Category Archives: Big Brother

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

Marking Up The Union Sundown With Bob Dylan

bob_dylan
Bob Dylan
JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE UNDERSTOOD what I'm saying, here's another shot at conflating reality with a Bob Dylan lyric one redliner at a time. Yes, here again was the voice that always managed to spin the magic far beyond the usual malapropism of contemporary songwriter genius. No matter how we choose to slice the banana, it seems that Dylan with Infidels had grabbed a direct pipeline from GOD in shaking down the Barack Obama bug some twenty-six years before the facts themselves show up to kick us in the pants. Sure, he was observing the germane times in which he was living back then, just as we all were, but my oh my, how fast the bodies and antibodies are piling up these days.

America has lost its industrial base to China, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere. America is financially overextended, depleted energy reserves forcing us to funnel billions of dollars annually to our duplicitous enemies, millions of Americans are jobless and under-employed leaving the nation crowned with a future of unprecedented deficits and national debt far beyond the parameters of rational manageability—the socialists.

With the UAW now taking control of General Motors, and the brazen Obama administration's irresponsible manipulation of private interests leaving many of us muttering new words for nothing left to lose, Dylan's cracked ancient voice seems ever more pertinent today than it did to the general population that score and nine years ago when these simple but crafted lines first broke into our consciousness...

      Union Sundown off the Infidels LP

      Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore,
      My flashlight's from Taiwan,
      My tablecloth's from Malaysia,
      My belt buckle's from the Amazon.
      You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
      And the car I drive is a Chevrolet,
      It was put together down in Argentina
      By a guy makin' thirty cents a day.
      Well, it's sundown on the union
      And what's made in the U.S.A.
      Sure was a good idea
      'Til greed got in the way.

      Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
      And the pearls are from Japan.
      Well, the dog collar's from India
      And the flower pot's from Pakistan.
      All the furniture, it says "Made in Brazil"
      Where a woman, she slaved for sure
      Bringin' home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve,
      You know, that's a lot of money to her.
      Well, it's sundown on the union
      And what's made in the U.S.A.
      Sure was a good idea
      'Til greed got in the way.

      Well, you know, lots of people complainin' that there is no work.
      I say, "Why you say that for
      When nothin' you got is U.S.-made?"
      They don't make nothin' here no more,
      You know, capitalism is above the law.
      It say, "It don't count 'less it sells."
      When it costs too much to build it at home
      You just build it cheaper someplace else.
      Well, it's sundown on the union
      And what's made in the U.S.A.
      Sure was a good idea
      'Til greed got in the way.

      Well, the job that you used to have,
      They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador.
      The unions are big business, friend,
      And they're goin' out like a dinosaur.
      They used to grow food in Kansas
      Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw.
      I can see the day coming when even your home garden
      Is gonna be against the law.
      Well, it's sundown on the union
      And what's made in the U.S.A.
      Sure was a good idea
      'Til greed got in the way.

      Democracy don't rule the world,
      You'd better get that in your head.
      This world is ruled by violence
      But I guess that's better left unsaid.
      From Broadway to the Milky Way,
      That's a lot of territory indeed
      And a man's gonna do what he has to do
      When he's got a hungry mouth to feed.
      Well, it's sundown on the union
      And what's made in the U.S.A.
      Sure was a good idea
      'Til greed got in the way.

      Copyright ©1983 Special Rider Music

The History Of Political Correctness

Columnist James Hudnall opines on the need to snuff out this miserable house called political correctness. His language may seem terse in places, but his arguments stand on their own two feet. Free speech must be protected that liberty might survive. I have edited or added an undocumented c omment here and there to the piece. And of course, that colorful spate called "hate speech legislation" is a completely different box of crayons...

flavors
Not PC this Philippine restaurant...

IN THE EARLY 20th century Marxism seemed like a good idea to many of the poor and downtrodden the world over. It hadn’t yet resulted in the untimely deaths of more people than all the wars of the 20th century combined. Even so, radicals then were as annoying and crazed as radicals now. So the people weren’t universally jumping on their bandwagon. The Marxists couldn’t flip governments without the masses. So they worked on a system to undermine unity in society. The old adage “United we stand, divided we fall” was on their mind. They had to divide the people in order to tear society apart and remake it their way. Thus, political correctness was born.

This documentary does an excellent job of telling its story. PC is designed by German Marxists of the Frankfurt School to destroy Western culture.

It should come as no surprise the the destruction of the family is one of its goals. And as it gained in prominence, its goals have been realized. The polarization of racial groups, and even of the sexes is another. That’s plenty of reason to see it die a horrible death. Marxists have murdered many times more people than the Nazis. They have destroyed the livelihoods of people the world over and imprisoned many millions in gulags and work camps. The last thing we want to do is let them win here or anywhere else. While it may seem communism is dead, communism, socialism, fascism are all part of a many headed hydra called statism. These are political systems which are all about empowering the state as much as possible. They name they go under now is “progressive.”

Many progressives on the ground think they are fighting for equal rights and social justice. The progressive elites know better. They want power and control over people’s lives. Political correctness is a tool to accomplish these goals. It should come as no surprise that the oldest Marxist states threw off Marxism because it doesn’t work, and went with their own version of capitalism. Almost every single former Soviet state went gleefully to capitalism. Russia even has a flat tax. That’s a pretty sad comment on where we are right now when their tax system is simple and ours is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Iolitical Correctness is said to be hated by just about anyone you meet, but still it is the official language of the media, teh establishment, and the activists. That is to say, the only people driving it are leftists and government bureaucrats who earn a living from it. Pardon my redundancy, but here are five good reasons Political Correctness must fade away into the sunset so that liberty can once more gain traction in the minds of out pseudo-educated youth.

1. It’s censorship: Point blank, that’s what it is. It’s used mainly by people on the left to attack people on the right, but not the other way around. When Miss California, Carrie Prejean, politely said she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, the PC thugs proceeded to try to destroy her life. But when Obama said it he was elected president. It’s used to accuse people of racism even when there is no racism involved, It’s not only a scare tactic, but also a career-destroying move. And it’s a thuggish weapon of intimidation.

2. It’s bigotry disguised as manners: You may think all those touchy-feely names they come up with for various special interest groups are more sensitive and empowering than the “mean” names of the past, but most of them are patronizing and they segregating. When you separate people into classes, it’s creating a kind of caste system. History has shown us that caste systems are used to suppress and marginalize people by putting them in special groups. The insidious thing about PC is it claims to treat people better when it really does the opposite. It implies that people in these groups are somehow lesser and weaker and must be “protected”, presumably by the government, and then implies that they are not being treated well by other groups (namely white males) which is an inherently racist argument.

3. It’s an attempt at mind control: The goal of PC always has been to segregate people into classes, destroy the family by marginalizing and polarizing people from traditional values and culture. It also tries to rebrand things to force people to think along a different path. You might think that’s a good thing if it makes people more tolerant. While our culture is more tolerant than it was in the past there is no proof or evidence PC had anything to do with it. The fact is, lying to people (which PC does) and trying to destroy a culture by effectively brainwashing people is downright…

4. Evil: The textbook definition of evil is that which is willfully and maliciously harmful to others. What else do you call something that is used to commit so much harm against people and a society as a whole. It has become a rampant monster that destroys lives, careers, and society. It’s used by creepy, selfish people to hurt others. Race-baiters we all know and despise have been using PC for years to try to extort money from business and government by making up racist claims. That’s nothing but a form of extortion.

5. Why should we do what some faceless creeps tell us? Most of the time we were told what the new term for something is. In the ’60s we were told Negro is not acceptable anymore. We should say black even though Negro is merely the Spanish word for black. Then in the ’70s we were told to use “Afro-American” then later “African-American” even though that term is not only a mouthful it makes no sense. A lot of black Americans are simply Americans, many others are from the Caribbean. Or they are mixed race like our president. Who makes up these lame terms and why should we start saying them? Because “we’re supposed to” isn’t a reason, that’s more of a threat. Who says we have to? Why shouldn’t we say steward or stewardess instead of flight attendant? Because “they” say so? Why should we take directions from faceless entities who tell us what we can say? Why can’t we say whatever we want? Most of the terms these people come up with are retarded mentally challenged. See, they hyphenate you to separate you from the rest of us, We’re all part of the same country, but they want to make you feel aggrieved. Angry and unhappy people are easier to sway with propaganda.

Rumor is that the term "political correctness" first took root in North Carolina's corridor of esteemed higher learning—Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest—in the early to mid 1980s, spreading rather quickly from there.

A Race To Nowhere

big brother
Big Brother Is Watching You AND Me
AS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN, I'm amazed at how Obama has hookedwinked so many whites. There is a wealth of factual data out there, from his books, speeches, associations and even his wife's comments including her Princeton paper, that this guy has a large disdain for white people. Notwithstanding the fact that his mother was white. Do whites feel so guilty about our history as a nation that they will overlook these obvious facts and vote this deviant into office. America may not be perfect but show me another nation that would not like to be like us or people who would not want to live here.

Credit to a writer from VA known as Clinging to My Gun.

Update 2012

As a caucasian American, here's how I read the Obama tea leaves. On Jan. 22, a young woman in a socially conservative corner of southwestern Ohio received a blast email from Stephanie Cutter, a deputy campaign manager for Barack Obama. Years earlier, the young woman had registered for updates on Obama’s website, completing a form that asked for her email address and ZIP code...

But Cutter’s note to this young woman was something different. Cutter boasted of a new administration rule that would require insurance plans to fully cover contraception as part of the president’s health care reform law, and encouraged her recipients to see the policy as reason to rally around Obama’s re-election. “Think about how different that is from what the candidates on the other side would do,” Cutter wrote. “Our opponents have been waging a war on women’s health—attempting to defund Planned Parenthood, overturn Roe v. Wade, and everything in between.”

It was a message that sat well with the young Ohioan who received it. She was single, liberal, sensitive to medical costs—but she had never told the campaign any of those things. The one piece of information she had provided, her ZIP code...

This year’s looming innovations in campaign mechanics will be imperceptible to the electorate, and the engineers at Obama’s Chicago headquarters racing to complete Narwhal in time for the fall election season may be at work at one of the most important. If successful, Narwhal would fuse the multiple identities of the engaged citizen—the online activist, the offline voter, the donor, the volunteer—into a single, unified political profile....

Full data integration would allow the campaign to target its online communication as sharply as it does its offline voter contact. When it comes to sensitive subjects like contraception, the campaign could rely on its extensive predictive models of individual attitudes and preferences to find friendly recipients...

Congress On Foreign Internet Oppression

china-internet-police
Chinese Internet Police

CONGRESS in its inimitable fashion has considered how to resolve the dilemma of U.S. Internet companies that try to serve their customers but end up serving repressive foreign governments. Witnesses at a congressional hearing talked about dissidents in China, Syria and Russia who were imprisoned after posting their political thoughts on the Internet.

Routers, e-mail and other Internet services of U.S. companies helped the foreign governments track down the dissidents in some cases, the witnesses told members of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on human rights and the law.

"Cisco´s routers are supercomputers," said Shiyu Zhou, deputy director of the Global Internet Freedom Consortium, a group that advocates against political censorship of the Internet. "They can be used as a toys, but they can also be made into an A-bomb."

He was referring to the Chinese government's Golden Shield Project, sometimes referred to as the Great Firewall of China. It is a censorship and surveillance program run by China's Ministry of Public Security that began operating in November 2003.

The Global Internet Freedom Consortium says Cisco Systems Inc.'s contract with the Chinese government to help build the Golden Shield program enabled Chinese police to find and arrest dissidents by tracking their Internet postings back to the source.

"They can make it into an A-bomb to make it do whatever the Golden Shield needs," Mr. Zhou said about Cisco's computer systems.

Well, our wonderfully sluggish US Congress finally awakens from their slumber on this issue that has caught the attention of concerned industry pundits for at least a decade. Damned American greed once again strikes at the hearts of the innocents, just to gain a foothold in market share (and the misplaced hope that these governments will either loosen up or the people will somehow rise up against their oppressors by luck of Western technologies. Read the entire Washington Times article.

The Myth Of Peace

FROM RELIGIONOFPEACE.COM

Child-Brides-Hamas
Child Brides of Yemen Muslims, Sanctioned By Hamas

Myth: Islam is a Religion of Peace
Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, only fighting in self-defense when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.

The Truth:

Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire. These are the natural acts of a standard ops military psychology, nothing extraordinary. After Muhammad’s death, his most faithful followers and even his own family turned on each other almost immediately. There were four Caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years. Three of the four were murdered. The third Caliph was murdered by the son of the first. The fourth Caliph was murdered by the fifth, who left a 100-year dynasty that was ended in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle. Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam grew.

Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against the Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.

Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death—pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.

By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by the sword, from Spain to Syria, and across North Africa. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years, until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory).

Today, there is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of religion as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Qur’an most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit.

The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith. In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent passages to far more peaceful ones, the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path. The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Qur'anic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended.

By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known.

Under no circumstances, should we, the American People, permit or accept that this fate of creeping jihad into our country, although it is already here. Battles are already being fought, and yet, the administration continues to hamstring our military and name our enemy, while allowing unchecked immigration from Islamic countries to flood onto our shores.

Some of our "leaders" need to be informed in no uncertain terms, by whatever means necessary, of the words of Samuel Adams, early American patriot:

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

—Samual Adams, 1776

Malcolm Was Dead Wrong, Until He Was Dead Right

Malcolm's History
Malcolm's History
BLACK AMERICANS, ISLAMIC DA'WA authored by Hugh Fitzgerald

Given Islam’s record on slavery, black Americans should think twice about converting. And there are other considerations. Islam does not permit music, though here and there folk music has been allowed. But music having to do with religious worship is absolutely forbidden. When black Americans convert, they are throwing out all of Gospel music, doubly wicked in Muslim eyes: the music itself is forbidden, and this particular church music takes its texts from Old Testament stories (stories involving Jews, and the Promised Land). It is curious that real Muslims regarded (and may still regard) Elijah Muhammad's Black Muslims as not the real thing, partly because of the claims made on behalf of Elijah Muhammad himself, and partly because of the music that occasionally was allowed (and may still be) at certain gatherings of followers.

When black Americans discard Christianity for the sake of Islam, because they are fooled into believing that Islam is somehow the correct vehicle of protest, they manifest ignorance of the whole horrible Arab slave trade. That trade began earlier and ended (where it did end) later than the European slave trade. Also, it was, because it involved the castration on site of so many black African children, much greater in scope. The mortality rate was something like 90%, so that only 1 out of 10 black male children seized and castrated by the Arab slavers actually made it to the slave markets of Riyadh, Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Algiers, Istanbul, and similar centers of Islam. See "The Hideous Trade" by Jan Hogedoorn.

Those Afro-Americans who are made the obvious target of a campaign of Da'wa (as are immigrants from Latin America), and who choose to embrace Islam, are unwittingly, with that "reversion" to Islam (one in which they are seldom presented with the full meaning, or texts, of Islam), also turning their back on, discarding, jettisoning, the place of Biblical imagery and of the Bible in the history of black America.

Decades ago, when the Black Muslims first got started (and because of Elijah Muhammad's own claims, and other doctrinal irregularities, Arab Muslims never considered them to be "real Muslims" and even today are contemptuous of "Black Muslims" as opposed to "black Muslims"), much was made of their ability to supposedly "straighten people" out—have them wear coats and ties, give up drugs and alcohol, and so on. Well, perhaps. But what it also did is cause them to abandon their entire pre-Islamic history, and to thus sever ties with their own past, their own relatives who remained Christians or part of a Christian or Judeo-Christian tradition.

Finally, let's talk about racism. Anyone who has spent even a week in the Arab states of the Gulf, or taken a summer course in Arabic in Cairo or Damascus, knows that the most racist, most skin-color aware societies on earth, are those of the Arabs—despite all the talk of a "universalist" religion. One student of my acquaintance, who had taken courses with, and been brainwashed by, Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, to regard Islam as a great thing, then spent a summer in an Arab country. He came back completely disabused—no greater racists, he insisted, had he ever met in his life. He was from rural South Carolina.

Why this information is not more widely written about in the press, including the black press, by black ministers who should try to hold onto their flocks and not let wanderers be seduced by the siren-song of Islam, which for more than a thousand years has meant nothing but kidnapping followed by enslavement or death at the hands of Arab slavers, is beyond me. And even today Arabs continue to show their contempt and hatred for blacks, not only in the enslavement of black Africans by Arabs in Mali and Mauritania, but by the Libyan mobs that attacked black African students and lynched a black diplomat a few years ago; by the Moroccans who have been known to deal with black African migrant workers by taking them and dropping them in the middle of the desert with no possible way of survival; and of course by the behavior of that member in good standing of the Arab League, the government of the Sudan, which over 20 years, killed or starved to death nearly 2 million black Africans in the southern Sudan, with survivors often enslaved.

Ask Francis Bok, ask all the "Lost Boys" now in the United States. Now they have extended their genocidal campaign to fellow Muslims in Darfur—fellow Muslims, but black Africans, and so dispensable. As the Egyptian Zaki Badawi recently said, "they were not real Muslims." And that was the end of his comment—apparently that was enough for him to lose any interest in their being victims of mass murder.

There's much more to add. But the Islamic Da’wa campaign in America involves the clever targeting of blacks. The Boston Mosque was placed right across from Roxbury Community College, and part of the "deal" was for the mosque members to offer "free lectures" to students at Roxbury Community College and 2,500 "books on Islam" (you can guess which kind) for the college's library. In other words, the Mosque's backers were planning on using it as a center for conducting Da'wa among the black population of Boston. One wonders if the Rev. Eugene Rivers, or other ministers, have taken note of the history of Islam, of the tenets of Islam, of the menace of Islam to the wellbeing of those whom they instruct and guide and elevate and offer solace to.

Begin with slavery. Slavery was implicitly recognized by the American Constitution. But it is so no longer. Fortunately, the Constitution has always been subject both to formal modification (amendments) through the express will of the people, and to judicial interpretation ("It is a constitution we are expounding" wrote Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison). There is no way to modify the passages in Qur'an, the sayings and acts of Muhammad in the Hadith and Sira, that allow, permit, even offer rules for, the institution of slavery.

Muhammad himself, and his Companions, owned slaves—the slaves taken in battle. It is not possible, therefore, for any Believer to denounce slavery as a moral evil, for that would be to condemn Muhammad. And he is uswa hasana, the Model for All Mankind. So it just can't be done.

Within recent months, lest anyone forget, a leading Saudi imam wrote that slavery is an essential part of Islam, recognized and accepted, and to abandon that idea is an insult to Islam. Believers know, though they will not always talk about (they are engaged in deception about the nature of Islam, concious or semi-conscious, round-the-clock—sometimes not only to Infidels, but even to themselves), the fact that under Islam, slavery has a place that cannot be denied. Slavery has received permanent textual justification—and those texts, deemed sacred by Believers, are also immutable.

Black Americans, like other Americans, like Infidels everywhere, who because of the actions of Muslims themselves, and despite the efforts of the political leaders in the Western world to repeat pious nonsense about the real nature of Islam, are beginning to realize that as a vehicle for the expression of discontent, Islam is not exactly ideal. For Islam represents the greatest successful imperialism—Arab imperialism—in human history.

After those it directly conquered in the Middle East and North Africa and Hindustan, the greatest victims have so far not been white Europeans, but black Africans, hideously seized, castrated, dragged to the Muslim slave markets by coffle and dhow, with 90% of them dying on the way. Islam demands that converts ("reverts") simply regard with indifference or hostility their entire non-Islamic past. That leaves the non-Arab convert alone—with no music, no art, no history, with essentially nothing but Islam.

There are many available vehicles of protest—of expressing, articulately, discontent or dismay. The ballot box is possibly the best. There are ways to protest effectively things as they are, including the cult of Growth and of the "free market" as the answer to everything, and the grotesque elevation of Homo Economicus, Economic Man, narrowly conceived, as the new Golden Calf. It is possible to be enraged by illegitimate disparities of wealth (and nowhere are such disparities of wealth more obvious than within the Arab Muslim lands).

But Islam is not a vehicle of protest. Rather, it is an expression of total alienation, of giving up entirely from the circumambient society, and cutting oneself off from one's history. And practitioners of Da'wa in this country have, it should be obvious, certain identifiable target populations, starting with black Americans—especially those in prisons, for whom a center of stability and cultural life has been the church. Causing people to cut themselves off from that center of black life and culture would cruelly do more than merely "change their faith." It might just possibly undo them altogether, leaving them as recruits for the Army of Islam, deliberately alienated from their own past.

It is important to keep in mind the nature of Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism, of cultural and linguistic imperialism as well as of economic and poltical imperialism. Look at the historic treatment of black Africans by Arabs—look at the slave entrepot of Zanzibar, the seizure even today of black oil wealth in the Sudan, the massacres of the Ibos in the Biafra War by Egyptian pilots strafing villages, the history of Arab slavers over a thousand years, and the open, rampant racism of Arab societies, which so surprised and horrified Eldridge Cleaver during his stay in Algeria.

Those attitudes of racism, that use of Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism—not only against black Africans, but also against Kurds, Berbers, and all other non-Arab Muslims as well—should be the object of careful study, by all those who are tempted by the siren-song of Islam. And the long history of Arab enslavement of black Africans that continues to the present day and has no end, should not be put out of sight, or out of mind.