Studija o medijskoj prisutnosti WN i anarhista na Twitteru i načinima kako im kontrirati:
http://icsr.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ICSR_Berger-and-Strathearn.pdf

Predivno.

To njih brine.

I ovo ih brine.

http://icsr.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ICSR-ECJM-Report_Online.pdf

Zanimljivo je pročitati stranice 63.-65. ovog izvješća objavljenog 2013. i prisjetiti se slučaja Rotherham obznanjenog 2014.

Svako zlo za neko dobro...

Čak ako i Škotska izglasuje referendum postoji dobre indikacije da će biti predvodnik progresivnih ideja.



Yet there is another perspective, vocal on the streets of Scotland today, where yes to independence campaigners have been in festival mood all day, anticipating a glorious democratic moment when the Scots finally win the right to run their own affairs. Once the English and the Scots were culturally and politically close, but for the last half century they’ve been drifting apart, and the SNP (once a fringe irrelevance) became the governing party in Scotland because voters grew increasingly fed up with London. SNP nationalism is civic, progressive, pro-immigration and welcoming to foreigners (unless they’re Nick Robinson) and, if Scotland becomes independent, there are hopes it could become a beacon for progressive politics - and an inspiration to other parts of the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/sco ... dence-vote

Škoti imaju veliku šansu da sa svojim progresivnim, prouseljničkim stavovima koji dočekuju ljude svih boja i rasa otvorenih ruku i čista srca privuku ove dobre ljude.

Naposljetku sjetimo se, Škotska nije imala sreće da iskusi blagodati kulturnog obogaćenja kao engleski gradovi u ljeto 2011.



















Naravno pravo kulturno obogaćenje dolazi samo ako imaš i mnoštvo ljudi drugih vjera...















Vjerujem da će momci biti tako uviđavni da će promijeniti ovo UK u Scotland.



Uz malo sreće možda im se dogodi i pravi kulturni jackpot, da koji urbani mladić poput ovoga sjekiricom otfikari glavu pokojem škotskom vojniku ured škotske prijestolnice.

Zašto da samo Englezi imaju takvu sreću.



Naravno kad se sve to dogodi (rekao bi daj Bože ali to ne bi bilo jako progresivno) čovjek može samo stati i uživati gledajući kako mu zajednica postaje "more vibrant".



Ili čak pokazati zdravu dozu uzbuđenja i ushita kao ovaj uzorni mladi čovjek (vidi se da je pripadnik nove, naprednije generacije; oni stariji, rasistički orijentirani zatucanci bi vjerojatno sa šokom i nevjericom gledali ovakve scene ni ne znajući jadni kako ih to zapravo obogaćuje...)













I nakon svog tog kulturnog obogaćenja i posljednjeg krika mode, kad ti obojeni ljudi svih boja, rasa, vjera i uvjerenja popale i opljačkaju grad.





Imaš se priliku oduševljeno prihvatiti metle i marljivo čistiti za njima.

Jupiii!

You can't get much more progressive than that.

Osim možda da u tom trenutku kontempliraš kako nisu oni jadni krivi već su nekako žrtve zapadnog imperijalizma, ksenofobije i rasizma bijelog čovjeka (prvenstveno tog povijesnog zlikovca par excellence, bijelog heteroseksualnog muškarca)

I još ti na kraju ostane ta lijepa i utješna misao da si bio "na pravoj strani povijesti".



Kad ćemo i mi konačno postati Europa...

Barack Obama, Outside Agitator


In his U.N. address, President Obama listed a parade of horrors afflicting our world: “Russian aggression in Europe,” “terrorism in Syria and Iraq,” rapes and beheadings by ISIL, al-Qaida, Boko Haram.

And, of course, the Ferguson Police Department.

That’s right. The president could not speak of war, terrorism and genocide without dragging in the incident in a St. Louis suburb where a white cop shot and killed a black teenager:

“In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided.”

What, other than its racial aspect, can explain why Obama is so hung up on Ferguson? At the Congressional Black Caucus dinner Saturday, he was back stoking the embers.

“Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, guilty of walking while black or driving while black — judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.”

Obama is here implying that Michael Brown was profiled, judged “guilty of walking while black,” when shot and killed.

But that is false, and Barack Obama knows it is false.

Brown had just knocked over a convenience store after collaring the clerk and was walking in the middle of the main street in Ferguson, blocking traffic, when officer Darren Wilson confronted him.

Did Wilson shoot Brown in a racist rage? Or did Wilson, face battered and eye socket smashed in a fight with the 290-pound, 6’4″ Brown, empty his gun in self-defense?

We do not know. And neither does Barack Obama.

For weeks, a grand jury in St. Louis County has been hearing testimony, trying to sort it out. But by implying the shooting was done for racial reasons, that Brown may have been “targeted” for “walking while black,” Obama is stoking the fires of racial resentment.

Why is he parroting a party line about America that he knows is more myth than truth? White cops are not the great lurking danger, nor the leading cause of violent death, of black teenagers and men.

That role is fulfilled by other black teenagers and other black men. And the statistics on the ugliest forms of racial violence in America — interracial assaults, rapes, murders — reveal that such crimes are overwhelmingly black-on-white.

Obama said that “young men of color” are too often “judged by stereotypes.” But behind those stereotypes are FBI statistics that show that black males between 16 and 36, two percent of the U.S. population, commit a vastly disproportionate share of all violent crimes.

Where are the stats to sustain Obama’s stereotype of cops?

And what did the Ferguson police do to deserve to be invoked as exemplars of what is wrong with law enforcement in America, while the Ferguson protesters get a presidential pass?

Since Michael Brown was shot in early August, rocks and Molotov cocktails have been thrown at Ferguson cops, stores have been looted and smashed, police have been cursed and threatened, and a mob tried to shut down I-70 at rush hour.

And what are the outrages perpetrated by Ferguson’s cops?

After a riot in Ferguson, the next night St. Louis County cops showed up in riot gear, helmets and body armor, with an MRAP.

Now some Ferguson cops are wearing wristbands reading, “I am Michael Wilson,” to show solidarity with their fellow cop who is in hiding for fear of his life.

This set off Eric Holder’s minions in the civil rights division at Justice, whence one Christy Lopez fired off a letter to the Ferguson police chief saying the bracelets “upset and agitated people.”

So what. If police baiters can raise hell in solidarity with Brown, cannot cops peacefully wear wristbands in solidarity with Wilson?

Last week, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson released a video, apologizing to Brown’s parents for their son’s death, and for not moving the teenager’s body from the street for four hours.

Unartful, perhaps, yet it seemed sincere.

The response: The Ferguson mob cursed the chief and Brown’s father brushed him off saying, “an apology would be when Darren Wilson has handcuffs, [is] processed, and charged with murder.”

Understandably, this is what Michael Brown’s father wants. And this is what the protesters demand. But that is not the way the law works in America, where crowds get the indictments and convictions they demand under a threat of civil disobedience or violence.

Saturday night, a Ferguson cop was shot in an incident unrelated to August. But Chief Jackson and State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson have told the Washington Post their officers have been repeatedly threatened and, since August, have come under gunfire.

If a St. Louis officer is wounded or killed in revenge for Brown, President Obama will deserve a full share of the moral responsibility.

It is time he started acting like a president of all the people, and dropped this role of outside agitator.

http://buchanan.org/blog/barack-obama-o ... tator-6988

Razlog zašto kako kaže Obama "Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement" jest što too many young people of color počine značajno više ubojstava i zločina.

Ako je stopa ubojstva u četvrtima gdje žive ovakvi "nježni divovi"



je 80 puta viša



od one gdje žive ovakvi.

I koga bi policija trebala privoditi ako ne kriminalce i ubojice?

Policija ne privodi crnce zato što su crni nego zato što ubijaju, kradu, siluju značajno više od ostalih.

Obama, kao pravi brat, misli da je očito policija kriva što progoni crnce koji ubijaju, kradu i siluju jer je očito da je njihov zločin to što su crni, a ne što su ubojice, kradljivci i silovatelji.

Problem liberalizma je što uzima u zaštitu ne jadne, potlačene, nevine manjine koje tlači opresivna, zadrta većina već što uzima u zaštitu problematične, agresivne, netolerantne manjine koje maltretiraju većinu i sebe same dok im liberali izmišljavaju izlike za njihovo nedopustivo ponašanja, medijski prikrivaju isto i optužuju većinu da je nekako kriva što pripadnik manjine uzme pištolj u ruke i ubije nekoga.

svijet/rat-u-siriji-t6193.html?start=1700



A mi toleriramo ovakve koji podupiru Islamsku državu da normalno žive kod nas i priželjkuju i zalažu se za dolazak Islamske države i u naše zemlje.

Jesmo li mi normalni?

top komentar

majko mila šta je ovo, jadno dite

Homeless Stepson of Barbra Streisand Seen Rummaging Through the Trash for Food While His Hollywood Family Enjoys a $500 Million Fortune

Oct, 2014
by Cassy Fiano

Liberals tend to be hypocrites by their very nature, but liberal celebrities take hypocrisy to a whole new level. Consider Barbra Streisand, who has a fortune of over $500 million, and whose stepson is homeless and was recently seen digging through the trash to find food.

His Hollywood family is worth nearly $500 million but the troubled homeless stepson of Barbra Streisand whiles away his days sitting on benches and rummaging through public trash cans.

Jess Brolin, son of actor James Brolin and brother to Josh, was recently photographed picking through garbage where he lives in Ojai, California.

After losing his $800 per month apartment in 2011, the 41-year-old now lives on the streets and sleeps in vacant lots not 80 miles from his millionaire showbiz family’s home.

According to the Mirror, Brolin received a 6-figure inheritance in 1995 when his mother, James Brolin’s animal activist ex-wife Jane Cameron Agee, died in a car accident.

He’s since reportedly lived out of a truck before ending up obese and penniless on the Ojai streets.

‘He will sometimes be sleeping in a field behind shops, basically ­wherever he can bed down,’ a source close to Jess told the Mirror. ‘It can be very cold at night as it’s in the valley.’

Barbra Streisand will rail against evil rich Republicans and claims to advocate for social programs — like Obamacare — to help the less fortunate. But when it comes to her own family, she won’t lift a finger or spend a penny of her own fortune to help them. She only wants to help people using other people’s money, apparently.

Goodbye, Columbus


In 1492, “Columbus sailed the ocean blue” and discovered the New World. And Oct. 12 was once a celebrated holiday in America.

School children in the earliest grades knew the date and the names of the ships on which Columbus and his crew had sailed: the Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria. They knew his voyage had been financed by Queen Isabella of Spain, after the Genoese Admiral of the Ocean Sea had been turned down by other monarchs of Europe.

Oct. 12, 1492, was considered a momentous and wonderful day in world history: the discovery of America — by men from Europe.

This year, Columbus Day passed almost without notice. And that Columbus Day has become an embarrassment to many and an issue of savage controversy to some reflects a receding belief in this country in the superiority of our civilization.

Haters of Columbus say he was an imperialist, a colonialist, a genocidal racist, and a slaver who brought dictatorship, disease and death to the native peoples he encountered in the Caribbean.

And, in truth, many explorers and conquerors like Columbus, Cortes, Magellan, Pizarro and the soldiers and sailors they led, engaged in acts we would call atrocities and war crimes.

Yet that is true of every great empire and great civilization. The ancient Greeks had slaves. Were the Romans not brutal conquerors? Ask the Carthaginians. The Spanish, British and French empires all have their own long chronicles of crimes against colonized peoples.

Today we say that the beheadings and crucifixions of ISIS remove them from the company of civilized men. They should be annihilated to the last man, we hear on cable TV.

But the Romans beheaded St. Paul and crucified Christ. Queen Elizabeth beheaded her cousin Queen Mary, even as her mother Anne Boleyn had been beheaded by her father Henry VIII, who also decapitated Sir Thomas More.

The French Revolution Jefferson loved used at its instrument of justice the guillotine, to which Louis XVI and his queen Marie Antoinette were sent. Those heroes of the Revolution, Danton and Robespierre, were guillotined, as was Charlotte Corday, four days after she stabbed to death in a bathtub a third great man of the revolution, Marat.

Great men are rarely good men, and every great empire is guilty of great crimes. But the empires men still study and admire are those that created, built and advanced civilization, that brought mankind to a higher plateau, that left behind magnificent legacies.

And here we approach a deep-seated reason for the hatred of Columbus.

He was a colonialist and an imperialist. He believed in the superiority of his Catholic faith and European tribe. He believed that what we call the West should rule, because its faith, of which God Himself had been the founder, and its culture and civilization, which excelled all others in arms, inventions, literature, governance and the arts, were superior.

Christopher Columbus was a Christian European supremacist.

When he landed in the Caribbean islands and found peoples there with no alphabet, who had not yet invented the wheel, Columbus did not think them equal. The only reason he would believe they had intrinsic worth as fellow children of God would be from the teachings of his faith.

Right up to our own time, Western men believed with Columbus that their Christian faith and their civilization were superior. Today, Columbus is denounced and rejected because he acted in his belief that the indigenous peoples he encountered should be converted and ruled by Europeans. Columbus rejected the idea of equality.

Yet how far from his view were Washington, Jefferson, Madison and James Monroe, slaveholders all. How far from Columbus’ view was Andrew Jackson? Was Jackson’s treatment of African-Americans and the indigenous peoples of Florida so different from that of Columbus?

Gen. Philip Sheridan, to whom Sherman gave command of the West, volunteered, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” His troopers often acted upon that belief.

The Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, the United States all rose to power and greatness, motivated by a belief in the superiority of their race, tribe, religion, culture and country. All believed their innate superiority conferred upon them a right to rule what Kipling called “the lesser breeds without the law.”

How else, these men would ask us, does civilization progress, if not through the imposition by superior men of superior ideas? What great nation, what great empire, what great civilization ever rose on a belief in the equality of all other peoples and all other faiths?

The United States, among the largest countries on earth, from sea to shining sea was carved out of lands seized from native peoples by Spanish, British, French, and Russian conquerors first, then taken by us.

We are the heirs of marauders, pirates, conquerors, colonizers, colonialists, and imperialists. And such knowledge is why so many have guilty consciences and seek to salve them by repudiating Columbus.

As they say in Seattle, Happy Indigenous People’s Day.

http://buchanan.org/blog/goodbye-columbus-7030

Ne znam što točno je sporno, Europa i europski čovjek su uvijek bili superiorni, pogotovu naspram nekih divljaka, koji su još žrtvovali svoj narod nekim božanstvima. Gdje tu može biti jednakost?

Realna slika, iako je riječ o pred-kolumbovskoj Americi, ali puno velike razlike nema.


Baš ti takozvani Indijanci bi trebali Kolumba najviše slaviti. Njegov dolazak zaustavio je žrtvovanje vlastitih ljudi nepostojećim božanstvima, iako je to njima nekako ipak ostalo u krvi čak i danas.

Dobro sad, iako nisu bili na sitoj civilizacijskoj razini kao Europa, recimo nisu poznavali kotač i željezo, mora se priznati da su uspjeli stvoriti nekoliko organiziranih država, da su stvorili velike gradove koji su bili kvalitetno urbanizirani, da su gradili dojmljive građevine kao što su aztečke piramide ili Macchu picchu te da su ovladali naprednijim tehnikama poljoprivrede. Sve je to neusporedivo s Afrikom koja cijela nije uspijela stvoriti jednu civilizaciju, što podrazumijeva pismo, i kojoj je vrhunac arhitekture Veliki Zimbabve u kojem se kopira obalni arapski grad, s time da se grade slični objekti, samo bez svrhe. Recimo neke visoke nakupine kamenja koje podsjecaju na minaret ili sahat kulu.

S druge strane, treba reći da nad Amerindijancima nije napravljen nikakav genocid, puno ih je izginulo od bolesti, no to nije bilo svijesno učinjeno. Uostalom, još imaju dvije države gdje su većina.

Čitaj malo više o rezervatima.

Ma znam, malo sam preoštro reagirao. Definitivno su bili razvijeniji od crnaca, to nije sporno. Asteci, Maje, Inke - svi su imali napredniju kulturu od Afrike (ne računam Egipat u to).

Problem i tema ove teme jest prevladavajuća narativa koja je nenormalna.

In a nutshell.

Od jednog našeg cijenjenog forumaša.

Budući da su to liberalni poletarci zgodno je staviti i ovdje...



Liberalizam je ideologija zapadnog/židovskog samoubojstva.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism



Ultrakonzervativni Židovi imaju budućnost, liberalni Židovi se svojom voljom istrebljuju.

To je liberalizam ukratko.

Liberalizam nema budućnost. Grupa koja prihvati liberalizam nema budućnost.

Židovi kao visokointelektualna i utjecajna zajednica nemaju budućnost. Pretvorit će se u kopiju muslimanskih useljenika u Europi.

Eto do čega to dovodi. Jedna od najinteligentnijih, najsposobnijih, najkreativnijih, najbogatijih grupa, a prihvatili bedastoće poput liberalizma, stvari i ideologije koje i njih same ugrožavaju i na kraju će nestati.

Jer su tako odlučili.

Najbolji dokaz koliko inteligentni ljudi mogu bit blesavi.

Zapravo jedino inteligentni ljudi i mogu bit prvoklasne budale.

Oni zaista glupi nemaju mozga ni talentna za tako nešto.

Islamska država.

Jel ima jedan primjer kršćanskih/zapadnih vojnika da čine nešto tako?

Nema.

Za naše drage prijatelje liberale i ljevičare koji su u stanju lamentirati da eto imamo i u kršćanskim krugovima nešto slično poput islamskih fundamentalista...

Imamo Željku Markić.

Neke ideje su toliko blesave da smo intelektualci/ljevičari mogu u njih vjerovati.