Thursday, July 03, 2008

Inbördeskrig

Too Late Lads, Prolly

Hi Rodger....Well this was an interesting and distressing article.I don't think there is a question of whether or not civil wars will break out in Europe, just WHEN.This question as I see it, is whether or not, by the time it comes, the native Europeans can win.................................

Best Regards        James


Whoa.  James  Mac linked me to The Gates of Vienna blog, which has a report from the Swedish Fjordman Files.  This says so much in so few words.
My personal opinion is that Sweden is not the most likely candidate for the first civil war, simply because people need to fight back to create a civil war. It takes two to tango. The same for France, which is demographically speaking the worst country, and where a kind of war is waged by immigrants in the streets right now, but where nobody fights back. The Germans won’t go first, either; they are too tied down by their history.
For you in Rio Linda, or Montgomery County, MD, "immigrants" may be freely translated to "Islamo crazies." The more I read about stuff like this, the closer I get to raising money for the "Bush on Mount Rushmore" fund. I wonder what sort of response the same question would elicit here?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

And from the comments thread of that post:

"Oklahoma recently issued Cease and Desist ORDERS to DC to butt out of their internal affairs and have since refused to send DC any more money."

I had to Google it, it is true. Cited the 10th. And over at No Pasaran I read:

"Three Romany were lynched and their vehicles burned by a hundred people Saturday evening at Bricarde, a housing project in the 15th arrondissement of Marseille"

A girl has disappeared and other ethnic groups spread roumors of Romany organ trafficing.

Tensions are rising. I've got to get a user name other than annonymous because I post a lot.

Anonymous said...

Oh, the part about Oklahoma refusing to send money I did not confirm, the cease and desist order I did. And I didn't mean post a lot, I ment comment a lot. Sorry.

AnnoyedOne said...

My bet is also on the UK. While the govt. there is bending over a log to mooselimbs I suspect the populace is becoming progressively more irate. I predict that the first clashes will occur in Scotland and/or Yorkshire and will move rapidly south. On the other hand perhaps its just wishful thinking...

Baron Bodissey said...

Thanks for the link.

Note that Fjordman is Norwegian, not Swedish, even though he writes frequently about Sweden.

Anonymous said...

Rodger, Mt. Rushmore?! I'm going to have to wait for the verdict of history about GW Bush before considering him for Mt. Rushmore. Granting his conduct of the war, I think he has been a near-disaster for the Republican Party -- lackadaisical or zero verbal defense of his policies, spending, illegal aliens, prescription drug benefits... you know the list.

We might miss him once he's gone, but it will only be in comparison to what we have after January 2009.
Morenuancedthanyou

Anonymous said...

I won't miss W. Just because we have a new whipping boy doesn't mean we have to like him.

IMO the only thing W did right was his supreme court appointments. And that was a near-disaster. Remember his first pick? Ugh.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

I vehemently disagree. His terrorist policy, in the face of close to treasonous behavior by the left has been stalwart. As for some tactical missteps, God help us if our conduct of WWII had suffered the same day-by-day review by mostly nincompoops and bathroom athletes. Iran is isolated between Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran was always the enemy, the strategy brilliant.

For the most part Bush has been the only leader this nation has had for eight years. While he was puissant in this regard, everyone else has been pissant. Here, read this from yesterday's WSJ - Why we went to war in Iraq.

Judges - 2 for 2

Domestic policy. Retch. But, unless I am elevated to power, and I will not be, we will never have the stern, patriarchal leadership required in these times. That's where we're at, and Berkeley and San Francisco can thank God for it.

Anonymous said...

I Read the article...Agree one hundred percent.......Back before the war and during it I said things that the dark Iraqi days, almost caused me to rue.Fortunately I don't have to regret any thing I said then and Bush is being proven correct.We would have been at war with a nuclear armed Saddem by now and he would have been supported by vast numbers of 'volunteers'and allies in AlQuada and the Taliban and others.In that scenario I can also see having to contend with a fallen, nuclear armed Pakistan. All in all a nightmare and an armageddon.....No. Bush did the right thing, and the world IS a safer place....No regrets here..and I don't have to choke on my own works.

Anonymous said...

Correction....I should have said I read, "Why we went to war in Iraq".........."choke on my own works"..Meant 'words'...Haha :-).....Works sounds important though, huh?.. :-)

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.