The Brooke Bond, Colman’s, Cif, Dove, Findus, Glidat Strauss, Heartbrand,
Hellmann’s, Imperial Margarine, Knorr, Lipton, Pepsodent, PG Tips,
Sunsilk....it's good product and branded...

-----

free beauty products

marcfrans

You are right - I was referring to the boycotting of Unilever in lucrative Western markets in both Europe, North America and elsewhere in the Western World.  As far as I am concerned they can have the Islamic markets.

What I was also saying was that Unilever is the size of opponent that the counter jihad movement will come up against in the future and we need to plan for this.  We are not able to put credible pressure on multinationals at the moment but we need to develop the level of organisation globally to change this situation.

This illustrates the size of the mountain that we will have to climb. We need to be able to influence policy making in multinationals, governments, and other power brokers and actors on the global stage.

@ USAforbelang (two cents)

I think you misread Aeneas's call for a boycot of Unilever.  He meant a boycot in western markets, not in Muslim markets.  But, you certainly seem to have got an effective suggestion to achieve the latter.   

@ onecent

I agree with your basic observation.  The real problem is an internal cultural European problem.  The source of the problem lies mainly in the ideology of a big part of the political left, which is preventing effective political action to have more sensible immigration policies.   But, many rightist commentators on this blog do not seem to realise that, and continue to direct their 'ire' at (individual) immigrants and at other races who do not determine immigration policies.

In addition, the problem is not purely European, but affects the whole western world.    

The real problem with Muslim immigration into anywhere in the West is that the Koran, hence it's adherents, is thoroughly intolerant, anti-democratic, anti-secular and incompatible with western culture.

At this point in time you have to be brain dead not to have figured that out. 

I see nothing changing until Europeans vent their wrath in the voting booth in overwhelming numbers. But, first they have to decide if the socialism which gives them their cushy perks, but, has destroyed their individual rights should be dismantled. So far the answer to that is no. Either that connection isn't being made or it is being ignored.

I think there is a better way to torpedo the spreading of Unilever into the Muslim Markets,Not just by boycott But also by Publishing the fact that part of Unilever is a food products manufacturer in Israel.The Strauss Company.Strauss-Elite is the largest coffee company in Central and Eastern Europe. The company is so large that Strauss was labeled by the Israel AntiTrust Authority as a monopoly, a status that essentially places the company under government regulation . If the Muslim market will realize that this company is partly " Jewish "it may backfire on those good intentions of Mr.Director ,you never know, those Muslims might tell him and his company to stick it where the sun don't shine.

If stopping immigration or preventing the expansion of Islam into Western civilization is the goal, then placing restrictions on corporations and corporate activities are a start toward the answer.  It is the Corporatists, the corporate left, who encourage and direct these policies and the politicians who listen to corporate money instead of the people who elected them.

Corporations, at least some of them, are responsible for the bypass of many rights of traditional Western peoples.  They are attempting to create shadow governments which bypass the constitutions of our countries and which evade the restrictions placed on governments in their relationship with the people represented by those governments.

Corporate charters are presently enabled for life, but should there be a reason for that to continue when they do not represent the wishes of the people and when their representatives take active steps to bypass and suppress the people?  As stated by Aeneas,

"Organisations that do not support freedom of expression need to be ostracised.  Boycotting is still something that individuals can do to demonstrate their disatisfaction.  You cannot blame countries when individuals have it within their power to make a real difference."

Boycotts may not be effective, but movements to limit the unbridled power of corporate decision makers may have some effect.  It is time the corporations who have passed down politically correct dogma through their structures are faced by the politically incorrect, but truthful, wrath of the people affected by them.  Business is not immune when it engages in philosophies counter to our traditions, customs and core beliefs.

It is time that multinational Corporatists and their leftist directors stopped pushing (As Pashley aptly describes),

"Supposedly open-minded multiculturalism seemingly transforms into a anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-democratic, anti-capitalist monster whenever you peel back the covers,...".

If they continue their Corporatist activities, it is time for the people to push back against this racist, anti-religious, totalitartian, oligarchic monster. Western corporations and businesses should reflect the values of the people of Western countries. It is not the people who should adapt to their mulitcultural aspirations for higher profit and power.

Allowing a few hundred thousand Islamic immigrants into an EU country sounded very PC.

It was make the EU just like the UN, one happy region all living together. Sadly this experiment has been a complete disaster. You can’t mix people who hate Christians and don’t share a common culture into a different country. The new arrivals don’t know the language, or history of their new host country. A majority of them have no education, but they do bring large families.

Early-on they notice that the members of the host country are afraid of them. This fear is like an odor, you can’t mistake it. The native citizens are mostly honest, polite, well educated and share common values. The new arrivals don’t share anything with the native citizens. The new arrivals are poor and they resent the wealth of the native citizens. Most of them have no jobs and live on public assistance. They have no interest in assimilating into the new country. Each year the immigrants have become more of a problem. Each year brings more of them.

Maybe there should be a ban on immigrants from all Muslim countries. Make all immigants pass a language and history test before they arrive. If every immigrant who was convicted of a crime were deported, it would make the remaining immigrants more careful. Cutting them off welfare will have make many of them leave.

The politicians need to have the courage to begin to understand the problem that faces their country. Most politicians don’t have this courage.

"It's only a matter of time before the face of the Mona Lisa and much of great art hanging in museums across Europe is painted over in accordance with Muslim immigrants primitive religious beliefs. And that's just the surface of it."

Amy Alkon
syndicated columnist in over 100 newspapers
blogging daily at advicegoddess.com

I can see the Sistine Chapel ceiling being blown apart by RPGs to shouts of Allah ahu Akbar!

Remember the almost 1000 year old statues of the standing Buddah?

"Geert Wilders is the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV). He is an outspoken opponent of Islam and is living in hiding following death threats by Jihadists."

I was going to say something to the effect that it is so pathetic that a citizen has to go into hiding because of threats by a bunch of savage beasts who have no business even being in a civilized society, but then I realized how silly that would sound given that I grew up in North Philadelphia during the influx of diversity. At the height of the "Renaissance" and before we fled, we didn't venture out much after dark. Death threats were implicit.  Not much different from Mr. Wilders.

Simply put: deport all Arabs. What if the Arabs decided to put up a fight, a civil war broke out, and the Dutch were to cowardly to fight to the last man to save their country? Another simple solution: hire mercenaries! In America we have something called Blackwater, I'm sure you've all heard of it. Ten thousand troops, 200 tanks, 50 fighter jets for air support would be sufficient. All yours for the price of probably a few billion Euros.

This is the scale of the problem, unless we can put ourseleves into a position to actually bring down organisations such as Unilever, via campaigning, lobbying and boycotting, then we will never be in a position to stop the spread of radical Islam.

People have to take personal responsibility and not fill the coffers of organisations that cannot demonstrate that they support western civilisation, including freedom of expression.  Organisations that do not support freedom of expression need to be ostracised.  Boycotting is still something that individuals can do to demonstrate their disatisfaction.  You cannot blame countries when individuals have it within their power to make a real difference.

I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't too late to stop the process of dhimmitude in the Netherlands. I just don't see anything stopping that process.   

Dutch tolerance, now their suicide pact with an entity that wishes them destroyed, is a farce.  I don't see where the Dutch sheeple are enraged or willing to take a risk here by voting against the prevailing rot. 

This theme repeats throughout the EU of the Left acting as Useful Idiots, sometimes outright agents for the Islamists and it seems that enough is never enough with the natives.

Personally, I think the Dutch are goners that will never get off of their knees like Putin's Russians.

Imperial Islam was smart to strike at the soft rotten underbelly of socialism. The welfare state is more compelling than the burqa.

The other thing that we need to do is list all Unilever products together with an alternative product that serves the same purpose but is produced by another company.

We the need to send such information far and wide along with the reason for boycotting all Unilever products.

Well, this is the sort of thing that I would expect from the leader of a multinational corporation (MNCs).  MNCs care about nothing other than lining their own pockets in the short term.  They want immigration on a massive scale into the West in order to reduce labour costs.  They also want to sell their products across the world.  The Islamic world is an important consumer of the products of such companies.  Unless people in the West are willing to boycott such companies in large numbers then they will continue to support policies that undermine western culture and western civilisation.

I will be boycotting Unilever products but unless millions of us do the same then Unilever will concentrate of placating those that are willing to take such action.

Boycotting an organisation takes determination and discipline.  In fact there are already so many companies that I am boycotting that soon I fear that I will be forced to grow my own food - but I will do this if it becomes necessary in order to defend the West.

Unilever's brands are listed on its website under 'Brand information'.  The question is whether you are willing to make the effort to boycott for the sake of your civilisation and also to actively encourage others to join the boycott.  It is much easier to post comments on blogs, but the real test is whether you are willing to make compromises in your own life for the cause.  The Unilever website is as follows: http://www.unilever.com

I just posted a blog item on this - great piece by the late George Mason.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/12/the_religion_ba_1.html

Due to the small populations of European nations vis a vis the burgeoning immigrant population, I believe Europe is sunk -- and helping sink it even faster are people like Terpstra. It's only a matter of time before the face of the Mona Lisa and much of great art hanging in museums across Europe is painted over in accordance with Muslim immigrants primitive religious beliefs. And that's just the surface of it.

Amy Alkon
syndicated columnist in over 100 newspapers
blogging daily at advicegoddess.com

Islam is nothing but a strawman. The West could easily crush Islam. Talking about Islam is really just a way to talk about race without talking about race. Brainwashed egalitarians fools are comfortable expressing their unconscious racialism in this way. Racialist, pro-white, anti-race replacement politicians like Nick Griffin of the BNP also use Islam as a way of talking about race without really talking about it. He knows that in order to win he must have the votes of the aforementioned brainwashed fools so he plays within what William F. Buckley called the "prevailing structure of taboos."

My question to the brainwashed fools: Is it fair that all the other races will still have countries, nay, continents that are still all theirs but Whitey apparently has to give his up because to do less would be racist?

There are 1000 comments posted on the Telegraaf site now. I've been reading them for an hour now. They are overwhelmingly in favour of Wilders. Some commenters say that Terpstra's action is moving them to vote for Wilders next election, where not previously so minded. Looks like the Dutch political scene is developing nicely -- the next election (in 2 years time?) should be interesting.

Terprsta must be running close to "incitement to violence", as this is much like the demonization of Fortuyn before he was assassinated. But this is presumably what Terpstra is accusing Wilders of, as well. On a truly level playing field, it may not be possible to distinguish between good and evil, operationally. Wilders cuts through this with his programme of legislatively defining Islam as evil. This works, and sensible Europeans know that this is good as well.

On the Telegraaf site cited by this article, there are many reader comments, overwhelmingly in Wilders' favour, with a few dissemblements posted by Muslims -- you recognize them because they always say e.g. "I am a Moluccan Christian", etc. One comment is that Terpstra should simply withhold his vote from Wilders, but the commenter himself is definitely voting for Wilders next election. However, an odd phenomenon is happening -- the comments are being deleted by the website administrator from the top down -- 5 of the top 6 have been deleted thus far. I'll keep my eye on this. Cc.

Terprsta must be running close to "incitement to violence", as this is much like the demonization of Fortuyn before he was assassinated. But this is presumably what Terpstra is accusing Wilders of, as well. On a truly level playing field, it may not be possible to distinguish between good and evil, operationally. Wilders cuts through this with his programme of legislatively defining Islam as evil. This works, and sensible Europeans know that this is good as well.

On the Telegraaf site cited by this article, there are many reader comments, overwhelmingly in Wilders' favour, with a few dissemblements posted by Muslims -- you recognize them because they always say e.g. "I am a Moluccan Christian", etc. One comment is that Terpstra should simply withhold his vote from Wilders, but the commenter himself is definitely voting for Wilders next election. However, an odd phenomenon is happening -- the comments are being deleted by the website administrator from the top down -- 5 of the top 6 have been deleted thus far. I'll keep my eye on this. Cc.

terpstra's only concern is the new growing muslim-market. Like the China-hype; if you can make profits, why should you bother about human-rights? Does Terpstra really think that stopping Wilders will stop islam-radicalisation too?

Greatest threat to free speech:

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/rogerkimball/2007/12/08/libel_tourism_com...

'Just last week I received a message from one of the entities that helps distribute our books in Canada and Britain:

Can you please let us know if there are any references to Saudis and terrorist[s] in the book. We are just concerned that this book, could potentially create libel lawsuits as it could offend Saudis living in England and this has happened with many other US publications and we do not want to be jeopardized in selling this book.'

A time back during the situation with the Danish cartoons a Danish company known as Arla Foods was hit pretty bad.  They had recently invested a lot building up their clientelle in the Middle East only to have their sales plummet to zero as a result of the backlash over the cartoons.

It is not unlikely that Mr. Terpstra is afraid of a similar backlash against Dutch companies once this film gets released and is trying to pro-actively stem the tide. 

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

Any idea how much benefit Unilever is gaining out of this in consumption-crazy arabic and muslim countries? The Dutch consumption will not go down for Unilever but the arab world and Dutch muslim consumption will go up.

is that they've totally bought into multiculturalism.   Supposedly open-minded multiculturalism seemingly transforms into a anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-democratic, anti-capitalist monster whenever you peel back the covers, and then they'll blame it on the lawyers.