Plantan un pesebre de verdad en la cena de Colau

Els catalans celebrem el Nadal malgrat els polítics.

Unes noies, hartas de que los poderosos expulsen a los católicos de la vida civil, de que menosprecien la vida espiritual que hizo progresar a nuestra dolça i estimada Catalunya, de que se mofen de lo divino y lo humano, y hasta el gorro que los politiquetes se gasten nuestro dinero en chuminadas como el belén invisible de la Colau, decidieron mejorar el Nacimiento público.

Y en las sillas vacías aparecieron el Niño Jesús, la Virgen y San José, y en la pantagruélica mesa se recordó que allí no se celebra la mariscada de ningún político, sino el nacimiento de Dios.

Que cunda el ejemplo. Bon Nadal, dolços!

Dolça i nadalenca Catalunya…



Categories: Alma

Tags: , , , , ,

32 comentarios

  1. La mesa y las sillas son un insulto de unos cuantos políticos ateos amargados contra la mayoría de los barceloneses, que son católicos.

    la mesa es el equivalente de alguien (¿el Niño?) y las sillas de otros personajes (San José, la Virgen María, la mula y el buey)… etc

    La “filósofa” Colau, de profesión no-saber-hacer-la-O-con-un-canuto
    y sus amigos han dicho:

    ¿Quieres belén?

    ¡Por mis narices!

    Una mesa y unas sillas; ¡a ver si os cansais!

    Si hemos renunciado en la Constitución a tener religión oficial (católica) no es para que está canalla parasitaria nos imponga la suya.

    Al final, la tolerancia es para que los intolerantes de siempre sean intolerantes con la mayoría.

    Ni esto es democracia, ni hemos votado la Constitución para que esto.

    ¡Ni esta inútil es alcaldesa para DESTRUIR BARCELONA!

  2. Que cosa más fea ha puesto la Colau, madre mía.

    A los Reyes Magos de MADRID les pusieron por capas cortinas de baño 🙄

    ¿Pero quien les asesora?

    • Se asesoran ellos mismos.
      Es estrategia pura y dura de Ingeniería Social… Se burlan de lo “divino” de la cultura de “la gente” para meter en nuestras mentes que no se respete nada…
      Cuando no se respeta nada se pierde la esperanza… como da todo igual puede pasar de todo… Y todo se encuentra normal…
      Son masones activos, pasivos o tontos útiles…
      Los ingleses – creo- inventaron la masonería para hacerse dueños del mundo…
      También es guerra de religiones. Todos contra el católicismo. Hasta dentro existen curas desorientados…
      Y los propios católicos de misa diaria no digamos.
      A veces habla uno con ellos y dicen unas cosas al más puro estilo de Ingeniería Social. Siguen los cánones de la moda….
      Yo no soy católica pero Si creyente… Y me escandaliza.
      Mi padre y su familia materna eran católicos practicantes con formación para serlo no eran meapilas cumplían las normas católicas con coherencia y sentido cristianó a mis hermanos y a mi nos dio una formación sólida del porqué de las cosas algunas las he olvidado otras están grabadas en mi alma… Esos no son católicos son mequetrefes… Y siento tener q decirlo. No tienen base.

  3. Pues para contrarrestar el ridiculo de la Colau, en el mercado de Horta “hemos” colocado el “Belén más acorde con el Evangelio que recuerde…os invito a visitarlo…os gustará.
    ¡Feliz Navidad a todos!

  4. En muchos ambientes la palabra podemita ha pasado a ser un insulto, algo parecido a hipocrita desvergonzado.

    • Yo diría de cínicos y manipuladores muy peligrosos:

      Una camarilla de lideres radicales (parece ser que comunistas leninistas) que intentan captar el voto de las clases medias…

      …que dominan profesionalmente técnicas de marketing
      político…

      y que saben crear un movimiento de masas en su beneficio.

      El colmo de la desfachatez es revivir los soviets, con el nombre de “circulos”, a ver si picamos; y con las mismas intenciones criminales.

      Después de haber ayudado a Chávez y a Maduro a apoderarse de Venezuela y arruinar la con sus políticas que no funcionaba nan, esperan arruinar también España.

      Este tipo de votos, si bien fomentados con la palabrería vacía revolucionaria del PSOE, nunca pueden ser más que los de IU-PCE y poco más.

      ¿Cómo piensan crear trabajo, problema número 1 de España?

      Resp: No saben\No contestan.

      -de hecho, su oráculo manual, los escritores de Lenin, no dice absolutamente nada de eso-

      (ni les interesa, que eso crea burgueses acomodados que votan PP)

      ¿A quién apoyan; a la mayoría de los catalanes, que son leales a España? ¿O a la minoría, que la quieren romper?

      Con esto ya está dicho todo.

  5. Recuerden siempre lo que decía el comunista Gramsci:

    La religión católica y la familia son la columna vertebral que sostienen la sociedad; y que por lo tanto impiden la dictadura del proletariado.

    Para imponer el la dictadura comunista a los incautos y forzarles a vivir el paraíso siberiano en la tierra, hay que destruir la religión y la familia.

    De eso se ocuparon los marxistas culturales sionistas de la Escuela de Frankfurt en los años 40 y 50..

    Y eso justamente es lo que nos imponen nuestros Judas de políticos hoy día en Europa y EEUU.

    De modo que, si estás escarmentado en cabeza ajena por el resultado de la solución final de 70 años de comunismo de horror y miseria,…no les sigas el juego y diles NO.

    La familia y la religión se quedan, aunque a veces den dolores de cabeza.

    Es puro instinto de supervivencia.
    (en el sentido más literal de la palabra)

    Y empezamos con el belén:

    ¡El belén, se queda!

    • http://heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html

      n The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th century intellectual movements – largely established and led by Jews – have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people generally thought to be more sinned against than sinning.

      The Culture of Critique is the final title in Prof. MacDonald’s massive, three-volume study of Jews and their role in history. The two previous volumes are A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and its Discontents, published by Praeger in 1994 and 1998. The series is written from a sociobiological perspective that views Judaism as a unique survival strategy that helps Jews compete with other ethnic groups. Prof. MacDonald, who is a psychologist at the University of California at Long Beach, explains this perspective in the first volume, which describes Jews as having a very powerful sense of uniqueness that has kept them socially and genetically separate from other peoples. The second volume traces the history of Jewish-gentile relations, and finds the causes of anti-Semitism primarily in the almost invariable commercial and intellectual dominance of gentile societies by Jews and in their refusal to assimilate. The Culture of Critique brings his analysis into the present century, with an account of the Jewish role in the radical critique of traditional culture.

      The intellectual movements Prof. MacDonald discusses in this volume are Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt school of sociology, and Boasian anthropology. Perhaps most relevant from a racial perspective, he also traces the role of Jews in promoting multi-culturalism and Third World immigration. Throughout his analysis Prof. MacDonald reiterates his view that Jews have promoted these movements as Jews and in the interests of Jews, though they have often tried to give the impression that they had no distinctive interests of their own. Therefore Prof. MacDonald’s most profound charge against Jews is not ethnocentrism but dishonesty – that while claiming to be working for the good of mankind they have often worked for their own good and to the detriment of others. While attempting to promote the brotherhood of man by dissolving the ethnic identification of gentiles, Jews have maintained precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others.

      • Celebrating Diversity
        Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity – but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, and with regard to the state of Israel, they have often supported the very institutions they attack in gentile society.

        Why is this in the interests of Jews? Because the parochial group loyalty characteristic of Jews attracts far less attention in a society that does not have a cohesive racial and cultural core. The Jewish determination not to assimilate fully, which accounts for their survival as a people for thousands for years – even without a country – has invariably attracted unpleasant and even murderous scrutiny in nations with well -defined national identities. In Prof. MacDonald’s view it is therefore in the interest of Jews to dilute and weaken the identity of any people among whom they live. Jewish identity can flower in safety only when gentile identity is weak.

        Prof. MacDonald quotes a remarkable passage from Charles Silberman: “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief – one firmly rooted in history – that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”

        He is saying, in effect, that when Jews make the diversity-is-our-strength argument it is in support of their real goal of diluting a society’s homogeneity so that Jews will feel safe. They are couching a Jewish agenda in terms they think gentiles will accept. Likewise, as the second part of the Silberman quotation suggests, Jews may support deviant movements, not because they think it is good for the country but because it is good for the Jews.

        Prof. Silberman also provides an illuminating quote from a Jewish economist who thought that republicans had more sensible economic policies but who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate anyway. His reason? “I’d rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than those I saw at the Republican convention.” This man apparently distrusts white gentiles and voted for a racially mixed party even if its economic policies were wrong. What is good for Jews appears to come before what is good for the country.

        Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next century whites will become a minority, he writes, “We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.” He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct community even as gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.

        In the same passage, Prof. Raab continues by noting that, “We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible…” – just as it tends to make the ultimate displacement of European culture also irreversible.

        Prof. MacDonald traces the development of this diversity strategy to several sources. It is widely recognized that the German-Jewish immigrant Franz Boas (1858-1942) almost single-handedly established the current contours of anthropology, ridding it of all biological explanations for differences in human culture or behavior. Prof. MacDonald reports that he and his followers – with the notable exceptions of Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict – were all Jews with strong Jewish identities: “Jewish identification and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the ‘invisible subject’ of American anthropology.”

        By 1915, Boas and his students controlled the American Anthropological Association and by 1926 they headed every major American university anthropology department. From this position of dominance they promoted the idea that race and biology are trivial matters, and that environment counts for everything. They completely recast anthropology so as to provide intellectual support for open immigration, integration, and miscegenation. They also laid the foundation for the idea that because all races have the same potential, the failures of non-whites must be blamed exclusively on white oppression. The ultimate conclusion of Boasian anthropology was that since environment accounts for all human differences, every inequality in achievement can be eliminated by changing the environment. This has been the justification for enormous and wasteful government intervention programs.

        The entire “civil rights” movement can be seen as a natural consequence of the triumph of Boasian thinking. Since all races were equivalent, separation was immoral. The color line also sharpened white self-consciousness in ways that might make whites more aware of Jewish parochialism. Thus it was, according to Prof. MacDonald, that Jews almost single-handedly launched the desegregation movement. Without the leadership of Jews, the NAACP might never have been established, and until 1975 every one of its presidents was a Jew. Prof. MacDonald reports that in 1917, when the black separatist Marcus Garvey visited NAACP headquarters, he saw so many white faces that he stormed out, complaining that it was a white organization.

        Prof. MacDonald concludes that the efforts of Jews were crucial to the “civil rights” transformation of America. He quotes a lawyer for the American Jewish Congress who claims that “many of these [civil rights] laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into being by Jewish voters.”

        While the Boas school was promoting integration and racial equivalence, it was also critical of, in Prof. MacDonald’s words, “American culture as overly homogeneous, hypocritical, emotionally and aesthetically repressive (especially with regard to sexuality). Central to this program was creating ethnographies of idyllic [Third-World] cultures that were free of the negatively perceived traits that were attributed to Western culture.”

        The role of the anthropologist became one of criticizing everything about Western society while glorifying everything primitive. Prof. MacDonald notes that Boasian portrayals of non-Western peoples deliberately ignored barbarism and cruelty or simply attributed it to contamination from the West. He sees this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the confidence of Western societies and to make them permeable to Third World influences and people. Today, this view is enshrined in the dogma that America must remain open to immigration because immigrants bring spirit and energy that natives somehow lack.

    • http://heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html

      Jews and the Left
      It is well known that Jews have been traditionally associated with the left, and Prof. MacDonald investigates this connection in some detail. Historically it was understandable that Jews should support movements that advocated overthrowing the existing order. After emancipation, Jews met resistance from gentile elites who did not want to lose ground to competitors, and outsiders easily become revolutionaries. However, in Prof. MacDonald’s view, Jewish commitment to leftist causes has often been motivated by the hope that communism, especially, would be a tool for combating anti-Semitism, and by expectation that universalist social solutions would be yet another way to dissolve gentile loyalties that might exclude Jews. The appeal of univeralist ideologies is tied to the implicit understanding that Jewish particularism will be exempt: “At the extreme, acceptance of a universalist ideology by gentiles would result in gentiles not perceiving Jews as in a different social category at all, while nonetheless Jews would be able to maintain a strong personal identity as Jews.”

      Prof. MacDonald argues that Jews had specifically Jewish reasons for supporting the Bolshevik revolution. Czarist Russia was notorious for its anti-Semitic policies and, during its early years, the Soviet Union seemed to be the promised land for Jews: it ended state anti-Semitism, tried to eradicate Christianity, opened opportunities to individual Jews, and preached a “classless” society in which Jewishness would presumably attract no negative attention. Moreover, since Marxism taught that all conflict was economic rather than ethnic, many Jews believed it heralded the end of anti-Semitism.

      Prof. MacDonald emphasizes that although Jewish Communists preached both atheism and the solidarity of the world’s working people, they took pains to preserve a distinct, secular Jewish identity. He reports that Lenin himself (who had one Jewish grandparent) approved the continuation of an explicitly Jewish identity under Communism, and in 1946 the Communist Party of the United States voted a resolution also supporting Jewish peoplehood in Communist countries. Thus, although Communism was supposed to be without borders or religion, Jews were confident that it would make a place for their own group identity. He writes that despite the official view that all men were to be brothers, “very few Jews lost their Jewish identity during the entire soviet era.”

      Jewish Communists sometimes betrayed remarkable particularism. Prof. MacDonald quotes Charles Pappoport, the French Communist leader: “The Jewish people [are] the bearer of all the great ideas of unity and human community in history… The disappearance of the Jewish people would signify the death of humankind, the final transformation of man into a wild beast.” This seems to attribute to Jews an elite position incompatible with “unity and human community.”

      Prof. MacDonald argues that many Jews began to fall away from Communism only after Stalin showed himself to be anti-Semitic. And just as Jews had been the leading revolutionaries in anti-Semitic pre-Revolutionary Russia, Jews became the leading dissidents in an anti-Semitic Soviet Union. A similar pattern can be found in the imposed Communist governments of Eastern Europe, which were largely dominated by Jews. The majority of the leaders of the Polish Communist Party, for example, spoke better Yiddish than Polish, and they too maintained a strong Jewish identity. After the fall of Communism many stopped being Polish and emigrated to Israel.

      Prof. MacDonald writes that in Bela Kun’s short-lived 1919 Communist government of Hungary, 95 percent of the leaders were Jews, and that at the time of the 1956 uprising Communism was so closely associated with Jews that the rioting had almost the flavor of a pogrom. He argues that in the United States as well, the hard core among Communists and members of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was mainly Jewish. Here, too, a revolutionary, atheist, and universalist world-view was fully compatible with strong identification as Jews. Prof. MacDonald quotes from a study of American leftists:

      “Many Communists, for example, state that they could never have married a spouse who was not a leftist. When Jews were asked if they could have married Gentiles, many hesitated, surprised by the question, and found it difficult to answer. Upon reflection, many concluded that they had always taken marriage to someone Jewish for granted.” Their commitment as Jews was even more fundamental and unexamined than their commitment to the left.

      Prof. MacDonald reports that many American Jews also abandoned Communism as it became increasingly anti-Semitic. For a large number, the Soviet Union’s severing of diplomatic ties with Israel during the 1967 war was the last straw. A former SDS activist no doubt spoke for many when he explained, “If I must choose between the Jewish cause and a ‘progressive’ anti-Israel SDS, I shall choose the Jewish cause. If barricades are erected, I will fight as a Jew.” According to Prof. MacDonald, American neoconservatism can also be described as a surface shift in external politics that leaves the more fundamental commitment to Jewish identity unchanged. Thus, former leftists abandoned an ideology that had turned against Israel and refashioned American conservatism into a different movement, the one unshakable theme of which was support for Israel. Neoconservatives also support high levels of immigration and were active in excluding white racial identification from the “respectable” right.

      • La razón de que voten y controlen el partido demócrata norteamericano, el socialista francés y el laborista británico es que las sociedades europeas son democráticas.

        Como el gobierno sale de las elecciones, el que controla el gobierno, controla el país.

        ¿Por qué va a votar un nacional caucásico cristiano políticas anticristianas?

        En realidad no las vota.

        Lo que vota son MEDIDAS SOCIALES, defendidas por partidos de izquierda; y una vez en el poder, se apresuran a desmantelar la sociedad blanca y cristiana.

        (las “medidas sociales” son un señuelo)

        Por eso el gobierno francés, a principios del siglo XX (!!!!!) expulsa a las órdenes religiosas de Francia, les roba sus bienes (Notre Dame de París no es católica), les prohíbe enseñar, expulsa a los jesuitas…

        (Esto es lo que copian los masones en México (la Guerra de los cristeros) y luego en España (genocidio católico) durante la 2 República)

        ¿Es que los franceses, que eran mayoritariamente católicos votaron esas medidas?

        ¡Naturalmente que no!

        Votaron únicamente mejoras sociales.

        Eso no es DEMOCRACIA.

        (por eso insisten en hablar de “República” y “principios republicanos” = anticatolicos y antinativos.
        Y si queda alguna duda, insisten con el “laicismo” ( = anticatolicismo) en un país de mayoría católica.

        En Inglaterra, el sionista Lord Levy, amigo personal de Tony Blair, hizo que éste abrirse las puertas a la inmigración masiva subvencionada (y ahora dicen que Gran Bretaña es un país multicultural, no blanco ni cristiano).

        ¿Es que los británicos han votado eso?

        Naturalmente que no: han votado “antiderecha”

        Al final, el antipoblación nativa, ha acabado siendo parte de la ideología de estos partidos (que oficialmente no son confesionales, pero en la práctica son anticristianos)

        Eso no significa que puedan dominar también los partidos de derecha (Margaret Thatchet tenía 5 ministros sionista; el sionista Donald Rumpfeld, Secretario de Defensa de Bush, decide la invasión de Irak para proteger Israel…)
        Pero el mecanismo para ganar votos son las ayudas sociales; y eso no lo da la derecha.

        (de ahí la histeria contra Trump, al que ven como un (supremacista?) WASP (y eso que su hija está casada con un judío ortodoxo amigo del Primer ministro de Israel y ha trasladado la embajada a Jerusalén – reconocimiento de hecho de su capitalidad -) y la masiva campaña de acoso y derribo a través de los medios de comunicación que controlan)

    • Authoritarian Personalities
      In order to open European-derived societies to the immigration that would transform them, it was necessary to discredit racial solidarity and commitment to tradition. Prof. MacDonald argues that this was the basic purpose of a group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School. What is properly known as the Institute of Social Research was founded in Frankfurt, Germany, during the Weimar period by a Jewish millionaire but was closed down by the Nazis shortly after they took power. Most of its staff emigrated to the United States and the institute reconstituted itself at UC Berkeley. The organization was headed by Max Horkheimer, and its most influential members were T.W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse, all of whom had strong Jewish identities. Horkheimer made no secret of the partisan nature of the institute’s activities: “Research would be able here to transform itself directly into propaganda,” he wrote. (Italics in the original.)

      Prof. MacDonald devotes many pages to an analysis of The Authoritarian Personality, which was written by Adorno and appeared in 1950. It was part of a series called Studies in Prejudice, produced by the Frankfurt school, which included titles like Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder. The Authoritarian Personality was particularly influential because, according to Prof. MacDonald, the American Jewish Committee heavily funded its promotion and because Jewish academics took up its message so enthusiastically.

      The book’s purpose is to make every group affiliation sound as if it were a sign of mental disorder. Everything from patriotism to religion to family – and race – loyalty are signs of a dangerous and defective “authoritarian personality.” Because drawing distinctions between different groups is illegitimate, all group loyalties – even close family ties! – are “prejudice.” As Christopher Lasch has written, the book leads to the conclusion that prejudice “could be eradicated only by subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy – by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.”

      But according to Prof. MacDonald it is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: Anyone whose political views were different from theirs was insane. As Prof. MacDonald explains, the Frankfurt school never criticized or even described Jewish group identity – only that of gentiles: “behavior that is critical to Judaism as a successful group evolutionary strategy is conceptualized as pathological in gentiles.”

      For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental illness: They concluded that Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews. The Frankfurt school was enthusiastic about psycho-analysis, according to which “Oedipal ambivalence toward the father and anal-sadistic relations in early childhood are the anti-Semite’s irrevocable inheritance.”

      In addition to ridiculing patriotism and racial identity, the Frankfurt school glorified promiscuity and Bohemian poverty. Prof. MacDonald sees the school as a seminal influence: “Certainly many of the central attitudes of the largely successful 1960s countercultural revolution find expression in The Authoritarian Personality, including idealizing rebellion against parents, low-investment sexual relationships, and scorn for upward social mobility, social status, family pride, the Christian religion, and patriotism.”

      Of the interest here, however, is the movement’s success in branding ancient loyalties to nation and race as mental illnesses. Although he came later, the French-Jewish “deconstructionist” Jacques Derrida was in the same tradition when he wrote:

      “The idea behind deconstruction is to deconstruct the workings of strong nation-states with powerful immigration policies, to deconstruct the rhetoric of nationalism, the politics of place, the metaphysics of native land and native tongue… The idea is to disarm the bombs… of identity that nation-states build to defend themselves against the stranger, against Jews and Arabs and immigrants…”

      As Prof. MacDonald puts it, “Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.” Needless to say, this project has been successful; anyone opposed to the displacement of whites is routinely treated as a mentally unhinged “hate-monger,” and whenever whites defend their group interests they are described as psychologically inadequate. The irony has not escaped Prof. MacDonald: “The ideology that ethnocentrism was a form of psychopathology was promulgated by a group that over its long history had arguably been the most ethnocentric group among all the cultures of the world.”

    • (los libros son densos pero de lo más esclarecedor que haya leído sobre cómo nos han robado nuestras tradiciones que son las defensas del sistema inmunológico social y nuestro futuro en aras de ideales globalistas donde no hay lugar para los descendientes de europeos cristianos y heterosexuales. antes estaban hasta en Emule y otros sistemas p2p de transferencia de archivos)

      mmigration
      Prof. MacDonald argues that it is entirely natural for Jews to promote open immigration. It brings about the “diversity” Jews find comforting and it keeps America open to persecuted co-religionists throughout the world. He says Jews are the only group that has always fought for mass immigration; a few European ethnic organizations have made sporadic efforts to make it easier for their own people to come, but only Jews have consistently promoted open borders for all comers. Moreover, whatever disagreements they may have had on other issues, Jews of every political persuasion have favored high immigration.

      This, too, goes back many years, and Prof. MacDonald traces in considerable detail the sustained Jewish pro-immigration effort. Israel Zangwill, author of the eponymous 1908 play The Melting Pot, was of the view that “there is only one way to World Peace, and that is the absolute abolition of passports, visas, frontiers, custom houses…” He was nevertheless an ardent Zionist and disapproved of Jewish intermarriage.

      Although the statue of liberty, properly known as Liberty Enlightening the World, was a gift to the United States from France as a tribute to American political traditions, the sonnet by the Jewish Emma Lazarus helped change it into a symbol of immigration. Affixed to the base of the statue several decades after its construction, the poem welcomes to America “huddled masses yearning to breath free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”

      Prof. MacDonald has discovered that implausible arguments about diversity being a quintessentially American strength have been made by Jews for a long time. He reports that in 1948 the American Jewish Committee was urging Congress to believe that “Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all nationalities.” Of course, there had never been such a tradition. In 1952, the American Jewish Congress argued in hearings on immigration that “our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples.” This, too, was at a time when U.S. immigration law was still explicitly designed to maintain a white majority.

      It is often said that when the old immigration policy was scrapped in 1965, scarcely anyone knew, and no one predicted, that the new law would change the racial makeup of the country. Prof. MacDonald disputes this, arguing that this had been the objective of Jewish groups from the beginning.

      Prof. MacDonald finds that Jews have been the foremost advocates of immigration in England, France, and Canada, and that Jewish groups were the most vocal opponents of independence for Quebec. Australian Jews led the effort to dismantle the “white Australia” policy, one reason for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat: “The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian.” Like Earl Raab writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia to specifically Jewish interests. It would not be surprising if such an openly expressed objective did not have the opposite effect from the intended, and increase anti-Jewish sentime

    • Si la familia aún no se la han cargado pero lo intentan cada día con ahínco y desesperación.
      Espero q no lo consigan.
      Rezo para q no ocurra.

  6. Feliz Navidad a toda España desde Sabadell !!!!!

    • Hoer, que pejiguera el rufi, es como un perrillo de esos broncas que le ladran a los perros grandes que los ignoran.

      • Que disfrute mientras pueda. Cuando los votos de VOX sean imprescindibles en el Congreso, tal vez su partido y otros sean ilegalizados y él pase a engrosar las filas del paro si es que no da con sus huesos, mejor dicho, sus capas de grasa contra el cemento de una celda que méritos ha hecho de sobra. dado su extraordinario curriculum y sus dotes probadas, no le queda más que entrar de tertuliano en la Secta o de palanganero del Wyoming. ningún empresario contrataría a un mentiroso patológico, perro de presa de sus amos castalibanes contra otros españoles de segunda o tercera como él o yo, ignorante supino y bravucón que amenaza cuando, si lo hiciera en la calle, cualquiera le hubiera hecho callar con un bufido

  7. a todos los que hacéis posible este blog, os deseo unas felices fiestas!
    🎄 BON NADAL 🎄

  8. ORACVLO MANUAL Y ARTE DE LA PRUDENCIA

    Baltasar Gracián

    9. Desmentir los achaques de su nación. Participa el agua las calidades buenas o malas de las venas por donde pasa, y el hombre las del clima donde nace. Deben más unos que otros a sus patrias, que cupo allí más favorable el cenit. No hay nación que se escape de algún original defecto: aun las más cultas, que luego censuran los confinantes, o para cautela, o para consuelo. Victoriosa destreza corregir, o por lo menos desmentir estos nacionales desdoros: consíguese el plausible crédito de único entre los suyos, que lo que menos se esperaba se estimó más. Hay también achaques de la prosapia, del estado, del empleo y de la edad, que si coinciden todos en un sujeto y con la atención no se previenen, hacen un monstruo intolerable.

  9. Acción – Reacción.

    No podrán quitarnos la Fe por mucho que lo intenten.

    La Resistencia Dolça nos defiende.

    • Pd.: patético anoche el discurso de el Rey. Así no se defiende a España, ni se justifica la Corona.

      • Obras son amores y no buenas razones. Ya no confío nada en la rectitud de ninguna de las autoridades ni electas ni hereditarias. ¿También firmará nuevos estatutos ilegales o la confederación o la proclamación de la República Masónica Ibérica? Estamos peor que hace un año porque ahora los golpistas ya controlan también el aparato del Estado desde la Moncloa. Antes había pasividad, ahora hay connivencia

  10. EL KE FALTABA !!!!!
    ( sonido de violines con música melancólica)
    Rufi el último charnegoide REBUZNA esto .
    Hoy pasarán la noche en una celda sin sus hijos 9 GOLPISTAS por el putifarrendum del uno a cero .
    BUAAAAAAAAA
    BUAAAAAAAA A
    BUAAAAAAAAA

  11. LA REPÚBLICA NO EXISTE IDIOTA!!!
    Alguien sabe si Kim Chis Torra es adicto al pegamento o a alguna sustancia estupefaciente ????
    Lo digo porque no se pueden decir más tonterías juntas ….
    Ahora sale diciendo que no vamos a tolerar otro 155
    Y que le ha pedido a los Reyes Magos
    La desfrankizacion de Aspanya
    El aislamiento de la ultraderecha ( Joer le pide que le aislen a el mismo )
    Y la autodeterminación tutelada por un grupo de Comisión de personas independientes entre otros figuran
    Chupamela Anderson
    El Otegui
    Gintonic MAN alias la esponja de Gales
    El nazi ese flamenco amigo del mocho
    El Celta de Bigo Mortensen
    Fat Tony Tony el Gordo con un amplísimo historial delictivo que le acredita para dicha función
    Y la madre que parió a Paneke

  12. A ver si los “indepes” aprenden cde acciones como ésta, pues ya está bien de tanto churro amarillo y “cubana” colgando por ahí.

  13. FELIZ día de Navidad a toda la familia DOLÇA.Un fuerte abrazo desde Barcelona.

  14. Feliz Navidad a todos los Dolços, y por qué no, a los Forcos también!
    (Excepto a Colau, no se merece ni eso!)

  15. CARTA A LOS REYES MAGOS DEL GAÑÁN DE IGOR.
    Keridos Reyes Magos este año he sido un chico muy bueno y sólo voy a pedir regalos para otros .
    Para Rufi el último charnegoide un bozal y una correa nueva para que su amo Fabada MAN próximo ministro de ventosidades pueda pasearlo sin incidentes.
    Para los de la Operación Bikini os pido una botellita de Quina Santa Catalina que es medicina y es golosina es que me han dicho que están muy desganados con la comida…bueno también una botellita de lágrimas del Jabalon .
    Para Kim Chis Torra un cargamento de Gas Zyklon B para su Balneario LA SOLUCIÓN FINAL
    Para el Maestro y Guía Espiritual el Doctor Víctor Krasty Cucurul alias LSD MAN que le den el Premio Nobel en Corte y Confección que es el último que le falta
    Para la maldita hermana Jeison de la Congregación de la Matanza de Texas Descalzas un billete sólo de ida al Polo Sur para que los pingüinos puedan disfrutar de ella
    Para Carajillo MAN próximo ministro de razas inferiores y Secretario General del Rincón del Vago un vale por un día entero de turismo de borrachera en Magaluf
    Para Ofelia Artadi la chacha del mocho que encuentre pronto un novio para que la quite la tontería y las telarañas
    Para Gayola Martínez de Orujo y su tanga de leopardo radiactivo un juego de ropa de látex amarillo para Dominatrix
    Para Mamma Fratelli Gispert i Que parezca un accidente un rifle con mira telescópica para cepillarse charnegoides
    Para el mocho unas vacaciones con todos los gastos pagados en el GRAN HOTEL LLEDONERS
    Y para mi camello de Lotería Nacional y Lotería Primitiva una estancia de no menos 40 años y un día en La Isla del Diablo Guayana Francesa ( kbron que no das un premio ni por casualidad ) .

Deja un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *

INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS:

  • Responsable: Dolça Catalunya
  • Finalidad: Gestión de suscripciones al blog y moderación de comentarios y el envío de boletines de noticias.
  • Legitimación: Consentimiento del interesado
  • Destinatarios: Los datos se comunicarán a Cloudflare Inc. (mejora rendimiento web; acogido a los acuerdos EU-U.S. Privacy Shield). No se comunicarán otros datos a terceros, salvo por una obligación legal.
  • Derechos: Acceder, rectificar y suprimir los datos, así como otros derechos, como se explica en la información adicional.
  • Información adicional: Puede consultar la información detallada sobre la protección de datos en política de privacidad.