Which are the biggest threat to Europe - the Zionists or the Islamists

OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
26,158
Likes
23,722
Points
313
#13
I disagree Tadhg, I think their influence is preeminent in all our governments' affairs. This is a sort of soft power. They wield power but carry no blame or responsibility. All these influencers like the Council on Foreign relations, Chatham House are in the same circle and they make policy which lgovernments then adopt. There are hundreds if not thousands of connected organisations. I'd place our own Immigrant Council or NASC in the same circle. But the UN is the granddaddy organisation.

If the focus was on these people, I think we would be a lot further ahead in the push-back.

I think Potato Mystic put it very well above. The UN is just a jumble of bureaucrats from all the member states. Those bureaucrats occasionally do get up to something naughty, like suggesting that Israel dropping white phosphorus on women and children might not be the best way to do things - but they will never put sanctions on Israel - for the simple reason that they cannot. The US and England (both owned by the Zionists) will veto any suggestion of sanctions or even serious criticism. In complete contrast, anyone that upsets Wall Street or the City of London will immediately find themselves under sanctions designed to cripple the country - unless they are fortunate enough to have Russian or Chinese backup. And even Russia and China are very reluctant to upset Wall Street or the City of London. Modern Capitalist economies cannot function without access to the global debt market, and the global debt market is monumentally dominated by Wall Street and the City of London. And here you have the real source of Zionist power. Nobody but nobody is in any doubt who rules in Wall Street and the City of London. Arabs may have oil, but all of their Petrodollars go though Wall Street and London banks. It's a complicated process, but they actually need to be able to buy US debt more than the USA needs their oil. If oil buyers just gave them cash, their economies would crash under hyper inflation. Apart from that, believe it or not, Saudi Arabia is becoming cash poor. This year it had to go to the IMF for a loan of $10 billion. The USA is by far the largest stake holder in both the IMF and the World Bank, and, as in the UN, calls the real shots. In fact, both the IMF and the World Bank were specifically designed to ensure US global power - a fact that no less a personage than John Maynard Keynes noted with dismay in 1944 when they were both set up, i.e. to make sure that the USA would be the only winner of WW2.
 

Kershaw

Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
6,942
Likes
10,950
Points
313
#14
I think Potato Mystic put it very well above. The UN is just a jumble of bureaucrats from all the member states. Those bureaucrats occasionally do get up to something naughty, like suggesting that Israel dropping white phosphorus on women and children might not be the best way to do things - but they will never put sanctions on Israel - for the simple reason that they cannot. The US and England (both owned by the Zionists) will veto any suggestion of sanctions or even serious criticism. In complete contrast, anyone that upsets Wall Street or the City of London will immediately find themselves under sanctions designed to cripple the country - unless they are fortunate enough to have Russian or Chinese backup. And even Russia and China are very reluctant to upset Wall Street or the City of London. Modern Capitalist economies cannot function without access to the global debt market, and the global debt market is monumentally dominated by Wall Street and the City of London. And here you have the real source of Zionist power. Nobody but nobody is in any doubt who rules in Wall Street and the City of London. Arabs may have oil, but all of their Petrodollars go though Wall Street and London banks. It's a complicated process, but they actually need to be able to buy US debt more than the USA needs their oil. If oil buyers just gave them cash, their economies would crash under hyper inflation. Apart from that, believe it or not, Saudi Arabia is becoming cash poor. This year it had to go to the IMF for a loan of $10 billion. The USA is by far the largest stake holder in both the IMF and the World Bank, and, as in the UN, calls the real shots. In fact, both the IMF and the World Bank were specifically designed to ensure US global power - a fact that no less a personage than John Maynard Keynes noted with dismay in 1944 when they were both set up, i.e. to make sure that the USA would be the only winner of WW2.
Take for example our family reunification program for so-called refugees. That was set by the UN and we are obliged to honour it.
The UN are the granddaddy organisation behind all the refugee welcome crap. They are constantly pushing it out.
They have all these 'experts' who are really lobbyists who dictate policy to governments.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
26,158
Likes
23,722
Points
313
#15
Take for example our family reunification program for so-called refugees. That was set by the UN and we are obliged to honour it.
The UN are the granddaddy organisation behind all the refugee welcome crap. They are constantly pushing it out.
They have all these 'experts' who are really lobbyists who dictate policy to governments.

Because this suits the Zionist plan to create an negroid mulatto race in Europe to replace the Native Europeans - who cannot be trusted not to turn on our masters and kick them out - as we have done so many times over the centuries.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
26,158
Likes
23,722
Points
313
#17
I sincerely doubt that is the logic.

That's the only logic. There is no other possible logic for wanting to replace the Native Europeans. But, we are nothing special. This has been done to every other race that stood in the way of Jewish capital over the centuries - such as the Native Americans, the Native Australians - and the genocide carried out by the Rothschild funded Cecil Rhodes in Africa.
 

Kershaw

Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
6,942
Likes
10,950
Points
313
#18
That's the only logic. There is no other possible logic for wanting to replace the Native Europeans. But, we are nothing special. This has been done to every other race that stood in the way of Jewish capital over the centuries - such as the Native Americans, the Native Australians - and the genocide carried out by the Rothschild funded Cecil Rhodes in Africa.
I never saw any push to encourage breeding with the natives of those countries.
Nor was it encouraged with us or the Indians.
They were colonised, yes and if they weren't colonised by Europeans, they would have been colonised by the Chinese or Muslims as that was the name of the game back then. It's awful what happened but that is history.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
26,158
Likes
23,722
Points
313
#20
I never saw any push to encourage breeding with the natives of those countries.
Nor was it encouraged with us or the Indians.
They were colonised, yes and if they weren't colonised by Europeans, they would have been colonised by the Chinese or Muslims as that was the name of the game back then. It's awful what happened but that is history.

It was politically acceptable to just exterminate the Native Americans and the Native Australians and replace them with poor and desperate Europeans, who would have very little ability to co-ordinate themselves against their masters - particularly in the USA, where the migrants were a jumble of different languages and religions and often hated each other. In Australia is was mostly English and Irish settlers (or even transported convicts). The sectarian and ethnic hatred between the English and Irish lower classes could usually be expected to keep any chances of revolt to a minimum there too. But its not at all like that in Europe - were we feel we are the natives and that this is our land and our home. The time is also very different. You have to replace the potentially uppedy natives by stealth. And the UN and the NGOs are excellent stealth weapons against us. But they are just weapons - in the hands of much more powerful forces, i.e. Jewish finance capitalism.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
26,158
Likes
23,722
Points
313
#21
They were colonised, yes and if they weren't colonised by Europeans, they would have been colonised by the Chinese or Muslims as that was the name of the game back then. It's awful what happened but that is history.

I don't know of any case where the Muslims just exterminated a whole race and replaced them with foreign settlers. The Chinese either.
 

Kershaw

Premium Account
Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
6,942
Likes
10,950
Points
313
#22
I don't know of any case where the Muslims just exterminated a whole race and replaced them with foreign settlers. The Chinese either.
Turkey, North Africa, Andalusia.
China was not always as big as it is now.
They missed out on the age of exploration because they were busy defending themselves.
They likely would have taken Australia, perhaps some of the Americas were it not for Europeans and the world might be a difference place.
It certainly was not out of benevolence that they did not.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
26,158
Likes
23,722
Points
313
#23
Turkey, North Africa, Andalusia.
China was not always as big as it is now.
They missed out on the age of exploration because they were busy defending themselves.
They likely would have taken Australia, perhaps some of the Americas were it not for Europeans and the world might be a difference place.
It certainly was not out of benevolence that they did not.

No, not correct. Most of the populations of those countries converted to Islam. Not entirely by their own volition in many cases, but there was no genocide. Indeed, there were Christian communities in Anatolia \ Turkey right though the Ottoman Empire. The genocide of the Armenians was actually carried out by very Westernized Turks, such as Ataturk, during WW1. I'm afraid that exterminating whole populations is a particularly Roman idea (well, the Athenians did it too).
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
26,158
Likes
23,722
Points
313
#24
Turkey, North Africa, Andalusia.
China was not always as big as it is now.
They missed out on the age of exploration because they were busy defending themselves.
They likely would have taken Australia, perhaps some of the Americas were it not for Europeans and the world might be a difference place.
It certainly was not out of benevolence that they did not.
As for China, while the state is based on the Han, the other races who lived around the Han still live there in very large numbers. They were not exterminated. There's no point in saying that if they had invaded Australia before the Brits did that they would have exterminated the local population too. That's like a rapist telling the judge that if he hadn't raped her - somebody else would have.
 
Top Bottom