Displaying posts published in

February 2017

The Refugee Rape Gangs of Sweden A European nation becomes a rape capital — due to its immigration policies. Dawn Perlmutter

Sweden is the rape capital of the Western world. The general public is unaware of the epidemic of Swedish rapes because there has been an orchestrated effort by mainstream media and the Swedish government to deliberately mischaracterize offenders and downplay the number of incidents. The significant increase in rapes are the direct result of Sweden’s open door refugee policy and denial of Muslim culture.

Muslim immigrant rapists believe that all non-Muslim and uncovered women can be lawfully taken for sexual use; hence rape and sexual assaults are justified. Appearance, particularly for women, is an important aspect of Sharia Islamic law. Modesty is how women achieve honor and to appear in anything revealing brings shame not only for her but for the entire family. Almost all Muslim governments encourage and even legally obligate women to dress modestly: at a minimum to wear a headscarf, in some countries a veil and in others a full body covering.

Uncovered women are viewed as prostitutes and adulterers and the prevailing attitude is that if an uncovered woman is raped she asked for it. In September 2006 in a Ramadan sermon on adultery, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric blamed immodestly dressed women who don’t wear hijab for being preyed on by men. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes in 2000, committed by a group of fourteen Lebanese Australian men, and suggested the attackers were not entirely to blame. Sheik Hilali said: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.” That is the psychology of Muslim refugees who have been welcomed into Sweden in extraordinary numbers.

Sweden prides itself on its humanitarianism that has accepted more refugees in proportion to size of population than any other nation in the developed world. Unfortunately, this humanitarianism has been at the expense of Swedish women and eventually Swedish culture. This is evident in the increasing mass sexual assaults and rapes committed by migrants at Swedish festivals. In July 2016 at Bravalla, Sweden’s largest music festival, there were nearly 40 assaults, including five rapes. A week earlier at Putte i Parken (Party in the Park), a free festival in Karlstad, there were 32 similar sexual attacks where the youngest victim was just twelve years old. The number of attacks is much higher as many women do not report them and there were multiple victims in most reports.

The Real American Majority Clear majority of Americans support President Trump’s policies against sanctuary cities. Joseph Klein

Americans overwhelmingly approve of President Trump’s efforts to clamp down on so-called sanctuary cities, according to the results of a Harvard–Harris poll. The Hillreported the poll’s finding that “80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.” One of the key measures that President Trump has directed his Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to explore is cutting off some federal funds to cities which continue to defy federal immigration laws. “The American people are no longer going to have to be forced to subsidize this disregard for our laws,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

There are at least 400 sanctuary cities and counties in the United States, which could lose some federal funding as President Trump’s executive order to withhold some federal funding from sanctuary localities is implemented. The nation’s 10 largest cities alone could lose as much as $2.27 billion in annual federal funds if they choose to remain sanctuary cities, according to a Reuters analysis of federal grants.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is running for re-election this year, is among the bullheaded city leaders around the country who are willing to sacrifice the safety and welfare of their own citizens to protect illegal aliens – even some with criminal records. De Blasio threatened to take the Trump administration to court if the Trump administration follows through with funding cuts. And the mayor declared his intention to set aside $250 million a year in a reserve fund for four years because of the “huge amount of uncertainty” created by President Trump’s follow-through on one of his key campaign promises. This is money that should be used to pay for vital municipal services such as hiring more police, which would certainly come in handy if illegal aliens with criminal records continue to be allowed to roam the streets of the city.

Going back to the Harvard-Harris poll, its co-director Mark Penn explained, “The public wants honest immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and that’s very clear from the data.” De Blasio and his cohorts, however, could not care less.

Illegal immigrants make up approximately 3.5 percent of the U.S.’s total population. A significant number of illegal aliens living in the United States have committed crimes while residing here unlawfully in the first place. Even the immigration friendly Migration Policy Institute estimated in a 2015 report that “about 690,000 (6.3 percent) of resident unauthorized immigrants have previously been convicted of a felony or a serious misdemeanor.” The number is probably considerably higher than that, but even 690,000 criminals remaining here illegally is bad enough. According to data compiled from the U.S. Sentencing Commission for fiscal year 2015, illegal immigrants were responsible for 30.2 percent of convictions for kidnapping/hostage taking, 17.8 percent of convictions for drug trafficking, 11.6 percent of convictions for fraud, 10.4 percent of convictions for money laundering, 6.1 percent of convictions for assault, and 5.5 percent of convictions for murder.

Intelligence Community Leaking Saboteurs set on bringing down a president. Matthew Vadum

Saboteurs in the U.S. intelligence community posing as patriots have been working hard to drive President Donald Trump from the White House.

Former National Security Agency intelligence analyst and former War College professor John R. Schindler bragged on Twitter last week about the spy-led plot his friends are conducting against the president.

“Now we go nuclear,” he tweeted. “IC [intelligence community] war [is] going to new levels. Just got an [email from] senior IC friend, it began: ‘He will die in jail.’”

“US intelligence is not the problem here,” Schindler added. “The President’s collusion with Russian intelligence is. Many details, but the essence is simple.”

In a column Feb. 12, Schindler cited wild, unproven, conspiratorial theories about Trump’s ties to Russia to justify his comrades’ seditious push to remove Trump from power.

[T]he still-forming Trump administration is already doing serious harm to America’s longstanding global intelligence partnerships. In particular, fears that the White House is too friendly to Moscow are causing close allies to curtail some of their espionage relationships with Washington—a development with grave implications for international security, particularly in the all-important realm of counterterrorism.

People like Schindler think they know what’s best for America in terms of national security and foreign policy. Allowing an outsider like Donald Trump to do the job Americans elected him to do is unthinkable to them. So Trump must go.

People of Schindler’s ilk are using government resources in an effort to overthrow the nation’s duly elected government. While smiling on TV and assuring the public his administration was fully cooperating with the Trump transition team, President Obama gave members of the intelligence community permission to wage war against then-incoming President Trump.

Before leaving office President Obama cleared the way for his confederates in the intel world to ramp up their use of dirty tricks to kick the legs out from under the incoming Trump administration by changing intelligence-sharing rules. The goal is to prevent Trump from rolling back Obama’s poisonous legacy.

The most famous victim so far of what could be called Obama’s shadow government is National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, an anti-Islamofascist hardliner who was forced out of his post Feb. 13 by what appears to be a deep state cabal centered around the sleazy former Obama advisor Ben Rhodes. As Flynn’s replacement, Trump has appointed “warrior-scholar” U.S. Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.

Rhodes and other former Obama administration officials were part of an intrigue that led to the downfall of Flynn, investigative journalist Adam Kredo reported at the Washington Free Beacon.

Flynn’s resignation was “the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.”

Kredo isn’t the only one crying foul.

Neil Gorsuch and the Structural Constitution He well grasps the importance of limiting government to protect rights. By Ilya Shapiro & Frank Garrison

The Framers designed a system whereby the primary method of protecting individual rights lay in dividing the power of government both vertically and horizontally (federalism and the separation of powers, respectively). This innovation, applying a blend of ancient and Enlightenment-era political philosophy, would prevent anybody in the ruling class from gaining too much power over the people.

But our constitutional jurisprudence has not always reinforced this structure. Indeed, over the past century we have seen more and more power transferred from the states to the federal government — and from the judicial and legislative branches to the executive. The main protection for freedom became what the Founders originally considered a redundant afterthought, the Bill of Rights (which, as the late Justice Scalia liked to say, most tin-pot banana republics have). With the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, however, there is renewed hope for a renaissance in enforcing the Constitution’s structure as the means for securing and protecting ordered liberty.

Like Justice Scalia — whose seat Gorsuch is tapped to fill — the nominee applies the Constitution’s original meaning to these structural provisions, and he recognizes the importance of limiting government to protecting rights. But Gorsuch has been more willing than Scalia was to take them seriously and not just defer to executive agencies, because he recognizes the damage that the modern administrative state has wrought on individual liberty.

In United States v. Nichols (2015), Gorsuch confronted the delegation of the legislative power to the executive branch. And so he considered the “non-delegation doctrine,” which comes directly from Article I of the Constitution: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” That seems pretty clear, but the Supreme Court, in nodding toward the practicalities of modern government, has allowed congressional delegation of the lawmaking power if there is an “intelligible principle” for the executive to follow. In practice, Congress gives very few principles, much less intelligible ones; instead, it passes vague statutes with little guidance for how to implement them. This gives the executive free rein to promulgate rules that have the binding force of law.

In his Nichols dissent, Gorsuch invoked the Framers to explain the importance of keeping legislative power in Congress:

The framers of the Constitution thought the compartmentalization of legislative power not just a tool of good government or necessary to protect the authority of Congress from the encroachment by the Executive but essential to the preservation of the people’s liberty. . . . By separating the lawmaking and law enforcement functions, the framers sought to thwart the ability of an individual or group to exercise arbitrary or absolute power.

Gorsuch’s opinions have also questioned the constitutional implications of granting deference to administrative agencies through judge-made doctrines. These doctrines — emanating from the cases in which they were derived, such as Auer, Chevron, and Brand X — require courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes and regulations. Chevron and Auer deference allow agency “experts” to fill gaps in these ambiguities to craft policy — essentially letting the executive write legislation. Brand X, for its part, requires courts to defer to post-hoc executive interpretations of statutes even after a federal court has already construed the statutes’ meaning — conferring on the executive the judicial power to have the final say on “what the law is” (to quote Chief Justice John Marshall in the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison). Gorsuch wrote a much-heralded opinion (and separate concurrence!) in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch (2016) analyzing whether these doctrines violate the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Will Trump Stand Up to the World on Climate-Change Policy? Trump will soon have a chance to show our allies in Western Europe the error of their emissions-cutting ways. By Rupert Darwall

German chancellor Angela Merkel is preparing to spring an ambush on President Trump at this year’s G-20 summit in July. And Trump’s response will determine whether his presidency plays out like George W. Bush’s second term or puts America’s energy exceptionalism at the service of reviving American greatness.

Less than two months into his presidency, Bush shocked the world when he announced he was keeping his word: The U.S. would not be implementing the Kyoto Protocol signed by his predecessor. Referring to “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide,” Bush declared that he could not sign an agreement that would “harm our economy and hurt our workers.” Instead, America would work with its allies and through international processes to “develop technologies, market-based incentives, and other innovative approaches.”

It was a breath of fresh air in a fug of tired thinking on emissions cuts. But then, a strange thing happened. One by one, innovative approaches were discarded and the Bush administration found itself sucked back into U.N. climate-change negotiations.

At the 2005 Gleneagles G-8, summit host Tony Blair cornered Bush. “All of us agreed that climate change is happening now, that human activity is contributing to it, and that it could affect every part of the globe,” Blair stated in his chairman’s summary. “We know that, globally, emissions must slow, peak and then decline, moving us towards a low-carbon economy.” This position was reflected in the summit communiqué, putting Bush on the hook for economically damaging policies that he would never escape. His climate-change strategy paved the way for Barack Obama’s.

In domestic energy policy too, the final two years of the Bush presidency turned out to be a prelude to President Obama’s eight. They saw the nonsensical call to break America’s addiction to oil. There was the goal of reducing gasoline usage by 20 percent and the alternative-fuel mandates and the aggressive fuel-economy standards embodied in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a monument to the folly of bipartisan energy policy.

The Labyrinth of Illegal Immigration Navigating self-interest, ideals, and public opinion in the debate about illegal immigration By Victor Davis Hanson —

Activists portray illegal immigration solely as a human story of the desperately poor from south of the border fleeing misery to start new, productive lives in the U.S. — despite exploitation and America’s nativist immigration laws.

But the truth is always more complex — and can reveal self-interested as well as idealistic parties.

Employers have long sought to undercut the wages of the American underclass by preference for cheaper imported labor. The upper-middle classes have developed aristocratic ideas of hiring inexpensive “help” to relieve them of domestic chores.

The Mexican government keeps taxes low on its elite in part by exporting, rather than helping, its own poor. It causes little worry that some $25 billion in remittances sent from Mexican citizens working in America puts hardship on those expatriates, who are often subsidized by generous U.S. social services.

Mexico City rarely welcomes a heartfelt discussion about why its citizens flee Mexican exploitation and apparently have no wish to return home. Nor does Mexico City publicize its own stern approaches to immigration enforcement along its southern border — or its ethnocentric approach to all immigration (not wanting to impair “the equilibrium of national demographics”) that is institutionalized in Mexico’s constitution.

The Democratic party is also invested in illegal immigration, worried that its current agendas cannot win in the Electoral College without new constituents who appreciate liberal support for open borders and generous social services.

In contrast, classically liberal, meritocratic, and ethnically diverse immigration might result in a disparate, politically unpredictable set of immigrants.

La Raza groups take it for granted that influxes of undocumented immigrants fuel the numbers of unassimilated supporters. Measured and lawful immigration, along with rapid assimilation, melt away ethnic-based constituencies.

Immigration activists often fault the U.S. as historically racist and colonialist while insisting that millions of foreigners have an innate right to enter illegally and reside in such a supposedly dreadful place.

Undocumented immigrants themselves are not unaware that their own illegal entry, in self-interested fashion, crowds out legal immigrants who often wait years to enter the U.S.

Trump and the Media’s Stockholm Syndrome By Daniel John Sobieski

The usual media suspects were aghast at President Trump’s mention in his Florida rally speech regarding unrestricted acceptance of refugees:

During a rally Saturday in Florida, Trump referred to several countries that have taken in a disproportionate number of refugees and that have recently been the target of attacks. “We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany. You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?” Trump went on to refer to Paris, Nice, France, and Brussels, European cities where attacks have occurred in the past two years.

Except for the fact that there was not much going on that particular night in Sweden, President Trump, who was conflating the steady descent of Sweden into a caliphate with a Tucker Carlson report on Fox News was exactly right. Europe is rapidly becoming Eurabia due to unrestricted immigration. Yet the media obsessed about the “last night” part, quoted allegedly “confused” Swedish officials, officials who have much to hide about their reckless policies, ignoring Sweden’s decline into radical Islamic terrorist hell. As reported on Fox Nation:

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz defended his investigation of refugees in Sweden Monday night amid a backlash after President Donald Trump cited his work during a campaign speech over the weekend.

“Between 2012 and 2016 the murder rate [in Sweden] is up almost 70 percent,” Horowitz told “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” citing the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. “Rape between 2007 and 2015 is up a similar number, almost 70 percent. These are their statistics, not my statistics.”

At the Florida event Saturday, Trump said Sweden “took in large numbers” of refugees and was “having problems like they never thought possible.” Trump later specified on Twitter that he was referring to Carlson’s original segment with Horowitz, which aired Friday night.

Trump’s remarks, which implied that a terror attack had hit Sweden Friday night, was roundly criticized by Swedish officials and mainstream media outlets.

No, this rise in Swedish rapes and murders didn’t just happen last night, but Trump is right that it is happening and that it is tied to the rapid and unrestricted influx of refugees from Muslim countries racked by chaos and terror. As Jihad Watch reports, Sweden reflects the consequences of the Islamization of Europe:

Statistics concerning ethnicity and religion when it comes to criminals are not to be found in the world’s most politically correct country with probably the fastest-growing share of Muslims: Sweden. The risk of being raped in Sweden during one’s lifetime is one out of four, which is probably equal to the risk of being raped in any other country under Muslim attack. When it comes to rapes, Islamized Sweden is already in a state of war. If we want to have a hint about who is committing these tens of thousands of rapes and other types of sexual assaults yearly, we can turn to another Scandinavian country, Sweden’s neighbor Norway, the country most similar to Sweden. Here 100 percent of all rapes in the last five years in Oslo were committed by immigrants from “non-Western” countries. In Stavanger, a major Norwegian city, 90 percent of rapes are committed by “immigrants.” Sweden has 75,000 crimes yearly, in a population of only 9.5 million.

Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe, thanks largely to an influx of Islamic refugees not content to wait for a chance at being rewarded for jihad with 72 virgins:

Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa….

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in France: January 2017 by Soeren Kern

“I am not ashamed of what I am. I am a Muslim, that is to say, submissive to Allah who created me and who by his grace has harmoniously shaped me.” — Salah Abdeslam, a Belgium-born French national of Moroccan descent and the main suspect in the November 13, 2015 attacks that killed 130 people in Paris.

The Grand Mosque of Paris announced that it was withdrawing from the Foundation for Islam of France, a new, government-sponsored foundation charged with “contributing to the emergence of an Islam of France that is fully anchored in the French Republic.” In a statement, the mosque, which represents 250 of the 2,500 of the mosques and Muslim associations in France, said that it denounced “any form of interference in the management of Muslim worship.”

“An Algerian sociologist, Smaïn Laacher, with great courage, just said in a documentary aired on Channel 3: ‘It is a shame to deny this taboo, namely that in the Arab families in France, and everyone knows it but nobody wants to say it, anti-Semitism is sucked with mother’s milk.'” —Georges Bensoussan, a highly regarded Jewish historian of Moroccan descent, who is being prosecuted for talking about anti-Semitism among French Arabs.

“When parents shout at their children, when they want to reprimand them, they call them Jews. Yes. All Arab families know this. It is monumental hypocrisy not to see that this anti-Semitism begins as a domestic one.” — Smaïn Laacher, a French-Algerian sociologist, in a documentary called, “Teachers in the Lost Territories of the Republic.”

“Islamophobia is a weapon of intimidation and an invention to forbid debate.” — Pascal Bruckner.

Three months after French authorities demolished the “Jungle” migrant camp, migrants are returning to Calais at the rate of around 30 a day. Most of them are unaccompanied minors hoping to smuggle their way across the English Channel to Britain.

January 1. The Interior Ministry announced the most anticipated statistic of the year: a total of 945 cars and trucks were torched across France on New Year’s Eve, a 17.5% increase from the 804 vehicles burned during the annual ritual on the same holiday in 2015. Car burnings, commonplace in France, are often attributed to rival Muslim gangs that compete with each other for the media spotlight over which can cause the most destruction. An estimated 40,000 cars are torched in France every year.

A van burns during a recent riot in a Paris suburb. Car burnings, commonplace in France, are often attributed to rival Muslim gangs that compete with each other for the media spotlight. An estimated 40,000 cars are torched in France every year. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

January 2. Approximately 3.7 million crimes were reported in France in 2016, a 4% increase over 2015, according to Le Figaro. Seine-Saint-Denis, a Paris suburb which has one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in France, ranks as the most dangerous part of the country, with 18.2 attacks per 1,000 inhabitants. It is followed by Paris, with 15.7 attacks per 1,000 inhabitants and Bouches-du-Rhône with 11.5 attacks per 1,000 inhabitants.

January 2. The Criminal Court of Paris sentenced Nicolas Moreau, a 32-year-old French jihadist, to ten years in prison for fighting for the Islamic State. He is the brother of Flavien Moreau, the first French jihadist to be sentenced for such an offense upon his return from Syria in November 2014. Born in South Korea, adopted by a French family at the age of 4, Nicolas became a delinquent after the divorce of his adoptive parents. He converted to Islam in prison, where he spent five years. Nicolas said he fled the Islamic State after 17 months due to its “excesses.”

January 3. Jean-Christophe Lagarde, the president of the Union of Democrats and Independents, a center-right political party, attributed the closure of a PSA Peugeot-Citroën automobile factory to an excess of religious demands by Muslim employees. “There have been difficulties even in my department, for example in Aulnay-sous-Bois. It has never been said, but part of the reason for the closure of PSA was due to the omnipresence of religion and the fact that there were religious demands at work, work stoppages, decreased productivity. PSA’s decision to close Aulnay was influenced by this aspect.”

January 3. The Administrative Court of Poitiers dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Coalition against Racism and Islamophobia (CRI), which tried to ban a 14-page document aimed at preventing radicalization in schools. The document called on teachers to monitor several criteria, including “uncut long beards,” “shaved hair,” “Muslim clothing,” “refusal of tattoos,” and “weight loss associated with frequent fasting.” The document also referred to behavior such as “identity withdrawal,” “selective exposure to the media,” and “political rhetoric” concerning Palestine, Chechnya and Iraq. The document urged teachers to monitor closely students interested in the “history of early Islam.” The court emphasized the strictly internal nature of the document, which was deemed to be “devoid of any legal effect” because it contains “no mandatory provisions.”

January 4. Of the 230 French jihadists who have been killed in Iraq and Syria, seven were killed by American drones, according to Le Monde. “The French targets had a twofold status: they were military objectives, the elimination of which is theoretically governed by the law of war, and they were also targets of judicial proceedings in France. In the name of the ‘self-defense,’ which the coalition states claim, military logic prevailed over the right to legal defense,” the paper complained.

Corrupt State of Affairs at the International Federation of Journalists? by Tamar Sternthal

Participation by journalists in political events, especially those which they are covering, is a serious violation of Agence France-Presse’s commitment to “rigorous neutrality” and its pledge that it “is independent of the French government and all other economic or political interests.”

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) press release is based on a falsehood: that AFP, relying on “misinformation from Israeli extremist websites,” unfairly sanctioned its reporter Nasser Abu Baker, and includes a call to action to hundreds of thousands of journalists. It is evident that there is no truth behind the International Federation of Journalists’ lofty “respect for truth.”

Nor is there any justice at the IFJ, which pretends to fight for freedom of press and against discrimination, but which provides cover and comfort to Abu Baker, and which, based on that falsehood, actively discriminates against Israeli journalists, denies them their freedom of press, and endangers their lives in the West Bank by sending the message to Palestinian officials and journalists that the Israeli reporters are not welcome there.

That Abu Bakr was a delegate to the Fatah Congress and also ran in the elections was first covered in the Palestinian media. There is nothing inaccurate about that.

The IFJ covered up the fact that its own executive committee member ran for political office, and attacked AFP for supposedly persecuting him with no basis.

It is evident that there is no truth behind the International Federation of Journalists’ lofty “respect for truth.”

“The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins,” declares the Declaration of Principles of the International Federation of Journalists, the world’s largest organization of journalists that represents 600,000 journalists in 140 countries.

One might imagine, then, that this organization that defends press freedom, truth and equality, would vigorously counter a boycott by the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate of Israeli journalists, especially in a discriminatory campaign that endangers Israelis covering the West Bank by sending the message to Palestinian officials and journalists that the Israeli reporters are not welcome there.

That presumably should be the position of an organization which says it “promotes international action to defend press freedom and social justice,” but it is not. Far from condemning the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate’s boycott targeting Israelis, the International Federation of Journalists has come to the defense of Nasser Abu Baker, chairman of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate and the key prosecutor of the discriminatory campaign against Israelis. In fact, Abu Baker, who has threatened Palestinian officials who dare to speak with Israeli journalists, sits on the International Federation of Journalists’ executive committee.

Malmo, Sweden – A Bellwether for Europe’s Unraveling

In 1971, I was a student at the University of Copenhagen, On weekends, I would frequently join friends to take the boat across the Oresund Strait to Malmo, Sweden. At the time, Malmo, was a safe, pleasant, bustling gateway to Sweden. Of course, Sweden’s liberal social welfare and immigration policies have changed all that.

A British friend, a lawyer and musician, who owned 330 shops in 24 countries and has since immigrated to Tel Aviv, has this to say:

Malmo, Sweden

It must be over 20 years ago that my company had a shop in Malmo. It had been a profitable business but the figures
went down. Without going there I asked our regional manager why the sales were down. She told me “the wrong kind of immigrants
had moved into Malmo.” Without ado I sold the shop since we had had an offer and thought no more about it.

The same thing happened in Holland in The Hague and Rotterdam and in France, in Paris and Marseille.

Then came 9/11 after which I launched my own enquiry, (with an open mind) into what I soon learned Churchill had labelled “the religion of blood and war” and “this form of madness” and much, much more.

Now the media, which is indeed the enemy of the people, not only in America but worldwide, together with the dhimmi, crazed elite-globalist-no borders-no nations-politicians, are trying to convince people that reality is not real.

Well, I can confirm from my own experience that what happened to my enterprise in Malmo, Sweden happened, actually happened, and that was 20 years ago. It was as though locusts had come and devoured the crops.

– R