Category Archives: Barbarians

Four Arabic Words Every Infidel Must Know

This is a must read for newcomers and surface gliders of the pernicious groupthink of Islam and old hats alike. In fact I had never heard of two words of the four after seven years of fairly heavy reading with eyes wide open and a mind ready to critique the ugly morality Islam has spent on Muslims and non-Muslims for nearly 1400 years.

Let this be a lesson. There is always something new and revolting about Islam to discover before it's too late...

In 539 BC, King Belshazzar of Babylon saw a dismembered hand-written four prophetic words on the wall. This "handwriting on the wall was finally interpreted by the prophet Daniel as predicting the fall of the kingdom. He was right. Babylon fell to the Medes-Persians that very night."

Like the "handwriting on the wall" that Prophet Daniel had interpreted, there are four Arabic words, which could lead to submission of the entire world to Islam, if non-Muslims do not fully understand their meaning and implications. Those words are taqiyya, tawriya, kitman and muruna.

Each of these words describes a different style of deception used by Muslims when discussing Islam or their activities as Muslims.

Mohammed famously uttered, "War is deceit." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Nr.268). The Quran boasts that Allah is the "master of all scheming" (Quran 13:42) and that he is "profound in his machinations" (Quran 8:30). Western civilizations are not accustomed to dealing with people, who have developed deception into an art form. Knowledge is power, and the best way to combat the Islamist agenda is to say, "We know the method of your lying. You can stop now!"

Taqiyya

The Kaaka Meteorite
The Kaaka Meteorite
Taqiyya is defined as dissimulation about one's Muslim identity. It originates from the verse in the Quran that says, "Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful—he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah—except in self-defense [illaan tattaqoo minhum tuqatan (Quran 3:28)].

This "self-defense" justifies dissimulation. As you might imagine this particular tool of the Islam faith is a powerful one when used to disarm Infidels of notions that Islam is not a religion of peace because of this fact or that fact, they will never admit as a character flaw of Islam, or its policing mechanism called Sharia Law. It is the Islamic Sharia Law that no Muslim can avoid that provides, "When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory."

Reliance of the Traveller. Section r8.2 PERMISSIBLE LYING. The Prophet said: "He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar"). Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.

Tawriya

Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called "creative lying" or where appropriate "lying under oath". It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath.

Reliance of the Traveller. Section o19.1 If one swears "I will not eat this wheat," but then makes it into flour or bread (and eats it), one has not broken one's oath.

Reliance of the Traveller. Section o19.5 When a person swearing an oath about something (in the future, affirming or denying that it will occur) includes the expression "in sha' Allah ("if Allah will"), before finishing the oath, then the oath is not broken in any event if he thereby intends to provide for exceptions.

tawriyaHow does this work? Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a supplication Muslims make to Allah seventeen times a day to keep them from the path of“those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”.

A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, but he knows full-well that the words "those" refer to Jews and Christians.

Another example would be when a Muslim responds to your greeting of "Merry Christmas!" He might say, "I wish you the best." In your mind, you think he has returned a Christmas greeting. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam; he wishes the best for you which, in his view, is becoming a Muslim. This principle of tawriya is also at play, when prominent Muslims decry killing on innocents. To a Muslim, only Muslims are innocent. The infidels have rejected Allah, the High Most God, and therefore are not innocent.

Kitman

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts.

Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant,contradictory verse.kitman

Here is an excellent example: "There is no compulsion in religion." (Quran 2:256)

"Are they seeking a religion other than Allah's, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?" (Quran 3:83)

Another example: "Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged." (Quran 22:39)

"When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them." (Quran 9:5)

And another example: "Anyone who kills a human being... it shall be as though he has killed all mankind. ...If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all mankind..." (Quran 5:32)

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah... that they should bemurdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned;" (Quran 5:33)

Muruna

Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Quran 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.”

Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.

At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Another common way of using muruna is for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim or to behave like a non-Muslim so their true agenda will not be suspected.

Huma Abedin, Muslim Brotherhood?
Huma Abedin
The 9/11 hijackers visited strip clubs and bars during their off-times while taking classes in the U.S. to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon,and the White House. Many Americans believe that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's aide, Huma Abedin, married Jewish Congressman Anthony Weiner at least in part to burnish her security credentials so she could infiltrate the highest levels of the Administration, speculating on the fact that her father and her brother hold high rank among the Muslim Brotherhood...

The implications of these highly-honed tactics of deception could be enormous for unassuming Western societies. Twenty years ago, psychologist Paul Ekman wrote an insightful book, "Telling Lies," which demonstrated that people give off recognizable clues when they are practicing deceit. Their consciences cause them, involuntarily,to sweat or raise their voices or make other recognizable gestures.

However, Dr. Ekman’s research was exclusively with people from Western cultures. Muslims, on the other hand, show no discernible signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. In their minds they are doing exactly what Allah wants them to do to advance Islam. Because any Western person who has raised children knows almost intuitively when someone is lying, so they assume they can do that in all cases. Unfortunately, those same Western people can be easily duped by Islamic deceit because there are no tell-tale signs in the deceiver.

Mosab Hassan Yousef
Mosab Hassan Yousef
Another example of playing muruna to the tease of perfection is Mosab Hassan Yousef, self-proclaimed "The Son of Hamas".

Yousef, the son of a jailed Hamas terrorist leader and MP, Sheikh Hassan Yousef, the most popular figure in that extremist Islamic organization. Mosab, as a young man, assisted his father for years in his political activities. He converted to Christianity and operated under cover in the service of Israel's intelligence agency for a decade. Yousef reveals this information in his book, Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices.

Mosab however, did not convert to what the West would recognize as Christianity, but to a fiery, Palestinian brand of the faith that is vehemently anti-Israel. According to Mosab, his main goal in coming to the U.S. is to infiltrate the main source of international support for Israel: the American church. From an interview with Al-Arabiya:

"During my tours in universities and even churches, [I found] the real support for Israel stems from the church in the West... We need to understand the difference between "revenge" and "resistance" and once the Palestinians do, we will have our victory against Israel."

Hopefully, this article will be a wake-up call to the unsuspecting infidels. Trust but verify—as was an old American strategy in dealing with potentially hostile parties—is the way to go in dealing with Islamists.

  • Thanks to Apostates & Infidels and a special thumbs up to SIOA stalwart Pamela Geller.
  •  

    Quotes About Revolution

    250px-JeanGenet-HansKoechler1983-cropped
    Writer Jean Genet
    Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—THOMAS JEFFERSON, Declaration of Independence

    The revolution you dream of is not ours. You don't want to change the world, you want to blow it up.—JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, Dirty Hands

    A people contending for life and liberty are seldom disposed to look with a favorable eye upon either men or measures whose passions, interests or consequences will clash with those inestimable objects.—GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to General Thomas, July 23, 1775

    Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny. They have only shifted it to another shoulder.—GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, Man and Superman

    It's the well-behaved children ... that make the best revolutionaries. They don't say a word, they don't hide under the table, they eat only one piece of chocolate at a time. But later on they make society pay dearly. —JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, Dirty Hands

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. —THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to W.S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787

    Make the Revolution a parent of settlement, and not a nursery of future revolutions.—EDMUND BURKE, Reflections on the Revolution in France

    9th Circuit Laugher
    Some People Prefer Government Endowments
    That humanity and sincerity which dispose men to resist injustice and tyranny render them unfit to cope with the cunning and power of those who are opposed to them. The friends of liberty trust to the professions of others because they are themselves sincere, and endeavour to secure the public good with the least possible hurt to its enemies, who have no regard to anything but their own unprincipled ends, and stick at nothing to accomplish them.
    WILLIAM HAZLITT, Characters of Shakespeare's Plays

    Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -- lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones either!!—DARIO FO, Accidental Death of an Anarchist

    If we behave like those on the other side, then we are the other side. Instead of changing the world, all we'll achieve is a reflection of the one we want to destroy. JEAN GENET, The Balcony

    A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. —THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787

    I can imagine no man who will look with more horror on the End than a conscientious revolution­ary who has, in a sense sincerely, been justifying cruelties and injustices inflicted on millions of his contemporaries by the benefits which he hopes to confer on future generations: generations who, as one terrible moment now reveals to him, were never going to exist. Then he will see the massacres, the faked trials, the deportations, to be all ineffaceably real, an essential part, his part, in the drama that has just ended: while the future Utopia had never been anything but a fantasy. —C.S. LEWIS, The World's Last Night

    They never fail who die
    In a great cause: the block may soak their gore:
    Their heads may sodden in the sun; their limbs
    Be strung to city gates and castle walls—
    But still their Spirit walks abroad. Though years
    Elapse, and others share as dark a doom,
    They but augment the deep and sweeping thoughts
    Which overpower all others, and conduct
    The world at last to Freedom.

    —LORD BYRON, Marino Faliero

    The right to rebellion is the right to seek a higher rule, and not to wander in mere lawlessness.—GEORGE ELIOT, Felix Holt

    Resistance to improvement contradicts the noblest instincts of the race. It begets its opposite. The fanaticism of reform is only the raging of the accumulated waters caused by the obstructions which an ultra conservatism has thrown across the stream of progress; and revolution itself is but the sudden overwhelming and sweeping away of impediments that should have been seasonably removed.—HORACE MANN, Thoughts

    The history of the human race always has been, and most likely always will be, that of evolution and revolution.—LEWIS F. KORNS, Thoughts

    It is far more easy to pull down, than to build up, and to destroy, than to preserve. Revolutions have on this account been falsely supposed to be fertile of great talent; as the dregs rise to the top, during a fermentation, and the lightest things are carried highest by the whirlwind. And the practice of this proposition bears out the theory; for demagogues have succeeded tolerably well in making ruins; but the moment they begin to build anew from the materials that they have overthrown, they have often been uselessly employed with regard to others, and more often dangerously with regard to themselves. CHARLES CALEB COLTON, Lacon

    A constitution imperiled justifies revolution.—EDWARD COUNSEL, Maxims

    As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected ... before a drop of blood was shed. —JOHN ADAMS, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Aug. 24, 1815

    If we would trace our descents, we should find all slaves to come from princes and all princes from slaves: But fortune has turned all things topsy-turvy, in a long story of revolutions.—WELLINS CALCOTT, Thoughts Moral and Divine

    Revolution does not insure progress. You may overturn thrones, but what proof that anything better will grow upon the soil? —E.H. CHAPIN, Living Words

    Some men hope for revolution but when you revolt and set up your new government you find your new government is still the same old Papa, he has only put on a cardboard mask.CHARLES BUKOWSKI, Notes of a Dirty Old Man

    Rejecting The Diversity Con Game (But Not Diversity Itself)

    The White Negro
    Mailer christens the hipster as a psychopath. Disillusioned by the systematic violence of the two world wars, the hipster nihilistically seeks meaning in his life through immediate gratification, especially in the realm of sex. In the rejection of the conformism wrought by industrial society, the hipster valorizes individual acts of violence as infinitely preferable to systematic violence.
    By Michael Filozof: The Origins of Leftist Racial Orthodoxy

    IF "diversity" is good, why do liberals congregate in lily-white enclaves like Vermont (the whitest state in the Union, according to the Census) and Marin County, California? White liberals hector others incessantly about the need for "diversity," but most have no interest in living in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. The ideal society in the liberal mind always seems to be a Scandinavian socialist one (which is to say that liberals strive to make the U.S. more like some of the most uniformly white nations in the world).

    The liberal enforcers of racial correctness are quick to decry the evils of racism, yet they are quite willing to practice it themselves in the form of affirmative action—and they are strangely silent when blacks engage in "hate crimes" against whites. Conservatives have been increasingly willing to point out these and other hypocrisies of our racial orthodoxy, but they invariably fail to understand its true origins.

    What drives our contemporary racial orthodoxy? Many conservatives mistakenly believe that liberals obsessed by race are afflicted with "white guilt." Not so. The truth about racial matters in the U.S. is this: racial issues are not actually about race. In the hands of the progressive left, race is a tool used by powerful whites against other whites; specifically, race is a weapon used by liberals to bludgeon conservatives and delegitimize conservative, patriotic values.

    But it has not always been so.

    Prior to World War II, progressives and leftists—like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger—viewed blacks as inferior human scum who should be eliminated through eugenic hygiene. But after World War II, "progressive" thinking about race underwent an astonishing metamorphosis. The American left forged a strategic alliance with blacks, using race to attack the core values of an American society they had now come to despise as the ultimate evil.

    The dominant theme of the literature of the postwar era—which 76 million Baby Boomers absorbed as the first generation to attend college en masse—was the moral equivalence between the United States and the totalitarian regimes it had just fought.

    In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, the founder of the modern American feminist movement, wrote that the American suburb was a "comfortable concentration camp" for women. (Friedan, a Jew, wrote this in 1963, less than 20 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.)

    In The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger's protagonist Holden Caulfield (narrating the story from an asylum after having been driven insane by the "phoniness" of American life) says of his brother D.B., a World War II veteran, "I really think he hated the Army worse than the war ... [h]e said the Army was practically as full of bastards as the Nazis were."

    In Kurt Vonnegut's semi-autobiographical novel Slaughterhouse-Five, the real enemy is not Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, but the American military, the American officer corps, and American society. Vonnegut's character Billy Pilgrim is a WWII vet who survives the bombing of Dresden as a POW; after the war, he becomes a respected citizen and a financial success. Pilgrim absorbs conservative American values right down to the "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper sticker on his car—and goes insane, just as his fictionalized son patriotically heads off to Vietnam.

    In the early 1960s at Edinburgh, Mailer along with Mary McCarthy began the process of legitimizing Burroughs. Mailer opened the back door and let Burroughs in. Literally. One of Burroughs’ most ardent supporters for admission to the Academy of Arts and Letters was Mailer. This recognition was very important to Burroughs, and he wore his Academy pin proudly. From what I can gather, Burroughs was grateful for Mailer’s support. —Jed Birmingham
    But the author who provided the direct link between left-wing America-hatred and race was Norman Mailer, also a disillusioned WWII veteran. In his 1957 essay "The White Negro," Mailer equated the atomic bomb with the concentration camp and urged whites to identify with black social outcasts as a means to escape the "totalitarian tissues of American society." The "hipster" should encourage the "psychopath" within himself and "absorb the existentialist synapses of the Negro." The white "hipster" would follow psychopathology-as-liberation "along the road of the homosexual, the orgiast, the drug-addict, the rapist, the robber and the murderer..."

    "[W]hat makes [the "hip" ethic] radically different from Socratic moderation with its stern conservative respect for the experience of the past[,]" Mailer wrote, "is immoderation[.] ... [T]he nihilism of Hip proposes ... that every social restraint and category be removed[.]" (Emphasis mine.)

    The White Negro is perhaps the most important work of literature in postwar America. It provided a blueprint for the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and in hindsight, it explains nearly all left-wing, anti-conservative behavior since. If blacks were social outcasts in American life, then the white enemies of traditional American values would align with them. An immoderate drunk like the late Sen. Edward Kennedy—who was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, then killed a young girl he was presumably cheating on his wife with, and got away with it—could not possibly point the finger at blacks and tell them to be honest, chaste, and sober. He could, however, falsely accuse Judge Robert Bork of wanting blacks to "sit at segregated lunch counters" to deflect attention from his own behavior. And it worked. (Today, following the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, leftists align themselves with Islamic terrorists and radicals, under whose rule they would never actually want to live.)

    When white Americans finally began to see the justice of Martin Luther King's cause and the injustice of Jim Crow, leftists pushed harder and harder to include items under the rubric of "civil rights" that King, a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus, would never have approved of. "Civil rights" became a foot-in-the-door that leftists used to attack and destroy all "social restraints and categories" in American society.

    Left-wing racial rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination" has been used to conceal a subterranean leftist agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-conservatism for over fifty years. Conservatives persist in stupidly taking this rhetoric at face value; hence, they always find themselves on the racial defensive.
    Want to kill your unborn baby? That's a "civil right." Marry another man? "Civil right." Dress in drag and use a woman's bathroom? Another "civil right." (It is hardly a surprise that while King remains a revered figure on the left, his Christianity has been airbrushed from his legacy. He is almost always referred to as "Dr." King today—rather than "Rev." King, a Man of God.)

    The anti-conservative alliance between the left and blacks as described by Mailer neatly explains why Tea Party whites who admire the likes of Herman Cain and Allen West are nonetheless tagged as "racists" by the left. It explains why Democratic Party leftists welcomed former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd into their fold while slandering former Sen. Trent Lott as a "racist." It explains why the Republican Party, founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party, routinely loses 95% or more of the black vote; it explains why the conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas is the most hated man in black America—hated more than the reprehensible O.J. Simpson.

    It explains the virulent left-wing racial demagoguery surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting. Everyone knows that blacks are not being profiled and victimized by white "vigilantes," as the politically charged indictment against George Zimmerman alleged. But the shooting provided a perfect platform for white liberals like Michael Bloomberg and Charles Schumer to attack the traditional, conservative American institutions of gun ownership, the National Rifle Association, and the right of self-defense by smearing these things as "racist."

    Read it all.

    We accept the proposition that human relationships are simultaneously strong but fragile, that human notions of familiarity are natural but confining, that competitive divisions existing due to culture, class, and individuality are not insurmountable when the push and pull properties of each axis is properly cherished and protected according to natural forms. We insist that deep friendship and brotherly love exist among and across all the races and peoples, made possible most notably in the context of free men and free women behaving towards each other in a spirit of compassion and respect whenever the measurement and surety of common goals and individual interests is put to the test.

    Diversity is a beautiful concept, one found in nature itself, but diversity cannot, or should not be coerced, or engulfed in political struggles for which its players are ill-equipped and ill-advised to condone, even though the eco-political whip and needle is often indeed the primary social thrust governments prepare to inject diversity—of every kind and unkind—into the populations at large. Even then, every vector of cultural inertia should be allowed to insinuate its own organic passage into the social soup without the centralized authority of governmental quotas handicapping the game, a tactic which both complicates and falsifies the vaguely apotheosized experiment of diversity for its own sake.

    —GT

    Fjordman: The Eurabia Code, Section 3

    IN MARCH 2006, the two-day plenary session of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, held in Brussels approved a resolution which "condemned the offence" caused by the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad as well "as the violence which their publication provoked." These MEPs and national MPs from the EU and Arab countries also urged governments to "ensure respect for religious beliefs and to encourage the values of tolerance, freedom and multiculturalism."

    During the parliamentary assembly, Egyptian parliament speaker Ahmed Sorour insisted that the cartoons published in Denmark and other recent events showed the existence of a "cultural deficit." Jordanian MP Hashem al-Qaisi also condemned the cartoons, claiming that it is not sufficient to deplore the cartoons as these things might occur again in another country.

    This lexicon would set down guidelines for EU officials and politicians prohibiting what they may say. “Certainly ‘Islamic terrorism’ is something we will not use … we talk about ‘terrorists who abusively invoke Islam’,” an EU official said.
    And European Parliament president Josep Borrell referred to the Mediterranean as "a concentrate of all the problems facing humanity." He said that after one year presiding over the assembly he "still did not fully understand the complexities of the Mediterranean." Following the cartoons affair, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that "freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions." Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that "religious symbols can be protected." He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.

    Solana also met with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.

    Islam Conflict
    Conflict in the streets of Eurabia...
    Following their discussion, Solana "expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt", and vowed "to reach out… to make sure that people's hearts and minds are not hurt again."

    Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that "the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence." The irony that he himself is now trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship apparently did not occur to him.

    Meanwhile, the tentacles of the vast, inflated EU bureaucracy insinuate themselves into regulations on every conceivable subject. Some of the examples of the bureaucracy are ridiculous; some are funny. But it is the sinister side to the European bureaucracy:

    1. The promotion of an official, "EU federal ideology" advocating Multiculturalism;
    2. The denunciation as "xenophobes" of all those who want to preserve their democracy at the nation state level; and
    3.Calling those who would limit Third World immigration "racists."

    A report from the EU's racism watchdog said that more must be done to combat racism and "Islamophobia." One method of accomplishing this is the promotion of a lexicon which shuns purportedly offensive and culturally insensitive terms. This lexicon would set down guidelines for EU officials and politicians prohibiting what they may say. "Certainly 'Islamic terrorism' is something we will not use ... we talk about 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'," an EU official said.

    Early in 2006, the EU's human rights commissioner Alvaro Gil-Robles's criticized a plan to revamp Christianity as a school subject in elementary schools in Denmark. Gil-Robles said doing so went against European values. "Religion as a school subject should be a general course that attempts to give students insight into the three monotheistic religions," he said. The "three monotheistic religions" means Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

    As I see it, there are several possible ways of dealing with the issue of education about religion.

    1. Teach the traditional religions within a particular country, which in Europe means Christianity and Judaism.
    2. Teach all the major world religions.
    3. Leave religion out of the curriculum.

    What the European Union does, however, is to treat Islam as a traditional, European religion on par with Christianity and Judaism. This is a crucial component of Eurabian thinking and practice. Notice how EU authorities in this case directly interfered to force a once-independent nation state to include more teachings of Islam in its school curriculum in order to instill their children with a proper dose of Eurabian indoctrination.

    Most of the documents about the Euro-Arab Dialogue place particular emphasis on working with the media, and the Eurabians have played the European media like a Stradivarius. Aided by a pre-existing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, European media have been willing to demonize the United States and Israel while remaining largely silent on the topic Eurabia.
    Notice also that they didn't ask for more teaching of Buddhism or Hinduism. Only Islam is being pushed.

    In another case, the European Commission rebuffed a call by the Polish president for an EU-wide debate on reinstating the death penalty. "The death penalty is not compatible with European values," a Commission spokesman said. Again, the issue here is not your opinion regarding the death penalty. The real issue is that the metasticizing EU has already defined for you what constitutes "European values." Thus, major issues are simply beyond public debate. This innocent-sounding phrase "European values" cloaks a federal, Eurabian ideology enforced across the entire European Union without regard to the popular will.

    Perhaps the most shameful and embarrassing aspect of the history of Eurabia is how the supposedly critical and independent European media has allowed itself to be corrupted or deceived by the Eurabians. Most of the documents about the Euro-Arab Dialogue place particular emphasis on working with the media, and the Eurabians have played the European media like a Stradivarius. Aided by a pre-existing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, European media have been willing to demonize the United States and Israel while remaining largely silent on the topic Eurabia.

    In May 2006, a big conference was held in Vienna involving media figures (journalists) from all over Europe, who met with partners from the Arab world as a part of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

    European officials responded publicly with "regret" to Israel's ambassador to Austria Dan Ashbel's decision to boycott the conference on racism in the media because of concern in Jerusalem that anti-Semitism was getting short shrift at the meeting. Speaking for the conference—entitled "Racism, Xenophobia and the Media: Towards Respect and Understanding of all Religions and Cultures"—an official claimed that anti-Semitism was not taken off the agenda. This official countered that the meeting was "primarily a dialogue between the media representatives of all the Euro-Med partners on the problems that beset their profession. These include xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia [my emphasis]."

    Writer Bruce Bawer thinks that many Europeans recognize that "multiculturalism" is leading their societies to disaster. But they've heard all their lives from officially approved authorities that any concern about multiculturalism and its consequences is tantamount to racism:

    Eurasian Linkage
    Eurasian Linkage

    "There's a widespread resignation to the fact that multiculturalists control the media, academy, state agencies, and so on. They know very well that if you want to get ahead in European society, you don't take on multicultural orthodoxy. The political establishment seems solidly planted, unmovable, unchangeable. There may be a widespread rage, in short, but it's largely an impotent rage. Europeans today have been bred to be passive, to leave things to their leaders, whose wisdom they've been taught all their lives to take for granted. To shake off a lifetime of this kind of indoctrination is not easy."

    According to Bat Ye'or, fear of awakening opposition to EU policy toward the Arab Mediterranean countries led to the repression of all discussion of the economic problems and difficulties of integration caused by massive immigration. Any criticism of Muslim immigration is basically brushed off as being "just like the Jews were talked about in Nazi Germany," a ridiculous but effective statement.

    Bat Ye'or agrees with Bawer's analysis "concerning the totalitarian web cohesion of 'teachers, professors, the media, politicians, government agency workers, talking heads on TV, the representatives of state-funded "independent" organizations like SOS Racism' to indoctrinate the politically correct. This perfectly expresses the political directives given by the European Commission to coordinate and control in all EU member-states the political, intellectual, religious, media, teaching and publishing apparatus since the 1970s so as to harmonize with its Mediterranean strategy based on multiculturalism."

    Professional harassment, boycott and defamation punish those who dare to openly challenge the Politically Correct discourse. According to Bat Ye'or, this has led to the development of a type of "resistance press" as if Europe were under the "occupation" of its own elected governments. This free press on the Internet and in blogs has brought some changes, including the rejection of the European Constitution in 2005. Despite overwhelming support for the Constitution by the governments in France and the Netherlands and a massive media campaign by political leaders in both countries, voters rejected it. Blogs played a significant part in achieving this.

    Only a few months later, EU authorities lined up together with authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and the Chinese Communist Party in favor of "more international control with" (read: censorship of) the Internet.

    According to Richard North of the EU Referendum blog, "The most dangerous form of propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. And it is that form at which the BBC [the British Broadcasting Corporation] excels. Perhaps the biggest sin of all is that of omission. By simply not informing us of key issues, they go by default, unchallenged until it is too late to do anything about them."

    Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist who spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as an heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC's compulsory TV licence. "The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech—publicising views they don't necessarily agree with." He has blasted the BBC for their "bias and propaganda," especially in stories related to the EU or the Middle East.

    Conservative MP, Michael Gove and political commentator Mark Dooley also complain about lopsided coverage: "Take, for example, the BBC's coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in 2002, he was lauded as an "icon" and a "hero," but no mention was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as "polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man."

    Yasser Arafat Waves
    PLO Leader Yasser Arafat
    This despite the fact that under Yassin's guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds."

    Polish writer Nina Witoszek, now living in Norway, warns that people who have lived under Communist regimes are struck by a strange feeling of dejá vu in Western Europe:

    "Before formulating a sentence, you put on a censorship autopilot which asks: Who am I insulting now? Am I too pro-Israeli, or maybe anti-Feminist, or - God forbid—anti-Islamic? Am I "progressive" enough? Soon we shall all write in a decaffeinated language: We shall obediently repeat all the benign mantras such as "dialogue," "pluralism," "reconciliation" and "equality." Norway has never been a totalitarian country, but many people now feel the taste of oppression and of being muzzled. I know many wise Norwegians—and even more wise foreigners—who no longer have the energy to waste time on contributing to a castrated, paranoid democracy. We prefer safety above freedom. This is the first step towards a voluntary bondage."

    She quotes follow writer from Poland Czeslaw Milosz, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1980 for books such as The Captive Mind, where he explained the seductiveness of totalitarian ideology.

    One essay by Milosz is titled "Ketman." "Ketman" or "kitman" is an Islamic term brought to Milosz's attention by Arthur Gobineau's book Religions and Philosophies of Central Asia. He had noticed that the dissidents in Persia, long accustomed to tyranny, had evolved a style of their own. The need for survival often involved more than just keeping your mouth shut, but of actively lying in every way necessary. This strategy of dissimulation and deceit, which is especially pronounced by Shia Muslims but also used by Sunnis, is primarily used to deceive non-Muslims, but can also be used against other Muslims under duress.

    Native Europeans and indeed some non-Muslim immigrants are quietly leaving in growing numbers, gradually turning the continent into a net exporter of refugees rather than an importer of them.
    According to Milosz, a very similar strategy was used in Communist countries. Similar to Islam, those practicing dissimulation felt a sense of superiority towards those who were stupid enough to state their real opinions openly. In Communist societies, dissimulation was just as much a technique of adaptation to an authoritarian regime as a conscious, theatrical form of art that became increasingly refined.

    It is frightening to hear people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that they see this same totalitarian impulse at work in Western Europe now. According to them, we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism. It is frightening because I believe they are right. Have we witnessed the fall of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe only to see an Iron Veil descend on Western Europe? An Iron Veil of EU bureaucracy and Eurabian treachery, of Political Correctness, Multicultural media censorship and the ever-present threat of Muslim violence and terrorism that is gradually extinguishing free speech. The momentum of bureaucratic treachery is accelerating.

    Native Europeans and indeed some non-Muslim immigrants are quietly leaving in growing numbers, gradually turning the continent into a net exporter of refugees rather than an importer of them. When large parts of Europe are being overrun by barbarians—actively aided and abetted by our own trusted leaders—and when people are banned from opposing this onslaught, is Western Europe still a meaningful part of the Free World? Have the countries of Eastern Europe gone from one "Evil Empire" to another? Are they—and we—back in the EUSSR?

    Vaclav Klaus, the conservative President of the Czech Republic, has complained that: "Every time I try to remove some piece of Soviet-era regulation, I am told that whatever it is I am trying to scrap is a requirement of the European Commission."

    In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. Mr Bukovsky called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.

    "The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people "Europeans", whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening."

    Timothy Garton Ash is considered a leading expert on Europe's future. Bruce Bawer views Garton Ash as typical of Europe's political élite. Ash mistrusts national patriotism but adores the EU. He writes about the need for a factitious European patriotism ("flags, symbols, a European anthem we can sing") to encourage "emotional identification with European institutions." And just why does Europe need the EU? Garton Ash's answer: "To prevent our falling back into the bad old ways of war and European barbarism." Among his suggestions is that Europe encourage "the formation of an Arab Union." He makes no mention of Arab democracy. Imagining "Europe in 2025 at its possible best," he pictures it as a "partnership" with Arab countries and Russia that would extend "from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok."

    Wars have existed for thousands of years before the advent of the modern nation state. It is far more likely that weakening nation states will end our democratic system, a system which is closely tied to the existence of sovereign nation states, than that it will end wars.
    The European Commission proposed the controversial idea of a singing event in all member states to celebrate the European Union's 50th "birthday," the 50th anniversary of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom was lobbying for big-style birthday celebrations to "highlight the benefits that European integration has brought to its citizens." Diplomats said the idea had sparked feelings of disgust among new, formerly Communist member states such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which were reminded of "Stalinist times" when people were forced by the state to sing. Brussels also intended to spend around €300,000 on the appointment of 50 citizen "ambassadors," dubbed the "Faces of Europe," who are supposed to "tell their story" throughout the year on what the EU means to them in their daily life. Germany will go ahead with its own idea to let thousands of its bakeries bake 50 sorts of cakes with recipes from all 25 member states.

    Commissioner Wallstrom in 2005 argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the EU Constitution. The commissioners gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of NATO or the United States.

    Is the EU an instrument to end wars? In October 2006, Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the French Action Police trade union, warned of a civil war in France created by Muslim immigrants: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

    These Muslim immigrants were allowed in by the very same European elites who now want European citizens to celebrate their work through cakes and songs. While civil society is disintegrating in Western Europe due to Islamic pressures, EU authorities are working to increase Muslim immigration, while congratulating themselves for bringing peace to the continent. What peace? Where?

    The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the Thirty Years' War, the last major religious war in Europe, and helped lay the foundations for modern nation states. Before nation states, we thus had a pattern of borderless religious wars and civil wars. This is what we have returned to, full circle, only this time a borderless Jihad is triggering civil wars in Europe. While the EU may help prevent wars between nation states with old grudges, such as Germany and France, it may also actively cause other kinds of wars. It accomplishes this by increasing Multicultural tensions and a dangerous sense of estrangement between citizens and those who are supposed to be their leaders.

    islamist-gone-headless
    Brainless. Dead spirits. False piety.
    Wars have existed for thousands of years before the advent of the modern nation state. It is far more likely that weakening nation states will end our democratic system, a system which is closely tied to the existence of sovereign nation states, than that it will end wars.

    When asked whether the member countries of the EU joined the union voluntarily, and whether the resulting integration reflects the democratic will of Europeans, Vladimir Bukovksy replied, "No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht Treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage."

    In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents, as described in his book, Judgement in Moscow. In January 1989, during a meeting between Soviet leader Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d'Estaing supposedly stated: "Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that."

    This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed as scaremongering any talk of a political union that would subdue the nation states. Fifteen years later, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing became the chief drafter of the truly awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book, hundreds of pages long, and lacking any of the checks and balances so crucial to the American Constitution. Giscard has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referenda in 2005 "was a mistake which will have to be corrected" and insisted that "In the end, the text will be adopted."

    Giscard has also said that "it was a mistake to use the referendum process" because "it is not possible for anyone to understand the full text." Does it instill confidence among the citizens of Europe that we are supposed to be under the authority of a "Constitution" that is too complex for most non-bureaucrats to understand? According to Spain's justice minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar "you don't need to read the European constitution to know that it is good."

    Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Belgian Prime Minister, said that "We know that nine out of ten people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes."

    Journalist Nidra Poller, however, is more skeptical. Commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, she noted a submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands: "The Euro-Mediterranean 'Dialogue' is a masterpiece of abject surrender." The European Union functions as an intermediate stage of an ominous project that calls for a meltdown of traditional European culture, to be replaced by a new, Eurabian cocktail. And she asks: "When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of 'Dialogue,' what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word 'Constitution'?"

    —Fjordman

    Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization.

    By Dawn's Early Light Islam Also Rises

    Islam Will Dominate
    Islam Will Dominate
    IN THE WEST THERE ARE NO organized groups that will side with Muslims or organized groups that will oppose Islam. No such groups exist at the moment. The only organised group at the moment are Muslims, organised around the mosques. It was instructional to see Muslim gangs from London driving the distance to Windsor to help their brothers.

    Leaving America aside for the moment, consider what will happen if right wing parties like the BNP and UKIP in Great Britain or the DVU and NPD in Germany take power and start getting really tough with Muslims. Muslims will not sit back and take it. What if Denmark and other tough-minded European nationals finally rise up and take a stand against the destruction of their cultural heritage by the steady invasion of outsiders who appear to be on the move not just in the West, but globally, just as their mullahs have instructed them to do?

    In all likelihood, mimicking the civil unrest in France last year, these already radicalized agitators will quickly resort to bombings and shootings to register their demands for more cultural appeasements—they are preparing for this type of warfare, for they know that it is how the Jihad is carried into susceptible foreign lands where they are easily outnumbered. Westerners will continue to act surprised, confused, accommodating and fearing confrontation, will choose to leave the matter to the authorities. The left-wing media will muddy the situation with its blind allegience to the foreign and ever slowly will the population decide on a tactic and which side to support.

    Some will decide that fighting against these Muslim insurgencies is the best way to defend freedom, tolerance and democracy, and others will decide those same virtues are best defended by supporting the underdogs—Muslims, who invariably will be stressing that they are being victimized.

    Note how quickly the West acquiesced to the lies of Izetbegovic and the KLA. The West, a slow learner with a genuine drive for cultural inclusion, is now dealing with the result a thirty year flood of Muslim immigration. The Muslim agenda will be less easier to dodge, as many Muslims are now born and brought up in Western cultures, speak the language fluently and have learned how to exploit the local mores.

    That is why none should wish a civil war. The thing when it comes will be messy. Predicting the outcome of war is difficult, particularly if it is a civil war—there are far too many variables.

    Except for the part where the Jews of pre-Nazi Germany weren't rioting or blowing things up. And how they never tried to impose their religious law on the larger populace. And how they had no problem with free speech or pluralism. Except for that.
    Here's a report from a young soldier who served in Ireland with the Queen's Lancs. Having once patrolled UK streets with an SA80, he had this to say:

    "It's not too far-fetched to imagine a future Tory government that would not rule out putting troops on the streets of London or Bradford, if the Muslims are allowed to plunge the country into ghettos of violent insurgency. It was not long ago that the SAS was heavily involved in Ireland. If a Prime Minister as recent as Thatcher was able to deploy the SAS on UK streets then why would a future center right leader feel unable to deploy the same force in defense of the homeland?

    "There does seem to be an assumption that the left wing lunacy will continue unabated unless it is replaced by a far right monster that will tear up the country in a frenzy of foreigner hate. But I don't think that as to be the case. The Tories are in limbo at the moment. They pledged to give soldiers tax relief and Labour stole their idea. I am sure that they meant for Labour to steal that idea but it does illustrate the futility of making firm policies for labour to attack for another two years. But the Tories are in a good position. They are ahead in the polls and the press has stopped ignoring them and are now lambasting them for not giving enough policy meat for the papers to chew on."

    And while apologists from the Left and Muslims themselves plead innocense, news stories are beginning to surface that paint todays's Muslims as pre-WWI Jews, suggesting that any protectionism by Westerners is simply a reflection of 20th century fascism except that the Jews have been replaced by the Muslims and that eventually the Muslims of Europe need to organise and fight back before they land up in the twenty-first century equivalent of concentration camps and a new holocaust begins.

    Others take exception to the characterization of their honest desires to protect their homelands from hateful invasion, claiming, "Except for the part where the Jews of pre-Nazi Germany weren't rioting or blowing things up. And how they never tried to impose their religious law on the larger populace. And how they had no problem with free speech or pluralism. Except for that. Wasn't a crowd of Muslims protesting in downtown London just the other day at Westminster Cathedral clamouring, "Rome Will Fall! Rome Will Fall!"

    Face it. Conservative DNA is patriotic and when the thief is at the door, most Westerners become conservatives.

    The Very Best Of Allen West: Shut Your Mouth. War Is Hell.

    Islamic-American Flag
    Desecration of US Flag
    REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN WEST (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sends The Weekly Standard an email commenting on the Marines' video, and has given us permission to publish it.

    "All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

    "The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

    "As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell."

    Does anyone besides me believe that Congressman West (Lt. Col. US Army, Ret.) would make one fit Commander-In-Chief one day, especially after eight or four years as Vice President under a strong conservative leader beginning January 20, 2013? Let's back up the truck a bit.

    While serving in Taji, Iraq, Col. West received information from an intelligence specialist about a reported plot to ambush him and his men. The alleged plot reportedly involved Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi, a civilian Iraqi police officer. West, who was not responsible for conducting interrogations in Iraq and had never conducted nor witnessed one, had his men detain Hamoodi.

    Allen West
    US Representative Allen West (R-FL)
    In the process of detaining Mr. Hamoodi, soldiers testified that Hamoodi appeared to reach for his weapon and needed to be subdued. Hamoodi was beaten by four soldiers from the 220th Field Artillery Battalion on the head and body. West then fired his pistol near Hamoodi's head, after which Hamoodi provided West with names and information, which Hamoodi later described as "meaningless information induced by fear and pain." At least one of these suspects was arrested as a result, but no plans for attacks or weapons were found. West said "At the time I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received. It's possible that I was wrong about Mr. Hamoodi."

    West was ultimately charged with violating articles 128 (assault) and 134 (general article) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. During a hearing held as part of an Article 32 investigation in November 2003, West stated, "I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers."The charges were ultimately referred to an Article 15 proceeding rather than court-martial, at which West was fined $5,000. LTC West accepted the judgment and retired with full benefits in the summer of 2004. Asked if he would act differently under similar circumstances again, West testified, "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."

    Wouldn't you just love it if you heard THESE words coming out of an American President:

    "We are going to fill your streets with hundreds of thousands of bicycles ridden by students from the LDS Church. They'll go to every door, ring every bell, then I'll send in the Baptists... and that is only the first wave of our troops.
    "Don't make me come over there! When we land, we are going to shoot anyone and everyone who resists us. We are going to piss on every corpse, and then were going to take a dump in your city hall, right on the Governor chair. We are going to teach your people to smoke cigarettes and love Rock N Roll. We are going to take all the minerals out of your soil, drain all your oil reserves, drink all your water, eat all your food and take anything of value back to America.

    "We are going to take your currency and burn it in the town square, drink all your alcohol and teach birth control to your society so 'your people' will come to the point of extinction in one generation. Then we are going to teach English to everyone in your nation and make them dependent on America for everything, including the air they breathe. But of course we won't stop there. We are going to fill your streets with hundreds of thousands of bicycles ridden by students from the LDS Church. They'll go to every door, ring every bell, then I'll send in the Baptists... and that is only the first wave of our troops.

    "So... If I were you, don't make me come over there! Got it! Any questions?"

    Okay, maybe not exactly THOSE words, but...

    Next thing you know, some beanie weenie club will be screaming bloody murder that this is a hate site. Guess that's when we give shout to the turkey buzzards in the fields, peel back the service scars, and let them pick at the toxic scabs given us for our abiding patience. Perhaps then will we never again fail to recognize the desperate identity of the audacious haters who control every nook and cranny of this foolish world.

    Newsweek Acknowledges Global War On Christians

    Newsweek cover
    The War On Christians
    THERE WAS INDEED GREAT NEWS for America from an old lefty rag that landed on newstands last month. Sure, Newsweek has long ago lost its way, its dignity, its circulation, its point of view, but its ailing circulation might have gotten a boost with a cover story from the unassailable Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In fact, I'm going to try to find one. No doubt her essay on the global war on Christianity (particularly harsh in Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East) will be precious reading for those of us who are accustomed to the shunning of anything Christian or Western and everything Islamic or foreign, and the issue's liable to become a collector's item, perhaps for signifying a paradigm shift in the way the news operations are seeing, analyzing and recording the world. What a breakthrough! Bravo!

    IN 2004, Ms. Ali worked with Theo van Gogh, a grand-nephew of the famous painter and a renown film director in his own right, on a film depicting the specific plight of women in Islamic countries. Van Gogh was assassinated by a typically outraged knife-wielding Muslim, who left the knife and a paper note in the crumpled body of his victim, who he attacked on the streets of Amsterdam. After The Netherlands curtailed her security, citing costs, Ali immigrated to America and has been in hiding, fearing for her life since then. Here is her opening salvo...

    We hear so often about Muslims as victims of abuse in the West and combatants in the Arab Spring’s fight against tyranny. But, in fact, a wholly different kind of war is underway—an unrecognized battle costing thousands of lives. Christians are being killed in the Islamic world because of their religion. It is a rising genocide that ought to provoke global alarm.

    From one end of the Islamic world to the other Christians are being murdered.

    The portrayal of Muslims as victims or heroes is at best partially accurate. In recent years the violent oppression of Christian minorities has become the norm in Muslim-majority nations stretching from West Africa and the Middle East to South Asia and Oceania. In some countries it is governments and their agents that have burned churches and imprisoned parishioners. In others, rebel groups and vigilantes have taken matters into their own hands, murdering Christians and driving them from regions where their roots go back centuries.

    The media’s reticence on the subject no doubt has several sources. One may be fear of provoking additional violence. Another is most likely the influence of lobbying groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—a kind of United Nations of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia—and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Over the past decade, these and similar groups have been remarkably successful in persuading leading public figures and journalists in the West to think of each and every example of perceived anti-Muslim discrimination as an expression of a systematic and sinister derangement called “Islamophobia”—a term that is meant to elicit the same moral disapproval as xenophobia or homophobia.

    Read it all.

    We can only aspire that Newsweek continues to look at the geo-political landscape without relying upon the extreme liberal bias cancer that has engulfed most of the world media and positions of power, a position which tends to distort facts and the language it uses to describe the distortion so as to better ignore inconvenient details in their wretched march to create a brave new world, one without borders, liberty, or good sense.

    Here in the West, even wholesome Christianity is being systematically shunned and marginalized by the Left and its friends, in favor of these unimpressive Islamic newcomers to its shores, despite all evidence of this welcoming being a huge mistake.