N. says:

        Ask Fatima if burka carries subjective symbolism to her or is something static.
        Would there be such drama over burka, had it been only subjective symbolism? As opposed to way or life, which is not a European way of life, but wants to force itself onto Europe and even become European way of life? Mosque is not a subjective symbolism, is it? FGM is not a subjective symbolism, is it? Malmo being nearly eaten by Muslims is not a subjective symbolism, is it? Kosovo, being nearly void of Serbs, is not a subjective symbolism, is it?

        Wearing a helmet on my bike is not a subjective symbolism; it’s static, and not even symbolism at all: it serves a purpose – my safety.
        What static purpose does burka serve; even moreso in Europe?
        Conquistadors love to leave symbols behind. True story: In Saudi Arabia, they have a world map and they pin every place where a new mosque is built. How does that sound to you? As a symbolism (only)? Subjective? Static?
        Is there any symbolism, whether you’d perceive it as subjective or static, in Saudi Arabia not having any church?

        • MRDA says:

          Well, what symbolism does Baphomet carry for you? (You are still a Satanist, right?) Compare that to the symbolism it carries for the lambs of Christ.

          Similarly, for a Muslim woman living in the West, a burka may just be an affirmation of her religious identity, or a way to avoid unwanted sexual attention; just as it will most likely be a symbol of oppression in dress code-obsessed Saudi.

  10. N. says:

    ”Replace “intimidation” with “temptation”, “burqa” with “bosoms”, and you’ve got something approaching the justification for pro-burqa legislation in certain Middle Eastern lands. Arrogant ayatollahs spit down their edicts and prohibitions from their bully(!) pulpits, viciously punishing anyone who deviates from their idea of utopia.”

    Ah, yes. Bitching about non civilized Middle Easterners, oppressing po’ Muslim women in Muslim lands, while bitching about po’ Muslim women not being allowed to practice this very oppression in the middle of Europe, which amounts to not respecting their traditions. Because Europe must respect any non European shit in her home, and that rule applies to Europe only.

    >>>It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking theocratic mullahs enforcing Sharia upon the populace; or state-secularist mullahs of Belgium, Spain, Italy, and France limiting female clothing options to pacify their majorities (thus securing votes)—I know affirmative action when I see it!<<<

    Horrendous, I tell ya! Who the fuck do French think they are, expressing what they want in their France! Just wait until Ahmed and Fatima spit out some 10 lil' Ahmeds and Fatimas – then will the French see just how much expressin' their wishes will count! And there won't be any affirmative actions for dying minority Frenchies when Ahmeds take over – that's for stupid French suckers.

    ''As I see it, all this wanton banning of religious apparel signifies nothing less than jealousy. Yup, you read that right—jealousy of the type ironically exemplified by Yahweh’s edict: “Thou shalt have no other Gods but me!”

    Well, I can assure you, aside from the fact I am not a jealous person at all; I am NOT, in any shape or form jealous because desert cunt are forced (even though they brainwashingly claim it's their own free will – 'scuse me while I take a moment to LOL) to walk around covered from head to toe like some faceless embarrassing ghosts. Few steps, with head down, behind their loving Ahmeds.
    How the hell did you come up with jealousy as being a reason for Europeans finally speaking out against this non European shit?! What does it take for me to slap a piece of sheet (free to pronounce it any way you want) all over my body and hop around?!
    This is far deeper than just religion. It's a catchy ''you discriminating racist'' phrase, to make this about religion only. Neither Islam nor Christianity – and do not even get me started about anything and everything Judaism – have NO place in Europe – AT ALL.
    This is about genocide against European people, European culture, European nations. Yes, I said genocide. And it's coming from all sides. Anything European in Europe is to be overstepped, ruined, destroyed. And if we say anything, we are labeled as racist, who are not opened for other cultures. And that's mild what we're called.
    Other, non European cultures, have their places in their lands. If I wanna see Arabic culture, I will go to Saudi Arabia. But if I wanna go to Toskany, I wanna see Italian culture, and not some kebab stand, and a fucking sheet wearing Arab flying around!

  11. N. says:

    ”On your knees, Christlings! Face down, arse up, abdullahs! Hindus, observe the new varna! All you believe in is fraud! In the name of Democracy, bow down and worship at the altar of Totalitarian Humanism!”

    I’m not used to such weak arguments coming from you, MRDA. Even when I don’t agree with you, I can easily say you still made a strong argument for your claims. But this is not worth 1/5 of the Fatima locked in Ahmed’s basement.
    My response was not one of Christling (if that must even be pointed out, along with the fact that a good, yet not enough, number of Europeans are not Christians; in all actuality – no European is, in fact a Christian), but one of European, who, as an atheist, strictly, thoroughly and completely despises and is against all 3 Ambrahamic, non European installations, bringing nothing but destruction to Europe for centuries.
    My response was not one for ”in the name of democracy”, but one for ”In the name of Europe”.

    I’m still semi allowed, as a bona fide European, to say I want my house to remain my house, right, or am I gonna be jailed or stoned?
    My response was that of a European woman, who is concerned for the future of Europe. If I have children, I do not want them to go through the same fate as my Serbian brothers and sisters went, when Turks were enslaving, raping and murdering them – for not wanting to accept Islam. for 600 years, might you. See, being a daughter of a proud Serbian, and a European, I KNOW what it means if burkas come into your house. First, they stay in the hallway, all nice and shit. Then Ahmed and Fatima have 10 kids, who cannot stay in the hallway anymore. So they take the living room. And bathroom. And kitchen. And eat form your fridge.
    And then you see yourself living on a street, and your child impaled, while Fatima and Ahmed are high fiving themselves in your house. Their house, now.

    Just ask Serbs in Kosovo. Ummm… actually, you can’t ask them. Muslims committed genocide upon Serbs, raped and murdered them, and set whole villages and towns on fire. And finally stole Kosovo. Yep, it happened in real life.
    And it all started, decades ago, with burka and typical shit of Muslims being po’ minorities, who just wanna live in peace. Step by step. Burka, kebab stand, mosque, your house, your country. Your life. Lives of your children.

    Game over.

    Now I eagerly await for peaceful Turkey, and its tens of millions of fucking burkas to enter EU.

    It’s not (just) about burka, Daniel. But it starts with it, and that’s why I am against it – right here and right now. There’s been too much blood in the past, and if nothing is done in the present, there will be no more European blood at all in the future.

    PS: Sorry for this invasion with so many posts. I couldn’t get my original long post through.

    • MRDA says:

      “My response was not one of Christling (if that must even be pointed out, along with the fact that a good, yet not enough, number of Europeans are not Christians; in all actuality – no European is, in fact a Christian)”

      You totally missed my point there. Completely.

      My point was an atheist who actually does value liberty has just as much, perhaps more to worry about from a secular state.

      Also, just because Christianity is on the wane in Europe doesn’t mean that it’s adherents have dwindled into minority status.

      “Just ask Serbs in Kosovo. Ummm… actually, you can’t ask them. Muslims committed genocide upon Serbs, raped and murdered them, and set whole villages and towns on fire. And finally stole Kosovo. Yep, it happened in real life.”

      Not that it makes Muslim atrocities okay, but didn’t the Serbs do their fair share of slaughtering too?

      P.S: Muslim kebab stands are actually one of their better imports!

      • N. says:

        ”You totally missed my point there. Completely.

        My point was an atheist who actually does value liberty has just as much, perhaps more to worry about from a secular state.

        Also, just because Christianity is on the wane in Europe doesn’t mean that it’s adherents have dwindled into minority status.”

        No, I didn’t. I am explaining to you that my reaction is that of European, first and foremost. A European, who is ALSO an atheist.

        Your point is so familiar of atheists (and I hesitate to even call them that) throughout Europe. A dishonest and paradox-like stance. I objected to this in my ”previous life”, I do so even more now.
        I was never one of those progressive, open minded atheists (even tho, liberal would be an even more accurate term here), who, especially after 9/11 were spitting on anything Christianity (it’s popular, it’s cool and makes you modern cool schmuck) BUT, hypocritically and stupidly defending Islam. If there are churches all over, why should there be a mosque as well. Oh fuckery! It made me scream at this idiotic hypocritical self righteousness. They would name all the bad things Christianity brought upon Europe, down to Jesus’ pubic hair, but, in all retarded hypocritical glory, forget to apply the very same – and even worse – to Islam. All of the sudden, Muslims’ rights became pinnacle of modern activists for human rights. o_O
        What kinda fucking atheist would dare to utter: if there’s a church here, so should be a mosque?!
        Fuck that! No fucking church and no fucking mosque! Oh, I’m not liberal? I’m not open minded? That’s fucking fine with me, but I am fucking consistent and non hypocritical! A so called atheist fighting an atheist because I do not differentiate between Christianity and Islam? Things are deeper that this, tho. Muslims are, aside from prostitutes, who converted (think a small portion of Bosnians, who sucked Islam’s dick) to Islam – non European.
        So why would a European atheist fear secular Europe? Secular Europe is the natural state of Europe. Once pins cover that SA map, Europe is no longer secular. Nor is Europe Europe anymore.

        True. Europe hasn’t cleaned itself from (one of many) Israeli virus called Christianity. But it’s getting there. However, Christians are, for the most part, still, those of European descent. Far easier to deal with the problems in the house, with family members. As hard as it is for me, an atheist, being patient when it comes to cleaning Europe of this virus, I am well aware centuries long non European indoctrination will not go away as fast as I want. Especially when the enemy behind the Vatican is preaching to Europeans how we must preserve ”our” Christian identity. Christianity has never been a European identity; it did however nearly ruin it.
        So, I’m fighting against one non European indoctrination, while another one, cut from the same Israeli cloth, is ramming its dick into Europe from the other side (not to even start with THE Israeli-Khazarian indoctrination behind it ALL), and I’m suppose to just sit idly lest I be called a monster who doesn’t let po’ oppressed Muslims wear burka in Europe? Comedy, wrapped in theater of absurd, I tell ya.

        • MRDA says:

          I always favoured freedom of religion, just as I favoured separating state affairs from religion (and vice versa); that’s entirely separate from my respecting religion (I don’t, as you well know).

          “Your point is so familiar of atheists (and I hesitate to even call them that) throughout Europe. A dishonest and paradox-like stance. I objected to this in my ”previous life”, I do so even more now.
          I was never one of those progressive, open minded atheists (even tho, liberal would be an even more accurate term here), who, especially after 9/11 were spitting on anything Christianity (it’s popular, it’s cool and makes you modern cool schmuck) BUT, hypocritically and stupidly defending Islam.”

          You’re shouting “J’accuse!” at the wrong person.

        • MRDA says:

          “What kinda fucking atheist would dare to utter: if there’s a church here, so should be a mosque?!”

          Question: do you see atheism as simply an outlook on the existence of gods, or a belief system and ideology unto itself?

          “Christianity has never been a European identity; it did however nearly ruin it.”

          Institutional Christianity is very much European, at least in part; the end result of Saul of Damascus consorting with the Romans.

        • MRDA says:

          “Far easier to deal with the problems in the house, with family members.”

          HA!

          I recommend you read the Totalitarian Humanism link in the main post; the authors of your woes lie closer to home than you’d think. Between the Purityrannical Left and Christoid/Secular Saudi Right, you’ve got quite a family meeting on your hands!

  12. N. says:

    ”Not that it makes Muslim atrocities okay, but didn’t the Serbs do their fair share of slaughtering too?”

    Considering the fate of Serbs now, would you say that Serbs have really done a FAIR share of slaughtering? When one part of your country is bombed (Wiesel was especially gunning at Clinton to bomb Serbia), economy ruined for decades, when another part of your country is raped, murdered, genocided, and finally stolen, when Rothschild media launches a decades long lying propaganda about you and what you supposedly did (but did not) so that the whole world hates you, when you haven’t even recovered from a slaughterhouse called Jasenovac, and centuries long rape and murder fest by Turks, would you really say that Serbs have done a fair share of slaughtering?
    Would you have said this if you actually knew the facts, as opposed to lying propaganda that’s been spread?
    How can you insinuate Serbs did any slaughtering, when all they did was defend their lives, their houses and their country?
    Srebrenica? A good PR. Not even close to what is being sold as gospel. Kill 100,000s of Serbs in Serbian parts of Croatia, burn everything, then make Serbs into murdering lunatics (and make sure no one talk about Jasenovac, where 800,000 Serbs were massacred, to the point that even Nazis were shocked and said they must keep this as a secret, but do talk about Jasenovac when Peres goes there, oy veying about Jews and Jews only).
    Concentration camps during Balkan wars? LIE. Take a photo of a Bosniak, who has genetic disorder which makes him look starved, take this photo from the other side of the fence and sell a place, which Serbs set as a help center for Bosniaks, as concentration camp so that the world would go along with bombing of Serbia (WMD in Iraq, anyone?!). Launch a lie that Serbs are keeping 100,000 Albanians in football stadium moonlighting as concentration camp, only to find grass livin’ it up a few days on the very same stadium where 100,000 po’ Albanians were imprisoned (and we can’t tell you where they disappeared). Make sure you cover up systematic rapes and murders and massacres of whole villages of Serbs, and claim the Serbs are Nazis (this one always gets the masses). Make sure you (Albright) kiss a terrorist (that’s a good Muslim terrorist, you see?), general of Albanian militia, who is posing with heads of Serbians, and support him in his presidency of stolen Kosovo. Make sure a documentary, talking about terror Serbs endured for decades (ah, Jewish government in Yugoslavia, I tell ya) in the hands of Albanians, is banned. Make sure you steal Kosovo from Serbs (Macedonia and Montenegro are looking at the same fate any day now), create Great Albania, build biggest ZOG USA military base in Kosovo, and freely deal drugs from Afghanistan, along with women from Europe.
    Make sure you sell that Serbs were the ones who committed genocide (in their own country!) against Albanians, but do not questions when asked: so why aren’t there any Serbs in Kosovo anymore and why isn’t Kosovo part of Serbia anymore. Even genocide is not what it used to be.
    To name just a few things.

    The time, when Serbs did a good, thorough and fair share of slaughtering is yet to come. And come it will. You can take a word from a Serb here.

    • MRDA says:

      Well, I’m going by what I saw and heard in the (no doubt skewed) news reports from the 90s; there’s not a whole lot I know about the conflict beyond that.

      In light of things like Holocaust revisionism gaining momentum, it seems only appropriate to turn a similar eye on other controversial conflicts. I’m guessing the truth lies somewhere closer to the “middle” on this one.

      • N. says:

        Goodness gracious! I don’t even know whether I’m coming or going with comments under comments. Wait until I reply to all your comments, cos I’m running around here like a headless chicken!

        ”Well, I’m going by what I saw and heard in the (no doubt skewed) news reports from the 90s; there’s not a whole lot I know about the conflict beyond that.”

        I understand. We sat in front of the same TV.
        But we here, had to deal with it on a personal level; confusion and torment was immense. I can assure you, the damage is indescribable. It seems like it was carefully planned, too.
        IF you’d be interested, I can send you few links.

        ”In light of things like Holocaust revisionism gaining momentum, it seems only appropriate to turn a similar eye on other controversial conflicts. I’m guessing the truth lies somewhere closer to the “middle” on this one.”

        I’ll just walk pass this bone; won’t even sniff it.

  13. N. says:

    ”I always favoured freedom of religion, just as I favoured separating state affairs from religion (and vice versa); that’s entirely separate from my respecting religion (I don’t, as you well know).

    You’re shouting “J’accuse!” at the wrong person.”

    Am I? Shouting at the wrong person? Maybe you don’t understand why I’m confused at your stance here. Why would an atheist fight for Muslim women’s ”rights” to wear burka per se, much less in non Muslim Europe.
    How could an atheist see a law against burkas as attack on Muslims’ liberties, in non Muslim Europe at that, as opposed to fighting against Islam period?
    How can an atheist not see what’s hiding behind that veil? How could an atheist, who logically does not respect religion, be in favor of religious and conquering symbolism of non Muslim land?

    My stance is very simple, honest and to the point. There’s a reason why I’m an atheist and subsequently an anti – theist. And this means I am not the opposite of a pick and choose Christian; I am against ALL Abrahamic religions, have no respect and zero tolerance for them and do not want them in Europe. Period!

    But yeah, I am surprised by your stance on this subject. It cannot be just a contrarian stance, which you surely can master, but this one makes no sense. At all.

    • MRDA says:

      My stance is very much a Voltairean one: “I disapprove what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it,” as a friend of his summed up his outlook.

      Voltaire–now there’s a French bloke who understood what the current majority do not!

  14. N. says:

    ”I’m actually stating to think that restricting immigration from the lands of Islam wouldn’t be such a bad idea as a means of protecting liberty in Europe. It’s a lot better that curbing the liberties of peoples already her in order to pander to Western prejudices or Islamic stupidities.”

    But before, you were of an opinion that mass non European immigration to Europe was a good idea?
    Why do you think idea of mass non European immigration started in the first place? What’s the reason for it? What are they trying to accomplish?

    Do you think that just by completely stopping immigration, the problems Europe is facing now, and these problems will not only not go away, but will multiply, will solve the problems? You think that, for example, 2,5 million Turks living in Germany, will stay like this? If 2 million of these Turks have 10 kids in the next 15 years… and they bring their aunts, uncles, cousins from Turkey, who will also breed…
    These are the facts of life and reality that are making me throw in the towel.
    By not curbing the liberties, as you put it (needless to say, I see it totally differently), of the people already here, it translates into offering them a finger and then bitching when they grab the whole hand. And Ahmed, in Turkey, seeing how Europeans are giving their hands for grabs. Tolerance (going along something despite the fact it hurts you) will be a dead bed for Europe.

    Could you define ”Western prejudice” in general and in context of this topic?

    • MRDA says:

      “Do you think that just by completely stopping immigration, the problems Europe is facing now, and these problems will not only not go away, but will multiply, will solve the problems?”

      Deincentivizing immigration would work better than an outright “no entry”; dismantling the welfare state and allowing folk to hire who they want to hire (no PC quotas) could do a lot to curb economic migration from Muslim lands (which, I suspect, is the main reason many come to Europe). Personally speaking, I’d have no problem with a Wafa Sultan, or a Ayaan Hisi Ali immigrating to the West; same goes for Ali and Mohammed.

      “Would you define ”Western prejudice” in general and in context of this topic?”

      Secular Westerners prohibiting what folk choose to do with their bodies because it makes them uncomfortable (ala Saudi and the Christoid Right).

      • N. says:

        ”Deincentivizing immigration would work better than an outright “no entry”; dismantling the welfare state and allowing folk to hire who they want to hire (no PC quotas) could do a lot to curb economic migration from Muslim lands (which, I suspect, is the main reason many come to Europe). Personally speaking, I’d have no problem with a Wafa Sultan, or a Ayaan Hisi Ali immigrating to the West; same goes for Ali and Mohammed.”

        Nah, I’m for ‘no entry at all”. If you got a flu, you don’t just take a little bit of medicine here and there, hoping it would kill all the viruses. Either you do it, or you don’t. Halfassed approach never brought any results. You offer a finger, and the next thing you know, they are festing on your whole body. True story.

        Heh, you’re getting soft. Old age kicking in? LOL
        Welfare state. What do you do with those, who live in big houses and get a good chunk of money (especially on the account of spitting out 10 Ahmeds and Fatimas) but do not wanna work? Drag them to a factory? Really? I’d like to see this, as bleeding heart activists would slam themselves against pavement, screaming how this is slavery, how human rights are being stepped on. Are you gonna deport them? Heh, repeat the scene from above.

        Allow Europeans to hire whom they want? Did you really say this? And what happens if Europeans do not wanna hire Muslims? Care to guess? Care to guess what happens if a European fires a Muslim?
        The bottom line is: no matter what Europeans do, we will be the ones who are wrong. Taken from a textbook called USA.

        Sure, life indeed (at least for the time being) is much better in Europe than, say, Afghanistan. If that even has to be pointed out. BUT! A tiger prefers an occasional day with no food in his own environment as opposed to being locked in a ZOO where he gets food on a plate daily.

        What I’m saying is – here we see Muslims, living it up on Europeans’ money, destroying European property, claiming it’s because (if you can digest this) they don’t have jobs.
        So, aside from Europeans deporting parasites, who are destroying Europe, why would these parasites wanna go/stay in Europe if there are no jobs for them?
        Forgo a chance of living in Muslim land to go to a non Muslim land because of money?
        So what happens when Europe as it is is gone? Muslims won’t be livin’ it up anymore as they do now.
        Strange is a the mind of a parasite: festing on a host, knowing it will kill both.
        Nah, this is not (just) about money. And I don’t believe you don’t know the real reason.

        • MRDA says:

          “A tiger prefers an occasional day with no food in his own environment as opposed to being locked in a ZOO where he gets food on a plate daily.”

          Of course, it’s presumptuous to assume tigers A and B have the same taste.

          I would’ve thought SA would be closer to a zoo; to the extent that anyone–abdullah or kafir–wants to turn the West into a zoo for their pet slave morality, I’m opposed to them.

          “So, aside from Europeans deporting parasites, who are destroying Europe, why would these parasites wanna go/stay in Europe if there are no jobs for them?”

          Precisely! Cut off the food supply and watch the “parasites” fall away. I doubt economic migrants would feel the need to emigrate en masse if they weren’t getting “free” money just for turning up.

  15. N. says:

    ”Well, what symbolism does Baphomet carry for you? (You are still a Satanist, right?) Compare that to the symbolism it carries for the lambs of Christ.”

    No, I am not anymore. Was never into it to the point where Baphomet would mean much to me, much less as some kinda symbol I’d wear. I was a sympathizer of what I thought was an honest philosophy.

    A cross around one’s neck could very well place under symbolism, while a burka is not just symbolism, not just static symbolism.

    ”Similarly, for a Muslim woman living in the West, a burka may just be an affirmation of her religious identity, or a way to avoid unwanted sexual attention; just as it will most likely be a symbol of oppression in dress code-obsessed Saudi.”

    We’ve bumped at the source of the problem right from the start, as is it basically a rule of every problem, which only grows if not corrected immediately: A Muslim woman living in the West.
    Why would a Muslim woman want to live in a West in the first place, as opposed to an Islam country, where she is free to practice her way of life, is surrounded by like – minded Muslims, and far far away from ”liberties taking” West?
    As I am keen on giving simple comparisons, analogies, to drive the point home, let me do this now as well.
    Let’s say you love eating potatoes. LOVE it! You live in a place (say, oh, I dunno – Idaho!) where potatoes are growing everywhere. Then, for strange, so to speak, reason, you move to Siberia. No potatoes in sight.
    Really, Daniel, why would your potato addicted ass move to Siberia, and then bitch how there’s no potatoes there?
    How about me, a European, an atheist par excellence. I just get up and move to Saudi Arabia. Muslims all over. Nothing but ”Allah!!!” screaming 24/7. Stoning threats for anyone not covered or an atheist. Here I am, walking around in my tank top, my long hair playing in the wind, bitching about stupidity of Islam.
    I’m just kidding. I’d be stoned the moment I’d put my big toe out of the house.

    What if Europeans do not want her strolling around Europe, affirmating her religious identity? Why would she be disrespecting the will of Europeans in our our land? Oh, right. It’s only Europeans who are disrespectful.

    To avoid unwanted sexual attention? Now that’s a good joke. Cos clearly, covered women in Middle East do not get raped. Right? Will European men rape a Muslim woman because and precisely because she is not covered? No? So, then why stroll around Europe covered? Oh, so she wouldn’t get raped by fellow Muslims? Because surely, Muslims do not rape those covered?
    Muslims are, indeed, raping European women in Europe. They claim we are whores. And we are not covered. So, must European women now start wearing burkas in order not to get raped by Muslims in Europe?
    You see where this has gotten to?
    So, in order for me not to get raped by a Muslim, I should cover myself? How about I kick Ahmed the fuck out?

    What you see as a symbol of oppression in Europe, I see a symbol of Europeans finally (!!!) growing a pair and defending themselves in their Europe.
    What Saudis do in their Saudi Arabia is non of my business – at all!
    Wearing burka in Saudi Arabia – oppression.
    Not being allowed to wear burka in Europe – oppression.
    Nope, this is not logical and not an argument. Bitching about being beaten by your husband, then going to another man and bitch how he’s not beating you?
    This is insane.

    • MRDA says:

      “Let’s say you love eating potatoes. LOVE it! You live in a place (say, oh, I dunno – Idaho!) where potatoes are growing everywhere. Then, for strange, so to speak, reason, you move to Siberia. No potatoes in sight.
      Really, Daniel, why would your potato addicted ass move to Siberia, and then bitch how there’s no potatoes there?”

      Not the same thing, and you know it; if the organic climate prevent potatoes being grown, not the cultural climate.

      “Nope, this is not logical and not an argument. Bitching about being beaten by your husband, then going to another man and bitch how he’s not beating you?”

      Better analogy: Wifey being beaten for not wanting to blow Bloke A , going to Bloke B–then getting beaten by him for wanting to give him a blowjob.

      • N. says:

        ”Not the same thing, and you know it; if the organic climate prevent potatoes being grown, not the cultural climate.”

        I did not say it was the same thing, did I? I did say it’s a simple analogy. You still haven’t answered what are you doing in Siberia, bitching about how good you had it in Idaho, with all the potatoes.
        Why are you bitching about people being fed up with you, going door to door, annoying them with how and why they don’t have any potatoes there? And then having the audacity to look insulted when they ask you a logical question: then what are you doing here, where there are no potatoes? Oh, you’d say, are you saying I don’t have the right to be here?
        *sigh*
        Why did you take potatoes literally?

        Due to organic climate preventing burkas from growing in Europe, through time, it also became a part of cultural climate. Let’s not ruin the soil with intruding seeds as they will kill the native seeds.

        ”Better analogy: Wifey being beaten for not wanting to blow Bloke A , going to Bloke B–then getting beaten by him for wanting to give him a blowjob.”

        You just added a reason why she is beaten wherever she goes. Same reason everywhere she goes. I’m starting to think the burka… errr. blow job is the reason for all problems, regardless of place.

        Why your analogy does not hold the water? The blokes (lol) in this story are not cut from the same cloth.
        However, I am in a mood to offer another simple solution: Let Fatima stay in SA and give Ahmed a blow job.
        And maybe, just maybe, offer a cynical helping hand (NO pun intended) for the already existing Fatima and Ahmed in Europe: from now on, you two will practice nothing, and I mean nothing, but blow jobs. *smiles*

        From burkas, to potatoes and blow jobs. Alrighty then.

    • MRDA says:

      “Why would a Muslim woman want to live in a West in the first place, as opposed to an Islam country, where she is free to practice her way of life, is surrounded by like – minded Muslims, and far far away from ”liberties taking” West?”

      Maybe she wants to get away from “her way of life”, and by that, I mean the “way of life” being forced on her in her “home” country? Just a thought.

      “What you see as a symbol of oppression in Europe, I see a symbol of Europeans finally (!!!) growing a pair and defending themselves in their Europe.”

      Funny, that reminds me of Christoids “defending themselves” by trying to claim ownership of the workings of a female’s ovaries; the difference is, at best, superficial.

  16. N. says:

    ”My stance is very much a Voltairean one: “I disapprove what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it,” as a friend of his summed up his outlook.

    Voltaire–now there’s a French bloke who understood what the current majority do not!”

    Sure, it’s a cool thing to say. And in GENERAL terms, I agree with it. However, in MY house *I* make the rules. You can call me a bitch in your house (preferably when I’m not around). If you dare to call me a bitch in MY house, we have a problem. Big problem.

    Muslims, by forcing their way of life onto Europeans, are not only showing utter disrespect and contempt for a land that, stupidly, opened its doors to them. They are showing a clear sign of what their agenda is. And if their agenda comes to life, do you REALLY think they will offer you a courtesy of saying what the fuck you want to say and would even *gasp* fight to death for your right to say it? Do you?

    Which reminds me of this video I saw some time ago. I think it was in Denmark. A deportation of illegal Muslims was going on. Here we have, liberal atheist Danish activists, throwing themselves around, laying on the ground, screaming ”injustice” for these Muslims. Heh, what the fuck do they think these Muslims think of their European atheist asses? Do they think these Muslims would blink with an eye if these Danes were in danger someone in Saudi Arabia? Do they not know what Muslims think of them?!
    They would be the first to fry when Muslims are majority and turn Denmark into Muslim country.

    Voltaire didn’t live in present day France; you must take this fact into account. The current majority is the one that has no right to speak – if they do, they are punished.
    Don’t tell me you don’t know what is going on.

    • MRDA says:

      “However, in MY house *I* make the rules.”

      Interesting–when did you buy the land rights to the whole of Europe?

      • N. says:

        Interesting you asking a European when she bought the rights to Europe. The insinuation, which is the point of all my writings: how dare a European say what she wants in her Europe.
        We don’t ask Chinese this question, do we? Or Indians? Or Pakistanis? Or Africans?
        Do we?

        Nah, just Europeans.
        And just Europeans are weak and dumb enough to frightenly answer it, and even that is not worth shit (but but, I didn’t mean it like that). You don’t see Chinese as much as blink with an eye when they deport non Chinese; they don’t give a fuck what anyone claims they are. They watch USA and Europe and LEARN.
        We most certainly wouldn’t dare to ask Jews why Israel is for Jews only, would we now? Just as we wouldn’t dare to ask them why they are the ones telling us to not question mass burka immigration to Europe.

        Nope.

        I, as a European, have no right to claim Europe. Many Europeans, right at this moment, are pondering this, thinking how something is not right about this. Finally, they are.

        But, when did I buy rights to the whole Europe? When I was swimming in the nuts of my ancestors, who took off bare foot across the world, to unknown land, sweated tears and blood to built what is now Europe.
        But now, not only I’m not allowed to feel appreciation for what they did, or pride in building a modern world for their children, no – now I don’t even have the right to the house they built for me anymore.

        Whole Europe? I won’t go to Denmark and force cultural aspects of, say, Serbia, onto Denmark. I respect Danish history and culture and want it to remain Danish for ever. I just want every European nation to protect its cultural, historical, national identity (even tho the similarities are, logically, numerous, the details, which make every nation are most important) under European umbrella, which would follow naturally.

        And under NO circumstance should European nations EVER again fall for propaganda and murder each other. If anything, THAT is what I’m trying to do.

        I won’t hold against Greeks what happened recently. I know why it happened, who’s behind it and why.

        Questions like ”since when do you get to call the rights to Europe” are one of the reasons for my 180 degree change. They made me feel something is not right, they made me feel something is very wrong. Once a European allows him/herself to ponder this…

        Now I know. Now I won’t lay down and play dead and take the pounding in my own house anymore, while I wallow in ”white guilt”.

        • MRDA says:

          Interesting you asking a European when she bought the rights to Europe.

          Well, I’d happily ask the same thing of a Muslim looking to impose Sharia law on Europe; there’s no need to accuse me of trying to send you on a “white guilt” trip.

  17. N. says:

    ”Loaded” or not, it’s valid, seeing how you seem to have changed your racial views from four years ago. Volte-face.

    I look forward to your response, in any case.”

    What I meant by loaded is that it is, aside from very much expected, a question that is not simple or easy for me, despite everything; I am still having a great deal of difficulty explaining it even to myself. I didn’t mean it was loaded as in you asking something that’s… I don’t even know. Loaded is my sincere description. The question is valid, considering the change is 180 degrees. Instead of just racial, I’d say it’s a world-view change.

    It’s not easy to admit you were completely and totally wrong – about nearly everything, and thought you knew it right and all, precisely according to propaganda.
    In a way, I am comparing to a former religious becoming an atheist (with almost obligatory agnostic bus stop in between, or in my case: not having a clue of what the fuck happened, what the fuck was, or what the fuck happens after); something I never could identify myself with.

    But, I do not know when I will be able to respond to your question. And if/when I am, it most probably won’t be public.

    🙂

  18. N. says:

    ”Secular Westerners prohibiting what folk choose to do with their bodies because it makes them uncomfortable (ala Saudi and the Christoid Right).”

    Westerners prohibiting what non Western folks choose to do with their bodies in their (Western) homes; having a right to prohibit what makes them feel uncomfortable (what a watered down term) in their own homes, while supporting non Western folks to do whatever the fuck they want in their own homes.

    If I don’t speak now, when there’s only one pregnant Fatima (and you know Fatima stays pregnant) ghosting it up in my hallway, I won’t have a voice to raise when there’s 10 Fatimas ghosting it up in my living room. True story, lol.

    Why do you have a problem with Fatima enjoying her life in her home and I enjoying my life in my home? Isn’t that what is basically essential in and to life? Why doesn’t Fatima wanna enjoy her life in her house, instead of wanting to disrupt my life in my house?
    Where can I send my complaints to? Hello? Anyone there? Hello?

  19. N. says:

    ”HA!

    I recommend you read the Totalitarian Humanism link in the main post; the authors of your woes lie closer to home than you’d think. Between the Purityrannical Left and Christoid/Secular Saudi Right, you’ve got quite a family meeting on your hands!”

    I’ll give it a read. Even tho, I am neither a left, much less Purityrannical (might call me territorial, tho) left, nor a Christoid or *sigh* Saudi or Saudi right (Jesus fucking Christ, instead of heeding the point of what I AM, I have to check everything I am not from that list).

    I am a European atheist woman.

  20. N. says:

    ”So they want you to think, at least….”

    Sure, they are secular when they go to USA for vacations in their huge mansions, spend millions at casinos and fuck All American girls, drink alco and eat bacon, while they cut heads of masses at home who’d even as much as entertain any of the above in SA. It’s how you keep the sheep on short leash.
    They are not importing USA vacations to Europe, are they now?

  21. N. says:

    ”Neither did nation states. Look how virulently you defend those.”

    Every birth is painful and bloody. But if I go through immense pain to give birth, I might as well defend it with all my being.
    The problem of today’s Europe is that first of all, EU is not what is supposed to be: A union of European nations in order to protect European nations and their identity ALONG with the European identity of all nations. It’s working (on many other things as well) to destroy nationality and culture of nations, ALONG with European culture as an umbrella. Every nation is given a list of things to be ashamed of and forget its history, culture and painful birth it took to be born. As if that hit were not enough, every nation should welcome non Europeans to nail the final hit, followed by a cultural identity crash: breed European nations out of existence.
    And some have a problem with me virulently defending European nations and Europe. The audacity to tell someone she’s got not right to defend her house.

    ”I haven’t read anyone push for a mandatory dress code of non-abdullah females; I have, however, read people in favour of just that for Muslim residents of the West–hence my post.”

    50 years ago, you’d say: I haven’t read anyone push for mass immigration of Muslims and them demanding to wear burkas.
    But we’re here now.
    If I were to go to SA, I’d have to cover up. It’s THEIR rule in THEIR home. Muslim enclaves in Europe have Muslim rules. One part of Europe becoming a Muslim enclave at the time.

    Correct me if I’m wrong. Weren’t you talking about Britain (what’s left of it, anyway) and how Muslims were bitching about ice cones and police not being allowed to have dogs because it disrupts Muslims?
    Can’t recall specific examples, but my point is: Muslims ARE pushing their way of life onto Europeans. One thing at the time.
    And you want me to believe how Islamisation of Europe is not a plan?
    What are you gonna write about when European women are forced to wear burkas? How you haven’t read anyone pushing FGM onto European women?
    And we’re gonna have identical debate, just that instead of burka it will be something else, but something else it WILL be?

    • MRDA says:

      “Correct me if I’m wrong. Weren’t you talking about Britain (what’s left of it, anyway) and how Muslims were bitching about ice cones and police not being allowed to have dogs because it disrupts Muslims?”

      Can’t remember ranting about those things particularly, though I certainly have ranted about issues similar to those.

      The difference for me comes down to this: does the person choose the behaviour solely for themselves, or do they try and force the behaviour onto others? Whoever does the latter becomes an enemy, for want of a better word.

      If Muslims try forcing persons–unwilling Muslims and non-Muslims alike–to do X, Y, Z, I would certainly raise Hell (or Jahannam) against it. I’ve no problem telling a Muslim who decrees I should not eat pork for the sake of his religion to fuck off–indeed I’ve done just that in the past.

      But right now, in this context, it isn’t the abdullahs forcing their way onto others; it’s the kafirs.

      • N. says:

        ”Can’t remember ranting about those things particularly, though I certainly have ranted about issues similar to those.”

        I can’t recall the exact examples either, but you know what I mean.

        ”The difference for me comes down to this: does the person choose the behaviour solely for themselves, or do they try and force the behaviour onto others? Whoever does the latter becomes an enemy, for want of a better word.”

        If a person does something for themselves, but it’s forceful behavior onto those, who do not wish for a person to do this around them, is what an enemy is.

        No, I won’t clown now with some silly (but simple) analogy how a husband leaves the toilet seat up and annoys the wife and that would make the enemy in the house all of the sudden. Stakes are much too high when talking about enemy in a literal way.

        ”If Muslims try forcing persons–unwilling Muslims and non-Muslims alike–to do X, Y, Z, I would certainly raise Hell (or Jahannam) against it. I’ve no problem telling a Muslim who decrees I should not eat pork for the sake of his religion to fuck off–indeed I’ve done just that in the past.”

        Nah, Daniel, you wouldn’t raise any damn hell. By the time Muslims get to force non Muslims, you won’t have any voice left.
        This is my point and this is what I don’t understand: do you really not get this?

        Fine, you were able to say fuck off to a Muslim NOW. But really, just how much of a fuck off are you Brits really telling to Muslims?
        Day and day less.

        • MRDA says:

          Nah, Daniel, you wouldn’t raise any damn hell

          Mind-reading isn’t your strong suit.

        • MRDA says:

          If a person does something for themselves, but it’s forceful behavior onto those, who do not wish for a person to do this around them, is what an enemy is.

          I hope you realize how this argument can backfire.

  22. N. says:

    ”Well, I’d happily ask thew same thing of a Muslim looking to impose Sharia law on Europe; there’s no need to accuse me of trying to send you on a “white guilt” trip.”

    You know that’s not the same.
    Let’s say you, Ahmed and I are sitting in my house. Ahmed says I am a non covered whore. And you say: you can’t talk to her like that (in her house).
    And then I say to Ahmed: You filthy camel fucking pedophile worshiping idiot.
    And you go: When did you bought the rights to this house in order to talk like that to Ahmed?

    Lemme check the years I’d get for double murder.
    And if I’m allowed internet while in.

  23. N. says:

    *sigh* Missed this one, while I was running around.

    ”Question: do you see atheism as simply an outlook on the existence of gods, or a belief system and ideology unto itself?”

    Atheism: An outlook on the NONexistence of gods.
    A belief system and ideology = anti – theism.

    ”Institutional Christianity is very much European, at least in part; the end result of Saul of Damascus consorting with the Romans.”

    Institutional does not act as a supporting argument for Christianity being European.
    Christianity is not European, period, thus any bastardization of it cannot and it is not European.

    The frustrating part? Parts where Christianity is losing ground, become parts where Islam is gaining ground. Ugh!
    And it all leads back to what I mentioned before: so called progressive liberal open minded atheists, bitching against Christianity while defending po’ Muslims.

    • MRDA says:

      “Atheism: An outlook on the NONexistence of gods.
      A belief system and ideology = anti – theism.”

      Thus an atheist can still support freedom of thought (which includes freedom of religion) with consistency. After all, it was utilizing this freedom to make a choice which spurred many atheists to reject the religion of their folks in the first place. Of course, freedom entails “the right to be wrong”.

      I look at religious belief like I look at sports or Warcraft fandom: not my cup of tea, but as long as you ain’t pushing it on the unwilling, have a ball!

      • N. says:

        Such atheists are the best friends any religion could have.

        There’s a reason I’m an atheist and anti-theist; I don’t approach this matter half-assed.
        I have no intention of being ”let it be” when it comes to those, who do not have any intention of letting me be; in fact, I’m first on their list to be beheaded.

        Freedom of thought does not equal freedom of religion and does not live under the same roof.
        I am not for freedom of religion, but for freedom from religion; the only kind of freedom.

        • MRDA says:

          “Freedom of thought does not equal freedom of religion”

          You’re right, but I didn’t say that: I said freedom of thought incorporates, encompasses freedom of belief; yours is like the twisted argument that free speech and “hate speech” are two different things, which–given your new worldview, and the political implications of making it known–is a glaring oversight on your part.

          “I am not for freedom of religion, but for freedom from religion; the only kind of freedom.”

          I read somewhere that “religious freedom is an oxymoron” which definitely has a certain truth to it; nevertheless, freedom just ain’t if one isn’t free to make mistakes. Me? I’m for both those types of freedom.

  24. N. says:

    ”Maybe she wants to get away from “her way of life”, and by that, I mean the “way of life” being forced on her in her “home” country? Just a thought.”

    Sure. Who would want to live there in the first place? But let’s not forget WHO created such environment! That one is always ignored when talking about what choices and chances people have: oh, it’s the environment. Sure. But WHO creates the environment? And if you play on miss placed compassion of Europeans, along with the guilt factor, you know we’re gonna open the doors to her. And her aunts and cousins and… and then they’re gonna bitch how they wanna live the Muslim way of life when they get here.
    The pounding on European emotions has gotten us where we are today. The joke is really on us.
    Po’ Somalis were brought to Minnesota. You know, to escape from the environment (which they created) to the promised land. And they, shockingly, brought environment with them.
    Again, sounds like a detailed plan.

    ”Funny, that reminds me of Christoids “defending themselves” by trying to claim ownership of the workings of a female’s ovaries; the difference is, at best, superficial.”

    Nope, I’m claiming MY ovaries and MY house. While someone else thinks he has the right to claim MY ovaries and MY house. See, property laws are not what they used to be. Every schmuch is trying to claim rights to someone else’s property; if not via emotional blackmail on miss placed compassion, then by force.

    If you (general= don’t get to respect MY property, then I will react with force to defend it.

    But, since you, again, mentioned Christians – I keep telling you, anything that came from that shit hole into Europe has been nothing but dangerous damage to Europe. Just don’t know why you’d leave out Muslims; as if they don’t claim the rights of women ovaries, elbows and the fucking air they breathe.
    Whereas the Jews wanna claim European ovaries to the point of either mixing with non European testicles, or down right being shut.
    One is direct, the others take their time. Result is the same.

    Bottom line is: stay the fuck away from my ovaries and my house.

    ~~~~

    Just this week, I read how a Saudi (boy, we love Saudis ’round these parts here on your blog, lol) broke into American woman’s house and tried to rape her. One sentence sums up everything we talked about here.

  25. N. says:

    ”Mind-reading isn’t your strong suit.”

    That’s why I don’t do it and didn’t do it.
    I challenge you to disprove what I said by standing in the middle of Saudi and yelling fuck you at Muslims. Oh, you say, this is not Saudi?
    Not yet, is what MY point was, which you misunderstood as mind reading.

    If a person does something for themselves, but it’s forceful behavior onto those, who do not wish for a person to do this around them, is what an enemy is.

    ”I hope you realize how this argument can backfire.”

    It is already backfiring all over Europe; Europeans, not wanting Muslims in Europe are being met with treatment of being the enemy of Muslims.
    Time to bring out the heavy artillery to deal with the audacity of this backfire.

  26. Pingback: Papier-Mâché(te): Another Pic, Another Piñata… « MRDA's Inferno

  27. N. says:

    You’re right, but I didn’t say that: I said freedom of thought incorporates, encompasses freedom of belief; yours is like the twisted argument that free speech and “hate speech” are two different things, which–given your new worldview, and the political implications of making it known–is a glaring oversight on your part.

    Given my new worldview? I don’t think you understand what my new worldview is – based on this exchange and the examples you’re ascribing to me.
    I’ve never claimed that, to me, free speech and hate speech are two different things. What I’m claiming is that they are two different things based on WHO says what. And THAT is one of the things that led me to new worldview. Aside from that, I am strongly in favor of speeches from ALL being heard as loud as possible, instead of leading whites into belief it’s all rainbow around here. If people don’t get to hear about how all whites should be killed, how white babies should be butchered, then how are they suppose to know what is REALLY going on (outside of Black History Month and latest reality show)?

    If Sarrazin says that Muslims are destroying Germany, this is hate speech (a white person pointing out the truth = hate speech).
    If Muslims riot in Denmark, burn Danish flags and call for murder against Danes? Free speech.

    Yes, how on earth I ended up with this new worldview?

    So, how exactly is this an oversight, a glaring at that, on my part? Haven’t we been giving religion a free speech for 1000s of years now?

    My point is: freedom of thought is to freedom of religion as it is science to religion. Let the science live in labs, and religions in Israel. A Dane in Denmark and Ahmed in Afghanistan.

    Otherwise, ”freedom” of belief eats any freedom of thought, Ahmed eats Denmark, and a dinosaur gets to hang with homo sapiens in Kansas.
    And where’s Dane in this story, you ask? He’s not.

    I read somewhere that “religious freedom is an oxymoron” which definitely has a certain truth to it; nevertheless, freedom just ain’t if one isn’t free to make mistakes. Me? I’m for both those types of freedom.

    Well, Europe’s been making this SAME mistake for about 2000 years now. That is bordering on insanity, if I may cynically and mildly put it. When do you think Europeans will be allowed to actually LEARN something from this mistake, and say: you know what, I’m free to claim, finally, knowledge and I say no more?
    How many more wars and dead Europeans are needed? Will it ever be enough?

    Now, as for Ahmed. He’s got all the freedom he wants to make his mistakes. In Middle East!

    Why you couldn’t commit with decisive certainty that religious freedom is an oxymoron? Or maybe with even less agnosticism?

  28. I’d come to accede with you one this subject. Which is not something I usually do! I enjoy reading a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for allowing me to speak my mind!

  29. Pingback: MRDA or Self-Defence? Dancing on the Edge of the Knife… « MRDA's Inferno

  30. Pingback: “The hijab has liberated me from society’s expectations of women” « Attack the System

  31. Pingback: Step Out of My Sunshine! Reflections of a Libertarian Cynic « Attack the System

  32. Pingback: Step Out of My Sunshine! Reflections of a Libertarian Cynic | MRDA's Inferno

  33. Pingback: Step Out of My Sunshine! Reflections of a Libertarian Cynic | Mere Anti Statism

  34. Pingback: Halal & Hypocrisy VII: He Who Fights Muslims… | MRDA's Inferno

  35. Vanderbilt says:

    “Ah, laïcité—the sacred principle of the Republique Française that forbids religion from infringing on affairs of governance.”
    What’s funny is the naive attitude of Statist-liberals-positivists that there can somehow be a separation of cultural identity and moral compass of the State from its elites and supporters. Can anyone seriously imagine Revolutionary France without Christianity? All these ‘secular’ societies have done is given religion a sciency gloss coat and a few trillion to persecute with.

  36. Pingback: Halal & Hypocrisy XII: Vive la Dissonance! | MRDA's Inferno

  37. Pingback: Halal & Hypocrisy XII: Vive la Dissonance! « Attack the System

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *