Amsterdam Jewish Woman and Children Told ‘You Should All Be Shot’ and Called ‘Cancer Jews’

She should have sprayed him with flea spray

This rising tide of anti Jewish incidents in Holland underline the need for the “draw Mohammad ” competition which has sadly been canceled by Mr Wilders on reasons of public safety.

If the populist right can gain control in more than one country in Europe, especially in the Benelux ones, then contests could be organised to run concurrently in future. That shows certain people that for a change, our tales are up.

To discourage terrorist outrages – detain 100 Imams and their families and promise to do two things if there’s any terrorism, deport the lot and demolish their mosques because of preached sedition.

Believe me, this is what it’s going to take to stop the rot.

Funny how the rotten, corrupt, craven atheists who run Eurapia seem reluctant to name the source of the rising tide of antisemitic excrement that is flooding Eurapia.

Antisemitism rising in Europe again. But this time they prefer the durty Arab. Good luck with that and GOODBYE!

There’s only one good thing that happens to a Muslim and that’s when they die!

NO, IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH – IT IS ASSAULT.

Assault depends on the imminence of the threat, the possibility of actual violence, and the consent of the parties, and their relationship prior to the encounter.

In a real-time encounter between strangers, the imminence level is 100%, and the threat of actual violence is 100% when the assailant threatens violence. (Duh)

If a person was not involved directly, but was involved indirectly – a bystander, IOW – the victim does not give any consent. The relationship of the parties are stranger to assailant. The bystander may ‘consent’ to an assault by ‘laying into the fray’ and hurling insults – or encouragement – to others involved in an altercation. This exception has been used by the Leftists disingenuously when an innocent bystander is ambushed, and the bystander retaliates. But the law was, prior to Leftist judicial activism aside, that a bystander who is ambushed for mere presence cannot be guilty of assault even if he returns like-kind insults or defends himself.

To top it off, as in this case, when the person is NOT a bystander, but is merely going about her business, the bar is raised for the assailant. And if the victim is ambushed, the original common law standard was even higher. A bystander is someone in a bar known to be rowdy, or who attends an event where conflict is likely such as a political rally or certain sports events, or one who joins into such an event – as say, a rubbernecker stopping to watch the ‘fireworks.’

But a person going about her business has a reasonable expectation of being left alone, and in such a circumstance – before Leftism – the common law was driving towards the protection of everyone from any such offense.

(Note – no community on Earth has ever protected everyone in every case from some bad apple assaulting a member of a lower class or low-status. But English common law was driving towards this result until it was hijacked by Progressives in the 19th century. The reason for the Civil Rights movement of the 20th century was – ironically – due
to Progressives hijacking this trend with evil and malicious intent to force the law to bow to their ‘progress’ with respect to Eugenics – because of Evolution. Had Progressives left well enough alone, especially in America, the significant trend towards respecting everyone’s civil rights after the Civil War would likely have continued rather than being derailed in the late nineteenth century.)

Today – as on this forum – I can insult Leftists to my heart’s content more or less – subject only to Pamela’s tolerance for my comments. And someone can respond in kind. Most likely someone who does not realize they are not a Leftist, but a mere pawn, but I digress.

Trading insults and barbs on a forum – with or without decorum, and with or without facts, reasons, excuses, rationalizations, or justifications – is currently protected speech under the law. Albeit, such speech is under assault by the Left – and real-time, actual violence, such as losing one’s job or career – can occur if a victim or a Good Samaritan challenges a Leftist, and expresses his emotional outrage in words amounting to incitement to violence or violent threats. We can see this is political because, e.g., I am already banned or shadowbanned for anti-hate comments while Leftists who have made actual threats of violence against me – a victim of Leftist violence myself – continue to post uninhibited. Lawful free speech would allow me to continue to my posting without inhibition as well.

True Free Speech – and Justice – would allow me to post my anti-hate comments under my own name without fear of my relatives, friends, or associates being flagged (doxxed) and destroyed. Indeed – my handle is ‘anonymous’ to protect others. It is too late for me personally. And I do not use ‘anonymous’ techniques b/c – oh, wait, I am already on a Watch List (an unlawful one, but what can one do) – and such techniques are not infallible and they attract attention. Better to play the foolish, ignorant, crackpot and village idiot rather than confronting the King with actual evidence of his treason and remove all doubt about one’s loyalties.

But – in real-time – we all expect to go about our business without being assaulted by threats. And – politics aside – this is still the law. It is why the Right – quite rightly and as they should – usually and generally do not assault Leftists and drones on the street. Besides the typical neighborhood Democrat is not a Leftist, but just a brainwashed drone, or else someone who has to be a Democrat to get a job. We have lots of both here.

In this case, the fellow should be tracked down and charged with assault. It should be an aggravated charge, both because of the ambush, and because of the existential threat posed by him and many others like him. Then – because it is Islamic in nature – it should be treated, not as a hate crime, but as an act of warfare: And the assailant should be treated as anyone supporting, aiding, or assisting an enemy.

Leftists have worked hard to bring every form of violent conduct under the ‘law.’ Not the Rule of Law – they cannot stand that anymore than they can stand the light of day. But they want to run every form of violent conduct through the courts and the law enforcement system to deploy legal weapons – AND immoral, unethical, and sometimes illegal weapons of mass legalism – to immunize and protect their violent servants. AND to hold their enemies (us) to impossible standards of conduct.

This is why gang violence never goes away. e.g. RICO does not apply to criminal gangs anymore folks – if the gang has a protected classification for an identifier, and the judge is a Lefty – there are plenty of cases to throw it out. Also, this is why ‘hate’ is their target because it allows them to draw any boundaries they want. This is also why ‘Wars’ on tactics or substances can never be won. Not just because it’s a logical fallacy, but because the ‘War’ is in a legal form. Meanwhile, the War on Education, Healthcare, Prosperity, and Jobs, has gone very well for the Left. The War on Unique and Powerful American Businesses such as our Chemical Industry has been downright unbelievably effective – to an extent that the Left has done what the USSR or the Nasties could never hope to achieve.

Just rantin’ … but the assailant in this case should be deported, and if he is a ‘citizen,’ he should be denaturalized and deported anyway. Assuming of course this is his only crime.