Switzerland Minus Minarets

Power to the Swiss people and the Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP). The image caption reads, "Swiss quality, the middle class' party".

Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques - NYTimes.com:

The government must now draft a supporting law on the ban, a process that could take at least a year and could put Switzerland in breach of international conventions on human rights.

Apparently even the mildest, most indirect attempts to resist genocidal levels of immigration can put Whites in breach of "international conventions on human rights".

Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer. There are about 400,000 Muslims in a population of some 7.5 million people. Close to 90 percent of Muslims in Switzerland are from Kosovo and Turkey, and most do not adhere to the codes of dress and conduct associated with conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, said Manon Schick, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International in Switzerland.

Nothing to see here. Only 5 percent of Switzerland's population is muslim, close to 100 percent of them cultural and genetic aliens.

“Most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote,” said Farhad Afshar, who runs the Coordination of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland. “Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community.”

The kosovars, turks, and other muslims can go home, feel accepted, and build as many minarets as they like. Most painful for the Swiss is that if "international human rights" prevail it's only a matter of time before the Swiss will be entirely dispossessed of their one and only homeland.

To the consternation of anti-White internationalists resistance is beginning to come not just from the "nativist", "xenophobic", "racist", "nazi" SVP - but also from leftist feminists.

Women lead Swiss in vote to ban minarets - Times Online:

A right-wing campaign to outlaw minarets on mosques in a referendum being held in Switzerland today has received an unlikely boost from radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols” and reminders of Islam’s oppression of women.

A “stop the minarets” campaign has provoked ferment in the land of Heidi, where women are more likely than men to vote for the ban after warnings from prominent feminists that Islam threatens their rights.

This resistance is "right-wing" with "an unlikely boost" only if seen from an anti-White internationalist cheerleading point of view. Media bias isn't "liberal", it's anti-White.

Socialist politicians have been furious to see icons of the left joining what is regarded as an anti-immigrant campaign by the populist Swiss People’s party, the biggest group in parliament.

One of them, Julia Onken, warned that failure to ban minarets would be “a signal of the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women”. She has sent out 4,000 emails attacking Muslims who condone forced marriage, honour killings and beating women.

Normal, healthy people don't like being replaced by aliens who look, think, and act alien, obliterating their precious homeland and traditions before their very eyes, forever. Apparently, neither do radical feminists.

Swiss business is horrified. There are fears of a reaction against Swiss products similar to the one suffered by Denmark over the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in 2005.

“The brand ‘Swiss’ must continue to represent values such as openness, pluralism and freedom of religion,” said Hanspeter Rentsch, a member of the board of Swatch, the watchmaker.

It's more horrorifying that Swiss businessmen feel free to favor "brand 'Swiss'" over people Swiss. The irony is that openness and pluralism will eventually destroy the Swiss and all their "brands", and the freedom to build minarets will ultimately be very, very bad for business.

Can you guess who else thinks openness, pluralism and freedom of religion are more important than Swiss self-determination?

Push to ban minarets in Switzerland a 'threat':

Switzerland's biggest Jewish groups said Wednesday that a far-right push to ban the construction of minarets here was a "threat" to religious harmony and hindered the integration of Muslims.

- The referendum infringes religious freedom, a concept enshrined in the constitution - said the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities and the Platform of Liberal Jews in Switzerland in a statement.

It - also poses a threat to peaceful relations between the religions and inhibits the integration endeavours of Muslims in Switzerland - they added.

This is pure double-talk. Immigration brings the threat to harmony. The Swiss citizenry, who to the extent they've been informed and consulted have expressed their disfavor for immigration, muslim or otherwise, and should not be forced to suffer it, whether the immigrants wish to "integrate" with them or not. It is their very existence which is being infringed. What gives "jewish communities", who have not integrated after more than two millenia among Europeans, any standing to lecture anyone about immigration or integration? They consider themselves jews first, not Swiss, so they can STFU or move to israel and lecture their own tribe about immigration and integration.

The two Jewish groups said they - take seriously the fears of the population that extremist ideas could be disseminated in Switzerland. -

- But banning minarets is no solution -- it only creates in Muslims in Switzerland a sense of alienation and discrimination - they said.

If creating a sense of alienation is the concern then surely the alienation the native Swiss feel at the sight of minarets in their homeland trumps the senses of migrant muslims and jews, who after all are only guests. What the Swiss and all other Whites should take seriously is how jews and muslims do not hesitate to "discriminate", i.e. identify with and advocate in favor of their own groups, even as they pathologize Whites for any attempt to do so.

It's true that banning minarets is no solution. Deporting aliens would be better, but even that wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is "international human rights". What horrifies Swiss business is the precedent for internationalist punishment that has already been set by organized jewry. See The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany: The Economic Boycott of 1933.

Why would any normal, healthy people want to see the dysfunctional middle east recreated inside their country's borders? In part because we're constantly told, as we're reminded here in this case, that it harms peaceful relations, harmony, and integration to see it this way. And in part because if we set that concern aside and persist then we're threatened - all the double-talk about peaceful relations, harmony, and integration aside - with open war.

Some pundits characterize what's happening to every White country, and only White countries, as "suicide", or "self-destruction" caused by "liberalism". This story of resistance from Switzerland, among others, puts the lie to that poisonous, blame-shifting meme.

UPDATE 2 Dec 2009: In a comment on Interview: Arthur Kemp, Hunter Wallace writes:

Banning minarets is treating symptoms, not the disease.

I disagree.

The disease is the idea, which produced its most fateful results during the Enlightenment in the service of emancipating jews, that Whites, and only Whites, must not "discriminate" against "minorities". Since this meme took root it has been fed and twisted to genocidal proportions. Whites everywhere now live under a regime which subsidizes, supports, and even directly imposes "discrimination" against Whites, defending the interests of interloping aliens over the interests of the native-born citizenry.

The banning of minarets by popular vote strikes only obliquely at this idea, but it is a blow against the disease itself. Organized jewry roundly condemns it for exactly this reason. "Liberal" feminists played a prominent part in the minaret ban, putting the lie to the corollary meme, pimped constantly by faux-White pro-jews and others, that "suicidal" White "liberalism" is to blame for all that ills us. Even "liberals", it turns out, resist when their "suicide" becomes too blatant. The genocide is inflicted in the name of "liberal" "non-discrimination" in name but not in fact, and it is inflicted by "the international community" - which means the plutocrats, their media, their jet-setting cosmopolitan courtiers, jewish groups, muslim groups, and the treaonous costume clowns who serve their interests in their governments.

"Treating symptoms" is more fairly applied to much of what conservatives do here in the US - for example, to their focus on the transfer of wealth via taxes or healthcare, never identifying who the wealth is transferred from or to; or to the "culture war", never identifying who's at war with whom.

Planet of the Michelle Obama Defenders

Google apologizes for results of 'Michelle Obama' image search - CNN.com:

For most of the past week, when someone typed "Michelle Obama" in the popular search engine Google, one of the first images that came up was a picture of the American first lady altered to resemble a monkey.

On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for "Michelle Obama."

Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Google faced a firestorm of criticism over the episode. First, it banned the Web site that posted the photo, saying it could spread a malware virus. Then, when the image appeared on another Web site, Google let the photo stand. When a Google image search brought up the photo, an apologetic Google ad occasionally appeared above it.

The Michelle Obama ape photo can be found at FlyStyleLife » WTF IS THIS? MICHELLE OBAMA AS AN APE HUH?

Google: An explanation of our search results:

Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.

Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize if you've had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

Insincerely, actually. In truth, hit rank for almost every search engine, and certainly for google, is based almost entirely on the popularity of the hit, which in most cases reflects its popularity with the general public. Google is lying to the public even while apologizing to the hypersensitive people offended by popular opinion.

Google returns lots of insulting, defamatory search results. See for example (with SafeSearch off):

george bush
laura bush
bush twins
michele bachmann
ann coulter
glenn beck

Why does google protect Michelle Obama from ridicule? Who else does it protect? Hypersensitive people offended by impious use of the word jew, of course.

Quick Links, 22 Nov 2009

In the Battle Between Facebook and MySpace, A Digital 'White Flight' | The New York Observer - Berkeley grad student examines online social networks and sees metaphorical "White Flight", which is something bad people do, because integration is what every good person should want.

ADL Special Reports: Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies - The Influence of the Mainstream Media - organized jewry can't stomach even buffoonish deracinated zionist Whites like Glenn Beck. They don't like the philo-semitic Oath Keepers either. It's enraging.

Bashing Palin and the horse she rides in on. Too many Whites scares Chris Matthews - "I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, White vs. other people."

Semitic tribal aspects at Princeton. The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West - "This is how it works: Defy Islamic supremacism and be demonized as a supremacist." Substitute "jewish" for "islamic" and you get... Choosing the chosen people - The Daily Princetonian - a student body that's 13% jewish isn't good enough, it should be 25% jewish like Harvard, Brown, Columbia and Penn. Commenters clash.

A cartoon croons, Not My Waterpark. Tragic comedy, not at all funny.

Who Thinks Thinking is Unthinkable and Why

Jewish "social critic" James Howard Kunstler has specialized in ridiculing suburbia while paying relatively little attention to the non-White immigration, non-White sociopathy, and forced integration motivating Whites to flock there. The disproportionately jewish race-hustlers, developers, and financiers enriching themselves in the process also get a pass. Kunstler's made a living hyping a variety of threats, like Y2K and depleted uranium, and warning most recently that "peak oil" will cause a "long emergency". The effect, if not intent, has been to direct attention away from the more immediate and more substantial problems for more Americans, especially White Americans - the displacement and dispossession caused by genocidal levels of immigration and systemic financial fraud, each fueling the other.

Lately Kunstler has been keeping a nervous eye on a particular facet of the fraud. In Thinking the Unthinkable he writes:

How bad is the situation 'out there' really? In my view, things are veering toward such extreme desperation that the US government might fall under the sway, by extra-electoral means, of an ambitious military officer, or a group of such, sometime in the near future. I'm not promoting a coup d'etat, you understand, but I am raising it as a realistic possibility as elected officials prove utterly unwilling to cope with a mounting crisis of capital and resources. The 'corn-pone Hitler' scenario is still another possibility - Glen Beck and Sarah Palin vying for the hearts and minds of the morons who want 'to keep gubmint out of Medicare!' - but I suspect that there is a growing cadre of concerned officers around the Pentagon who will not brook that fucking nonsense for a Crystal City minute and, what's more, would be very impatient to begin correcting the many fiascos currently blowing the nation apart from within. Remember, today's US military elite is battle-hardened after eight years of war in Asia. No doubt they love their country, as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte loved theirs. It may pain them to stand by and watch it dissolve like a castle made of sugar in a winter gale.

I do believe it might pain Kunstler to watch israel dissolve. It certainly doesn't pain him to watch and snark at "the morons" while it happens to America. Does he think what Goldman Sachs and friends have been doing is unethical, unfair, unjust, immoral, illegal, indefensible, or just plain slimy? Maybe. But for sure he's concerned how the rubes will react when they find out. He's afraid it might be bad for jews. And he thinks that's unthinkable.

This isn't the first time Kunstler has expressed such fears. Hunter Wallace (formerly Prozium) wrote about Kunstler in Cornpone Nazism toward the end of July, linking to a Kunstler essay titled Evil Syndicated. I'll excerpt a few bits to illustrate how Kunstler recognizes Goldman is creating a problem, but that the real problem is the potential backlash.

By now, everyone in that fraction of the world that pays attention to something other than American Idol and their platter of TGI Friday's loaded potato skins knows that Goldman Sachs has been caught at another racket in the stock market: front-running trades. What a clever gambit, done with the help of the markets themselves - the Nasdaq in particular - in which information on trades is held back a fraction of a second from public view, while the data is shoveled to the computers of privileged subscribers who can execute zillions of programmed micro-trades before the rest of the herd makes a move. This allows them to vacuum up hundreds of millions of dollars by doing absolutely nothing of value.

Don't mistake Kunstler's accurate description here for disapproval. If anything he sees it as a "clever" way to shear "the herd".

In any sensible society - i.e. a society with an instinct for self-preservation - it would be against the law and the people doing it would be sent to prison.

Maybe the larger question is: since when did we become a society lacking the instinct for self-preservation - that is, a society bent on suicide?

Yes, a sensible society would have stopped Madoff and Hasan too. Whites have an instinct for self-preservation. We express it all the time, even though doing so has long been pathologized and is becoming increasingly criminalized. Since when? It's been getting worse ever since jewish emancipation. The proper word for what's happening, by the way, is genocide, not suicide. It's done over our objections. Jews like Kunstler aid and abet the crime by hyping symptoms rather than causes, and misdirecting blame. They see "anti-semitism" everywhere because they're not suicidal.

I think the larger question for Kunstler is: what's best for jews? The larger question for me is: when will Whites take note of this jewish obsession with themselves and their own interests? And when will we see through the dissembling of jewish "social critics" who ridicule and pathologize everything we do to resist what they misrepresent as "suicide"?

As we turn the corner toward autumn, President Obama looks increasingly like a dupe, a tool, or a co-conspirator of Goldman Sachs.

What bothers me is that, sooner or later, the conduct of Goldman Sachs will lead the growing ranks of the unemployed, foreclosed, disentitled, and hopeless into the hands of a savage right wing seeking mindless vengeance, for instance, against "the Jews," (as represented by Goldman Sachs), or brown-skinned people (as embodied by a vilified president).

"It's that brown-skinned guy's fault! Blame him!"

What bothers me is that Kunstler is saying that blaming the group who is responsible is "mindless", because he's acutely mindful that it might be bad for "the jews" and "brown-skinned people". Note however that even as Kunstler does this he feels perfectly free casting aspersions on Whites (as represented by "the savage right wing"), and white-skinned people (as embodied by the "evil syndicated"/"cornpone nazis"). What we have here is a conflict of group interests. Rather than addressing it honestly Kunstler tries to obscure and caricaturize it, advising those who already have their hands on "the growing ranks of the unemployed, foreclosed, disentitled, and hopeless" how to best manipulate them.

Readers of this blog know I'm allergic to conspiracy theories. But surveying the scene out there, it is hard to not conclude that Goldman Sachs has become the "front-runner" of a criminal syndicate defrauding US taxpayers.

Kunstler knows it's hard because he's tried. Now he's trying something more familiar and easier: scapegoating Whites.

In the meantime, the US economy gives the illusion of recovery - but to what? Back to a "consumer" credit card shopping orgy? Another house-buying fiesta?

There you go. One last kick in the nuts for the evil morons. Pay no mind to the hedge fund managers who might be called to account for ripping off the evil morons, if only in Kunstler's nightmares.

Kunstler's not the only "social critic" who's thinks it's important to suppress/redirect the backlash.

Oy! Noam Chomsky Compares Right-Wing Media To “Nazis”:

The memory that comes to my mind — I don’t want to press the analogy too hard, but I think it’s worth thinking about — is late Weimar Germany. There were people with real grievances, and the Nazis gave them an answer. ‘It’s the fault of the Jews and the Bolsheviks and we’ve got to protect ourselves from them, and that will take care of them.’ And you know what happened…

[...]Germany in the 1920s was at the peak of Western civilization. A decade later, it was at the pits of human history.

Chomsky's characterization of those two decades is from a jewish point of view, which is likely the opposite of how a contemporary native German would have described them.

Unless an answer can be given to these people, unless they can be led to understand what’s really happening to them, we could be in for trouble.

"We" could be in for trouble? Me and mine are already in trouble. We are ruled by a corrupt and illegitimate regime whose highest priority is to drown us in "people of color", each and every one of which is afforded special rights over Whites. To even question this is considered a crime. Why should we care about the trouble the fraudsters and the "social critics" spinning excuses for them might suffer? They don't care about our troubles.

If Hasan Were White

Contrast this...

Obama: Hasan May Have ‘Cracked’ From ‘Stress’ | The FOX Nation

On Fort Hood shooting, Obama says: Do not jump to conclusions | Jerusalem Post

with this...

Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks - CBS News, by Bonnie Erbe.

The Big Hate - NYTimes.com, by Paul Krugman.

- - -

If Major Nidal Malik Hasan were White these people wouldn't hesitate to recognize and denounce his motives. Likewise if James von Brunn had been a palestinian muslim. The one constant is that when jews perceive a threat to jewish interests, the conclusions they jump to get aired, no matter how insane, illiberal, or insensitive, and usually without any challenge or retraction. When there is no direct threat to jewish interests, as with the Fort Hood attack, then defending against indirect threats to minority privilege (the presumption that non-Whites, including jews, are disadvantaged) and dual loyalty (it's ok to be a jew or muslim first) is paramount.

There is no need to jump to conclusions about the anti-White regime. Pay attention to its reaction to any particular clash of White and non-White interests and the conclusions jump out all by themselves.