Category Archives: Western Civilization
Europeans and their colonial descendants may pen laws of war, but only they are constrained by them.
In the real world outside the dinner parties of Washington D.C. and Brussels, there are no laws in war.
Islamic law which has regulations for which foot to use when entering a bathroom (the left foot) and which side to sleep on (the right) has very few laws of war that cannot be nullified by necessity or even whim. On the battlefield, Islamic jurisprudence is boiled down to, Do what thou wilt in the cause of Allah, that is the whole of the law.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Fantasy versus reality.
J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings was sometimes faulted by literary critics for caricaturing the evil orcs as uniformly bad. All of them were as unpleasant to look as they were deadly to encounter. There is not a single good orc or even a reformed orc in the trilogy. The apparent one-dimensional assumption of men, hobbits, dwarves, and elves is that the only good orc is a dead orc. So the absolutist Tolkien tried to teach us about the enduring nature of absolute good and evil. Apparently he did not think that anything from his contemporary experience might allow him to imagine reforming or rehabilitating such fictive folk.
In the 21st century we are often lectured that such simplistic, one-dimensional evil is long gone. A ubiquitous civilization has so permeated the globe that even the worst sorts must absorb some mitigating popular culture from the Internet, Twitter, and Facebook, as if the sheer speed of transmitting thoughts ensures their moral improvement.
Even where democracy is absent, the “world community” and a “global consciousness” are such that billions supposedly won’t let Attila, Tamerlane, and Genghis Khan reappear in our postmodern lives. To deal with a Major Hasan, Americans cannot cite his environment as the cause, at least not poverty, racism, religious bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, or any of the more popular –isms and-ologies in our politically correct tool box that we customarily use to excuse and contextualize evil behavior. So exasperated, we shrug and call his murdering “workplace violence” — an apparent understandable psychological condition attributable to the boredom and monotony of the bleak, postmodern office.
But then suddenly along comes the limb-lopping, child-snatching, and mutilating Nigerian-based Boko Haram. What conceivable Dark Age atrocity have they omitted? Not suicide bombing, mass murder, or random torture. They are absolutely unapologetic for their barbarity. They are ready to convert or kill preteens as their mood determines for the crime of being Christian. In response, the Nigerian government is powerless, while the United States is reduced to our first lady holding up Twitter hashtags, begging for the release of the latest batch of girls.
Is the Somalia-based Al-Shabaab worse? It likes the idea that it is premodern. In addition to the usual radical Islamic horrors of beheadings, rape, and mutilation, Al-Shabaab even kills protected elephants, perhaps thousands of them, to saw off tusks and fund their killing spree. They seem to make the medieval Taliban look tame in comparison.
Now we are glued on ISIS, the Mesopotamian killers who are beheading on video streams American journalists, as they murder, rape, and mutilate their way from Syria to central Iraq. One of the beheaders, Jihadi John, has a British accent, and seems to enjoy shocking Westerners with the fact that he is more familiarly savage than his fellow Arabic-speaking masochists. Apparently his family immigrated from the Muslim world to the affluence and freedom of the United Kingdom for a more civilized life so that their pampered son could one day leave it to seek to destroy all that had enabled him — and thereby find “meaning.”
If a British politician demanded to strip Jihadi John and those like him of their passports or an American senator demanded that we not let in any more Tsarnaev-like jihadists, the outcry would be such that the crimes of beheading and blowing up people at a marathon might pale in comparison. Cutting off somebody’s head or blowing off a leg is one thing, but casting aspersions on the Other is quite another.
All of the above might once have been lumped under al-Qaeda affiliates, but now Osama’s remnants apparently find monsters like ISIS too “brutal.” In contrast, Hamas only drives Christians out of Gaza rather than beheads them. It also executes unarmed Palestinians deemed insufficiently loyal. It maims those of rival Palestinian political groups. And it positions girls and boys as shields in places where their well-off elite commanders may well be targeted, rather than kidnap and take them out into the bush.
Although most of the savage violence that is plaguing the world today is the dividend of radical Islamists in Africa, Northern Africa, the Middle East, and, yes, Europe, state players are not immune. Bashar Assad has used the government apparatus of Syria to kill tens of thousands — some, in the manner of his old neighbor Saddam Hussein, through the agency of poison gas. He, too, is immune from an accounting — unless the even more evil ISIS catches up with him.
Europe and the United States are baffled by Vladimir Putin. He was supposed to be “reset” a long time ago. Or he should have at least reread Norman Angell’s The Great Illusion years ago, and learned that in an interconnected financial world, starting a war (like World War I) would be so suicidal a business as to prevent its occurrence. Instead, Putin is following the path of Joseph Stalin in the 1930s, gobbling up borderlands, but for the idea of the greater glory of Mother Russia rather than the Soviet commune. His modus operandi is as predictable as our Western weepy responses. He eyes some new territory. He cites long historical affinities. He points to oppressed Russian speakers. He sends in paramilitaries. And then he talks of annexing only part of some previous Russian land. Obama compares him to a cutup in the back of the classroom or dismisses his actions as macho “shtick.” Putin counters with talk about his nuclear arsenal or taking Kiev. If a journalist smarts off, Putin warns him of castration. If Putin wishes to let off a nuke, he might well do it — if only for the hell of it.
We can stop the roll call of global orcs here, with the assumption that we all know the nature of the lunatic North Korea nuclear regime, what the Iranians are planning for the children of the Holocaust, or who the sinister sort who run Pakistani military intelligence and fund terrorists in Afghanistan are. As state powers, they all have ways of incinerating tens of thousands rather than beheading hundreds.
Evil is ancient, unchanging, and with us always. The more postmodern the West becomes — affluent, leisured, nursed on moral equivalence, utopian pacifism, and multicultural relativism — the more premodern the evil among us seems to arise in nihilistic response, whether it is from the primordial Tsarnaev brothers or Jihadi John. We have invented dozens of new ways to explain away our indifference, our enemies hundreds of new ways of reminding us of our impotence. I suppose we who enjoy the good life don’t want to lose any of it for anything — and will understandably do any amount of appeasing, explaining, and contextualizing to avoid an existential war against the beheaders and mutilators, a fact well-known to our enemies.
The Europeans are shrugging that Ukraine is lost and will soon sigh that the Baltic states are a far-off place not worth risking the coffee shops of Amsterdam to defend. Westerners lament beheadings but then privately mutter that journalists know just what they are getting into when they visit the Middle East. Murdering and abusing a U.S. ambassador on video is not such a big deal anymore and is worth only a second or so mention on Google News.
So we wait behind our suburban Maginot Lines, arguing over our quarter- and half-measure responses, refighting Iraq and Afghanistan as if they were the Somme and Verdun, assured that we can distract ourselves from the horrors abroad with psychodramas about Ferguson, the president’s golfing, his lectures on fairness, and which naked celebrity photo was hacked on the Internet.
Meanwhile the orcs are busy and growing and nearing the ramparts…
…you will become victims of the enemy that you welcomed into your home.
Amel Nona, the 47 year-old Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, who fled the Sunni “re-awakening,” IS-led jihad in northern Iraq, to Erbil, Kurdistan, made the following statements to Corriere Della Serra, published August 10, 2014:
“Our sufferings today are a prelude to what even European and Western Christians will incur in the near future. Your liberal and democratic principles here [in the Middle East] are not worth anything. You need to rethink our reality in the Middle East because you are receiving in your countries, an increasing number of Muslims. You too are at risk. You have to take strong and courageous decisions, at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think that men are all the same. It is not true. Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand in time, you will become victims of the enemy that you welcomed into your home.”
- See more at: http://1389blog.com/
It’s been a while since Westerners lived in a society in which human life was truly worthless, in which no one trusted anyone else and it was easier to kill than not to kill.
Outside of a few urban centers in the Middle East where the elites start the revolutions that end up stringing them from the gallows, life is cheap and worthless. Men kill their wives and daughters over petty suspicions. Clans murder each other in vicious brawls. Wedding celebrations begin with firing guns into the air and end with bodies on the ground.
Everything is worth more than people. A camel has value. A pickup truck has value. A smartphone has value. All these things are hard to make.
People are easy to make.
The birth rates are high. Everywhere there are too many people. Too many sons to inherit. Too many daughters to marry off.
The UN and a whole bunch of international organizations slop in enough aid to keep hunger and disease away, but not enough to make life livable or worthwhile. The wealthy have satellite dishes on which they watch American reality shows and Turkish soaps. The poor kidnap them and hold them for ransom. It’s not just life in the Middle East. It’s the whole Third World experience.
About the only reliable source of wealth comes out of the ground and the countries that have it are usually too lazy to get it themselves. That’s what the armies of Western engineers are for. They don’t build their own skyscrapers with the oil money. That’s what the disposable Asian workers are for.
Killing is the easiest solution to most problems. Men kill over honor. Women kill themselves out of desperation. Children grow up torturing animals.
Clerics settle religious questions with murder. It’s just easier that way.
Theological debates are complicated and impossible to settle, but fly the black flags, seize a village, kill the men and force the women to convert to the true faith of the machine gun and the sword and the debate is over.
ISIS is how Islam has been settling questions of theology since the 7th century. Why stop now just because you can order takeout from your smartphone? Westerners are innately fascinated by new technology. For the Middle East, technology is a tool for settling medieval disputes. Twitter is just a way of showing off your latest crop of severed heads. The pickup truck substitutes for a camel.
Politicians settle political debates with more murders. Elections are complicated. Democracy is messy. It’s easier for a colonel to take everyone out back and shoot them. And then spend the next twenty years building palaces with his people’s wealth. And the people mostly like it that way too.
The question isn’t why should they kill, it’s why should they stop? The peace proposals never get anywhere. If you reward violence with concessions, there’s no reason for it to ever stop. And if you don’t, what else is there to do?
When life is worthless, everyone has a gun and a grudge, it’s easier to kill than not to kill. You can see that phenomenon as readily in Chicago as in Iraq. Why not shoot the guy next door because he owes you money, because your daughter looked at him twice, because he’s on your turf or because he’s a Kurd.
Or because it’s Thursday.
Under crowded conditions, life is cheap but honor is expensive. Fights start over the pettiest things and escalate into relentless violence. You can see it in Yemen or in Ferguson. Everyone is just waiting for an excuse to be angry about something and to take it out on someone else.
The Western Urbanites who helicopter parent their 2.5 children into a Prozac prescription and lament their disposable society don’t understand what a truly disposable society looks like even though they probably live less than a mile away from one of those.
In a disposable society, people have no value. Children have no value. Human labor has no value. If you want something done, you force someone to do it. If you can’t have your own slaves, you can control an extended family. You don’t think in terms of what it costs to make something. The only cost that matters is the cost of imports. Everything else is inhumanely cheap.
Emotional reactions always trump rational ones. Everyone feels put upon and slighted from the biggest prince to the lowliest laborer. Everyone is filled with resentments that they channel through the Koran and the mad preachings of Islamic clerics promising holy wars and blaming everything on the CIA, the Freemasons and the Jews.
When it gets hot enough, the killings begin and they usually don’t stop until the weather cools down. The black flags fly. The yellow flags fly. The green flags fly. And you can either play the game or get beheaded on the evening news.
There’s no morality out here. The men are careful not to look at a donkey or a woman while praying to Allah. But they have no sense of ethics. They will casually kill, steal, rape, break oaths and a commit a hundred other crimes before breakfast.
If you’re not a member of their family, you’re fair game. If you are, you had better know your place and help with the stealing, kidnapping and assorted economic empowerment projects.
Killing is easy. Self-control is hard. If there’s no accountability, no local bigshot that wants infidel tourists and their dollars and will make the killer’s family suffer, then he has no reason not to beat you, steal from you or drag you into a home in some slum somewhere and wait for the fabled wealthy infidels to pay him a king’s ransom.
If not he always cut off your head to raise the price on the next one.
His life is cheap, but yours is even cheaper. It’s best to understand that we are not dealing with a moral code that looks anything like our own. The nastier qualities of human nature, deceit, violence and greed, are practically virtues. Especially if they are directed at the right targets.
There’s a reason that Islam was born here. There’s a reason that it still thrives here largely in its unaltered form. There is no civilization where the black flags fly.
“Beyond victory in the First Terrorist War is a greater goal. What we must seek is not merely the “control” and “containment” of terror, for terror in this guise cannot be controlled or contained. We must come to the deeper understanding that only a complete victory over the global Radical Islamic forces can prevent the onset of a confrontation more terrible than the current war.” — AD, 2003
[Originally published @ American Digest in it's first year, October, 2003 ]
Sections of “The First Terrorist War”
1. Calling the War By the Right Name. 2. Not Process But Victory Restores Freedom 3. Playing for Time is Playing to Lose 4. The Goal of Radical Islam is Our Destruction 5. The War of Two Religions 6. The Unspoken Role of the Ballistic Missile Submarines 7. Avoiding the Islamic War by Winning the Terrorist War
“[Arabs] were incorrigibly children of the idea, feckless and colour-blind, to whom body and spirit were for ever and inevitably opposed. Their mind was strange and dark, full of depressions and exaltations, lacking in rule, but with more of ardour and more fertile in belief than any other in the world. They were a people of starts, for whom the abstract was the strongest motive, the process of infinite courage and variety, and the end nothing. They were as unstable as water, and like water would perhaps finally prevail.” — T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom
1. Calling the War By the Right Name. In a war, “Know your enemy” is one of the first axioms in formulating a strategy for victory. It is an axiom the United States has ignored for over
two seven years. Instead we’ve seen a host of euphemisms and slogans thrown up in the belief that, having had many decades of a life where ugly things are given pretty or neutral names, Americans can no longer “bear very much reality.” In the years between September 2001 and today, the public has had little asked of it and seen nothing happen on our soil that alarms it. All is quiet on the western front. [Update April 2013. This is no longer true.]
Foggy thinking, attractive in politics, means defeat in war. War requires “a mind of winter;” a mind that is precise, cold, and unrelenting. War requires that we call things what they are and cease to skirt issues that make us, “uncomfortable.” Vague names create fluffy policies, hamstrung strategies, and wishful thinking. This is where we are drifting.
To say we are “involved” in a “war on terror” extends our infatuation with euphemism and obfuscation into dangerous territory. The phrase lulls us into a state where all dangers seem unclear and distant. The “war on terror” joins an expanding list of “wars on…” such as drugs, poverty, or profuse paperwork in government. The “war on terror” implies a “process” rather than a campaign; an indeterminate series of unresolved encounters rather than decisive actions that lead to an end, to peace.
Peace is the goal of war. To accept a perpetual “war on terror” is to accept a plan for mere “management” rather than victory. The failure to plan for victory is the construction of a plan for defeat.
To those with a clear vision of this war and a knowledge of history, it is a lie that we are “involved in a war on terror.” Our presidents, pundits and policy wonks may prefer it that way, but war is not the same as being “involved in a business slump” or “involved in a troubled relationship.”
Wishful souls in the West may see the war as a “process;” as an exercise in supply chain management. Our many millions of avowed enemies do not. Our enemies have no truck with vague thinking and phrases front-loaded with vacillation and pusillanimous wishing. Their thinking is driven by an ancient religious doctrine designed to manipulate, exploit and harness societies into servitude.
Our enemies commitment to our destruction is adamantine. It is no accident that many of their spiritual leaders speaking from the centers of their faith call for the death of the “Crusaders.” Obfuscation has no place in their plans except as if creates confusion and doubt among us. Our enemies’ goals are the same goals they have held for more than 500 years. They are the goals announced several times a week in tens of thousands of mosques throughout the world. For our enemies, the wars of the Crusades and the wars surrounding the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire were merely prologues to this war.
One such wave (and not the least) I raised and rolled before the breath of an idea, till it reached its crest, and toppled over and fell at Damascus. The wash of that wave, thrown back by the resistance of vested things, will provide the matter of the following wave, when in fullness of time the sea shall be raised once more.” – T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Our present reality, brought home to us in the cataclysm of September 11 (and last week in Mumbai), is that we are now fighting The First Terrorist War. We had best know it by that name. When we persist in calling it the “war on terror” our implied goal is control and containment; a “management problem”. This is a lethal illusion.
In war the only acceptable outcome is complete victory. A negotiation does not end a war – - as Oslo shows. A partition does not end a war – - as we learned in Vietnam. A cease-fire does not end a war — as we saw in the Gulf War. The Cold War taught us that a wall does not end a war. Only victory, clear and decisive, ends war and creates peace. To date, we have failed to learn this lesson. In life, when a lesson is not learned, it is repeated.
In war, language is a strategic asset. Indeed, we see daily how language,here and abroad, is used to weaken the resolve of the United States. The central problem in calling The First Terrorist War the “war on terror’ is that the phrase soothes us into accepting less than victory; makes us accept war-without-end as a new deal; a new normality where terror is accepted as the status quo. This is the state in which Israel has existed for decades as terrorist violence becomes the scrim screen against which that nation’s life lurches on. Although our present foreign policy may impose this on Israel, a garrison state may, over time, prove less popular here at home. We are not yet the kind of country that easily accepts “The Forever War.”
2. Not Process But Victory Restores Freedom An open-ended “war on terror,” like a ‘war on drugs” invites a continuing erosion of small liberties. As this persists, once rare infringements on liberty become the norm. If it is to be the case that the shoes of all air travelers are to be inspected from now until the last ding-dong of doom, we will all be wearing sandals on airlines for the rest of our days. In this, many are correct to be wary of the long term effects of The Patriot Act. Short of military conquest, a free society does not lose its freedom. Rather, freedom is lost through small infringements on liberty and dignity in the name of security. A perfectly safe state is a state without freedom. As our policies look to sustain rather than defeat our enemies, we are to that degree held hostage to both our policies and our enemies. When war is reduced to a process, that process becomes a self-renewing system in the same way that the “war on drugs” has become institutionalized in our lives; a normal part of the background noise that defines our days. A strategy based on “management,” on diplomacy rather than victory, leads only to the establishment of internal organizations dedicated to their own perpetuation.
During the Civil War and the World Wars of the last century certain freedoms were, at times, curtailed, infringed or suspended. Following victory in 1945 these freedoms not only returned but even greater states of equality and liberty emerged. Had the Second World War ended in a negotiated stand-off at the Rhine and Okinawa, a state of war would have continued for an unknowable time and, in such a state, a less-free United States would have been a certainty. Only the destruction of the Axis powers yielded a peace out of which freedom surged, not only in America but in the lands of her former enemies as well. Victory yields freedom in peace. An armed process yields only stasis.
3. Playing for Time is Playing to Lose Our enemies (many of whom have studied and lived or now live among us) know us better than we are prepared to know either them or ourselves. In order to reform, rearm and launch future attacks they depend upon our belief that we are effectively managing the “war on terror.” At the same time they know that, absent any large attacks, we will grow weary with small but constant losses tallied daily by our “caring and sensitive” media. They depend upon us being lulled back into the state of slumber we enjoyed on September 10th. And we grant their wishes. If they are as wise as they are ruthless, our enemies will continue with their strategies of constant attrition and small, distant attacks. They will, for the present, avoid large shocks to the nation in hopes that the ambitions of our political factions and the intellectual lassitude of our major media will result in the defeat of the present administration in the coming elections.[Check... ] The goal of this strategy is the expectation of a more somnambulant administration less invested in war and more inclined towards the failed policies of appeasement, negotiation and payoff. [... and double check.]
When that happens our present “war on terror” will become even softer; will be said sotto voce if said at all. It will be supplanted by something resembling “a diplomatic initiative to ameliorate terrorism.” In effect we shall find ourselves, as we have so often in the past under liberal guidance, trying to buy out way out of the “war on terror.” Our error will be believing that we are dealing with reasonable extortionists rather than blood enemies. And the measure of our leaders’ cowardice will be how deeply they promote this belief and the false hope it engenders.
4. The Goal of Radical Islam is Our Destruction The consequences of a political and military stand-down would be to allow our enemies the time, basing and mobility to grow in numbers, advance in training, achieve greater tactical position within and about our borders, and acquire ever more sophisticated and powerful weapons. Once they have advanced to the next level of lethality they will strike us again with an effect on our lives, liberties, property and economy more extreme than 9/11. The goals of the Radical Islamic forces arrayed against us are the same as their factotums, the Palestinians, have for Israel. In the jihad against Israel we can see what the Islamic forces have in mind for us: the complete destruction of our systems, the occupation of our land, the usurpation of our government, and the death or conversion of all our citizens. These are the goals of Radical Islam as understood by their fundamentalists and as tolerated by the vast majority of believers.
Much has been written about these goals. Most of our scholars conclude they are only fantasies. A nuclear weapon detonated in Seattle does not care if a fantasy set it off.
Whether the goals of Radical Islam can be achieved is a matter for history to determine. It is the belief that they can be achieved that brings the First Terrorist War upon us. To the extent that we fail to recognize the intensity and commitment of our enemies in this war; to the extent we fail to match their passion for our destruction with our passion for victory; to the extent we cast our lot with our “process” as they cast their lot with their god, we weaken our ability to decisively defeat them.
Ours is a “war on terror” while theirs is a “Jihad.” Our efforts are a process. Theirs are directed by divine mandate. Whether you are of a secular or religious persuasion, it is well to remember that if you go to war you’d best have God on your side.
It is time to put away the feeble designation of our actions as the “war on terror” for it is not “terror” that shooting wars engage. Wars engage combatants, armies, populations, institutions, nations and religions. It is unpopular, almost unsayable, to designate the First Terrorist War as a religious war, yet all serious people know that this is the case and that this, in the end, is what it shall come to.
5. The War of Two Religions Through the violent attacks of a Radical Islam, two religions have been brought into conflict. The first is that of Islam, a faith that at its core requires absolute submission from its adherents, and looks towards the subjugation of the world as its ultimate apotheosis. As the youngest of the monotheistic religions, Islam is at a point in its development that Christianity passed through centuries ago. And it is not with Christianity that Islam is currently at war. Islam is saving that for the mopping up phase of its current campaign. The religion that Islam has engaged is a much younger one, the religion of Freedom. As a religion Freedom has been gaining converts since the success of the American Revolution enabled it to go forth and be preached to the world. Freedom is easily the most popular of the new religions and historically converts nearly 100% of all populations in which it is allowed to take firm root. This is the religion which we have lately brought to Iraq.
The genius of the religion of Freedom is that it allows all other religions, from the venerable to the trivial, to exist without fear of censure or destruction. Indeed, the only thing that the religion of Freedom firmly forbids is the destruction of Freedom itself. “Thou shalt not destroy Freedom” is Freedom’s single commandment. And Freedom has been shown to resist efforts to destroy it in the most ferocious way. It’s enemies would do well to ponder the fate of previous attempts to do so.
On September 11, the agents of Radical Islam began their attempt to destroy Freedom by attacking it at its core. The reaction of Freedom to this assault has been, once you consider the destructive power of the weapons systems it possesses, measured, deliberate and cautious. This is because Freedom, although sorely wounded, does not yet feel that its very existence is threatened. A more serious attack at any time in the future will put paid to that specious notion.
Following a second attack at a level equal to or exceeding September 11, any political opposition to pursuing our enemies with all means at our disposal will be swept off the table. The First Terrorist War will begin in earnest and it will not be a series of small wars with long lead times and a careful consultation of allies. The war will become, virtually overnight, a global war of violent preemption and merciless attack towards the spiritual and geographic centers of our enemy. Arguments revolving around the true meaning of ‘imminent’ will be seen as they are — so much factional prattle. Due to the nature of the enemy, the First Terrorist War will be fought here and there and everywhere. It does not matter when or where the second serious strike on the American homeland takes place, it only matters that on the day after this country will be at war far beyond the current level of conflict.
6. The Unspoken Role of the Ballistic Missile Submarines Since 9/11 there is one element of our strategic forces that has not been discussed. Indeed, you seldom hear a question asked about its status. That element is our fleet of ballistic missile submarines. We currently possess 18 of these “ships,” but a ballistic missile submarine is known not as a ship, but as a “strategic asset.” Each submarine has 24 missile tubes. Each tube holds one missile with from 5-8 nuclear warheads. Each warhead can be targeted separately from the others. The range of these missiles is classified but is thought to be in excess of 6000 nautical miles. The total number of warheads is approximately 50% of US strategic warheads. In sum, any single one of these strategic assets can create the end of a significant portion of the world. At present roughly 40% of this fleet is deployed at unknown and unknowable locations throughout the world’s oceans.
Originally built in order to deter, these strategic assets now assume a more aggressive role in the First Terrorist War. Because of the religious nature of the war, our enemy is unlikely to be deterred by the threat of obliteration. He will view that as highly unlikely since it would, of necessity, involve us in the deaths of large number of civilians in countries known to harbor or be friendly to Islamic terrorists. He believes we would not employ these weapons. This misunderstanding of the history of Western democracies under arms and in a state of total war invites global tragedy.
Nevertheless, the character and goals of our enemy are as fixed as the words of the Koran and he is not to be dissuaded by the threat of annihilation. Only actual annihilation will, in the end, suffice and yield victory. In attempting to achieve this annihilation we can only hope that the political and military situation does not evolve to a level where the submarines would have to play a role.
7. Avoiding the Islamic War by Winning the Terrorist War Because we are large, lumbering, impatient and somnambulant our enemy depends on these factors to defeat us. He uses the opportunities of Freedom in order to make war upon it. He is able to infiltrate our society and institutions. He is able to be infinitely patient. He plans for the decades while we can barely manage to plan from one fiscal quarter to the next. This is a war that will play out over years and will not be resolved in months. In order to gain victory and defeat our enemy we must put in place policies and strategies that cannot easily be altered by reports, polls, or election cycles. In order to achieve this we must be, as we were in the Second World War, united in purpose. It is, sadly, the nature of our society today that September 11th’s unity was fleeting. To find this unity we must suffer through one more horrendous attack the nature and timing of which will not be of our choosing.
Still, as surely as the next attack will come, so will the unity that it creates in its wake and at that point the full power of Freedom’s Arsenal will at last be used to defend it. This is the social and political conundrum that confronts us in the First Terrorist War. And this is why the war must be divorced from ‘process’ and the goal of victory be cut into the stone of the American soul.
During the Second World War, our system, with few alterations, brought us through to a peace in which there were greater freedoms than before the war. Victory validated our way of life. Not only were our freedoms intact in 1945 but they were poised, with the economy, for a great expansion throughout the rest of the century and into this. If you had proposed, in the summer of 1946, that within 50 years all minorities would be fully enfranchised, that women would be fully liberated, that homosexuals would be a dominant force with their enfranchisement only a moment away, and that an African-American could be elected President, you would have been dismissed as a socialist dreamer. And yet, here we are.
The same situation can also be envisioned as the result of our victory in the First Terrorist War at the end of a less-clear but no less threatening passage of arms. But this will only happen if we remain clear about the real nature of the First Terrorist War, and committed to unequivocal victory regardless of the costs in lives and treasure. Only by matching the determination of our enemy to destroy us will we prevail. The only thing that can defeat us are a dull reliance on management, a fascination with process rather than victory and the reluctance to believe the extent to which our enemy desires our annihilation.
Beyond victory in the First Terrorist War is a greater goal. What we must seek is not merely the “control” and “containment” of terror, for terror in this guise cannot be controlled or contained. We must come to the deeper understanding that only a complete victory over the global Radical Islamic forces can prevent the onset of a confrontation more terrible than the current war.
What we must press for in the Terrorist War is a victory so decisive that we can, in the end, avoid the larger war lurking on the not-so-distant horizon – - a true war between civilizations. That war, should it come, will not take the name of The Terrorist War, but of The Islamic War.
The Terrorist War is still a struggle that can be fought and won with conventional means. An Islamic War, should it come, would engulf the world and be anything but conventional.
“Some of the evil of my tale may have been inherent in our circumstances.”T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom
The Suicide by Immigration of Western Civ. Those that Have an Ear To Hear, Let Them Hear Truth. Most Will Not.
Manfred Kleine-Hartlage: Speech at Volkstrauertag 2012
In light of Volkstrauertag last month, I wish to present to you this speech given last year by German center-right political activist Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, in front of the Reichstag in Berlin. Kleine-Hartage is the author of The Jihad System: How Islam Functions, Defend Europe, Why I am No Longer a Leftist, and The Liberal Society and Its End—On the Suicide of a System.
For many of us have not learned to cease the mourning.
Transcript below translated by Yours Fraternally.
In normal times and under normal circumstances, a day like the today’s People’s Mourning Day would be a day of quiet remembrance, and the common grief of all the people and their representatives.
In normal times, it would be a day of prayer: for the dead of past wars, so that the future wars may be spared from us.
In normal times, there would be agreement over the meaning of the People’s Mourning Day; there would be no need, on such a day, to hold political speeches and so to speak of the disagreement.
In normal times, we would not have to gather in front of the Reichstag building, to set a counterpoint to what is going on inside of this building.
But the times are not normal. This People’s Mourning Day falls not in a period of peace, but in a time of undeclared war being waged against the peoples of Europe.
It comes in a time, in which it is necessary to explain in detail the self-evident truisms that one feels connected to his own people in a special way, and that this has nothing to do with resentment of other peoples.
We live in a time in which such self-evident truths are not to be understood even when explained in detail, because a whole cartel of propaganda institutions are working to defame him who utters them.
We live in a time in which the people must fight to even get a word through, for their so-called representatives put words in their mouths which they would never say themselves.
We are here today to give these people a voice, and therefore today’s remembrance cannot be a silent remembrance, although we all would like to have one. The circumstances, which we have not chosen, but are forced upon us, do not let us.
That my name is on the list of speakers for today’s People’s Mourning Day is a coincidence. It might as well be on the list of victims of xenophobic violence whose names are yet to be read here.
Two and a half years ago, I was approached and beaten by a Nigerian. And he hit and hit and did not stop. The reason for this violence and hatred was that I had asked him to turn down the music which from his shop could be heard throughout the entire Altstadt Spandau. What had saved my life was the fact that a very athletically-built former police officer came along by chance, who had the ability and the courage to intervene. As we all know, this is an extremely rare stroke of luck, and to this stroke of luck I owe that I am standing here.
The case is in three ways characteristic: by the triviality of the event, by the excessive brutality of the reaction, and by the hatred towards the local people, which explodes at the slightest provocation.
Sure, is it a unique case, in the sense that every single case is tautologically an individual case. But as a social scientist, I cannot be satisfied with flat tautologies. When thousands and thousands of such “individual cases” follow a recognizable pattern, when repeatedly the same constellations emerge, when repeatedly the same mentality is recognized, when repeatedly the offenders come from the same group, then I cannot pretend that the victims of such crimes are only victims of general crime, which exists like a background noise in every society and always will. These violent crimes must have nameable causes.
Up to this point, presumably even leftist and liberal do-gooders would go along. The talk of the “social causes” of immigrant violence (provided it is ever named as such) is almost one of their standard phrases. By this they mean that the violent crimes committed by immigrants have social causes; but at the same time they hold that these oft-cited “individual cases” have nothing to do with each other and there is no identifiable pattern exhibited.
The ideology industry of our country will therefore have to decide on one of its two excuses, for they are logically mutually exclusive. Because an excuse is also part of the “social causes” produced incessantly by the progressive ideologues: if these ideologues—no matter whether they are politicians, journalists, religious leaders, teachers or professors—speak of “social causes”, then they do so as a norm, without having researched according to the real social causes.
The list of their so-called social causes is extremely clear: Immigrant violence is committed—according to the mainstream discourse—because immigrants are poor, the society is not integrating them enough, the fight against the far right has not been vigorous enough and—this above all—because the German racists out of pure malice discriminate against the immigrants.
I want to see one of these ideologues show me one country in the world that is less racist than Germany! Just a single one! There is no other country in the world where people are as careful as here not to infer anything about individuals from general views of ethnic groups, where it is considered as important as here to prevent prejudice in order to see each person as an individual instead of a mere instance of a group to which one attributes properties.
And this aversion against prejudice can even be dangerous. Take this Nigerian for an example: Had I had the preconception already that he was violent, I would not have gone to him, but would instead sent the police to him. That I did not have this prejudice almost cost me my life.
Let us set this straight: This is not a plea for people to orient themselves in the future towards prejudice. But it is a plea to dismiss the wholesale suspicion of the German people as a nation of racists as the baseless—and racist itself!—defamation it actually is!
The progressives never look into the real social causes of immigrant violence; they just use this violence to demand what they demand anyway and what they have been doing: the expansion of the welfare state at the expense of the taxpayer, more positions and more means of control for deserving comrades and their projects, the muzzling of their political opponents, more propaganda, more censorship and the increased intimidation and defamation of their own people. What the progressive ideologues mean by the “social causes” of immigrant violence is only one thing: that their own ideology has not been sufficiently implemented, that their owninterests have not been sufficiently served.
It is not automatic, and it does not happen by chance, that people indeed manage to live together peacefully and orderly; it is an astonishing wonder that they do. Every culture is a fine network of thousands and thousands of largely unwritten rules, values, shared memories, shared beliefs. Every culture is a unique, specific answer to the question of how people do it, and when I say “unique”, then that means inevitably these answers vary: there are cultures in which the family clan and its unconditional cohesion is the basis of society, which protects individuals, and there are on the other hand individualistically-influenced cultures like ours, in which you trust the state and the laws to provide this protection, and which relies on everyone else doing the same. There are cultures in which the ability and willingness to use force has prestige value, and there are cultures like ours in which violence is outlawed. There are cultures in which yielding is considered a sign of weakness, and there are cultures like ours, in which conflicts are regarded as mere differences of opinion, which are at best discharged discursively and at worst in court.
Yet these other cultures do not necessarily work worse than ours, but just differently. Islam, for example, does what is needed to provide a cultural system: it organizes the society. But it organizes it differently than our Christian or Western system. The problem only begins where one locks together two, three, four or more different and incompatible cultures in the same country, so they are crammed together, but do not belong together.
In wanting and introducing a multi-ethnic state, society is put in the state of an (at least) latent civil war. In running this, the society falls into a permanent structural crisis that is constantly reinforced with progressive mass immigration, which stirs up conflicts, encourages vigilantism, destroys the social consensus of values, and destroys the conditions of social peace. He who teaches his own children peacefulness does so because of ethical values ultimately rooted in Christianity. Then forcing the thus peacefully behaved people to live together with others who come from cultures married to violence—such as that Nigerian—makes them specifically and systematically victimized. This invites an endless liability.
The 7500 Germans since 1990 who have become victims of immigrant violence are victims of a policy daring enough to destroy society: out of ideological blindness; out of greed for cheap, easily exploitable labor, whose situation is precarious at the same time, for the welfare state will collapse at the point of exhaustion (this one also a quite desirable result of mass immigration for certain circles); out of hatred for his own people, those damn Germans they want nothing to do with; and—not the least—out of lust for power. There is a reason why there are elites in all Western countries who carry out the destruction of peoples and their transformation into mere splintered “populations”: peoples are in fact solidarities that can also kick their rulers out. The battle cry with which the rule of the SED [the Soviet-installed Socialist ruling party of East Germany] was overthrown 23 years ago did not read “We are the population.” It read: “We are the people!” A mere population, consisting of dozens of warring ethnicities, will never overthrow the ruler. They cannot. A democracy needs its demos. A despotism on the other hand, a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime—yes, such a thing needs a population.
The destruction of the people is one side of the same coin, to which the other side is the transfer of their rights to supranational institutions: to the EU, the WTO, the IWF, the NATO, the UN and dozens else—all institutions that cannot be controlled from below, but that determine our lives: that dictate to us the rules by which we live, and dictate to us which foods we should eat, which people we have to live together with in our country, against whom we must go to war, and into what inscrutable bank-conglomerate our tax dollars disappear.
What is here in the making as understood is a global despotism of elites who resist any responsibility and any control. And the systematically induced mass migration, this largest mass migration in 1500 years—when this migration of peoples led to the collapse of Roman civilization—is part of this process.
Against today’s events it has been argued, the People’s Mourning Day is dedicated to the mourning of German war victims, and crime victims were indeed not war victims. And I say: They are just that! They are victims of a war that is being waged against all the peoples of Europe, not only against the Germans. But when I point out that a war is being waged, I have to answer the question of who the enemy is.
Are the enemy young immigrants, who lead their private jihad against the people despised by them for educating its children to peacefulness? I would say: They are at most the auxiliary, as were the Antifa: the autonomous, anti-German little leftists fighting against law with taxpayers’ money, acting all too gladly like pig-men, reveling in self-righteousness, denunciation, bullying and witch-hunt; such sort of auxiliary troops.
Might the enemy sit in the Muslim Brotherhood, or in the Turkish Government, or in the Millî Görüş? I would say: There sit at most—but still!—the rods of the auxiliary troops. No, the enemy that is waging war against this people sits here: in this building that is dedicated to this very people. And not only here: He sits not only on government chairs and parliament seats, but also in electoral offices, in ivory towers, at the headquarters of banks and large corporations, in the EU bureaucracy, on the boards of multi-billion-dollar propaganda foundations and within the luxury villas of their financiers. He sits in Berlin, in Brussels, in New York, in Washington—he sits where social power is clustered together, visible and invisible alike.
The war which has taken the victims we mourn today is a war of those in power, a tiny elite, against the rest; it is a war of the rulers against the people.
This parliament, this political class, so concerned with the political affairs of the rich and powerful, this political class has no right to grieve German dead—because they are not their dead! They have not the right to host a People’s Mourning Day, because they have broken away from their people, cheated them, betrayed them, sold them out, and now are working on their destruction! They have not even the right to, as they do now, mourn the foreign victims of right-wing extremist violence, for it is these dead too whom they have on their conscience! And the tears which they now shed are crocodile tears.
We mourn today the victims of an extremely one-sided war. It is time that the peoples of Europe accept the unspoken, but highly effective declaration of war by their so-called elites and respond appropriately.
I thank you!
Editors Note: T.L. Davis, an excellent writer, and American Patriot, wrote both of the following posts. I put them here, in entirety, because they should be read by every fellow patriot in this country. Once every decent, constitutional believing, God-fearing American is designated as a terrorist, which is being done by OUR government of these United States – Then we are ALL in this together and you and I have to make a decision just as T.L. Davis describes in these two articles. Everything is now in clear Black and White. To me there is no “gray area.” I know where I stand. Do You? ZTW
Miller Dilemma - Post One
Jared and Amanda Miller finally gave the feds the excuse they were looking for to put all of us “domestic terrorists” on notice. It was bound to happen wasn’t it? And now the post I made only yesterday asks the question of today. Do we have the ability, as a movement, to stomach the sort of thing the Millers did and still stand by our previous statements? Who knows if they were white supremacists, how can anyone know for sure? They draped the cops body with a Swastika, does that say something about them, or the cops? Who are the Nazis in this scenario?
See, how do we, as a community, deal with this act? We know who the cops are; what they are willing to do to innocent citizens. I don’t agree with white supremacy. I don’t agree with racism. I don’t agree with flash-banging a baby in his crib either.
At the Bundy Ranch the feds were willing to unleash snipers. On who? Grass poachers? The Millers are not innocent, possibly racists, perhaps that is what got them kicked out of Bundy’s Ranch and rightly so in my book, but like them or not, we just got associated with them and as far as the cops are concerned they are free to kill our families; our babies, to justify their bloodthirsty desire for retribution.
I know the tendency is to back away from the Millers, to let them swing alone, but their rage was not created out of racism, or anti-government conspiracy theories. It was created out of armored cars and militarized police departments encouraging the type of tactics that make the deaths of innocents almost guaranteed. We have all seen the hundreds of cases a year of extreme police brutality and hardly ever a legal case brought against those guilty of what can only be described as executions.
If anything pushed the Millers to do what they did it wasn’t the “patriot community” (as several news stories claim, using that particular term that I have probably used a few thousand times and never heard it used in a news story before). What does that tell you? Anyone who identifies themselves with that term is now a target of retribution. They were also connected somehow to the militia and I doubt seriously if they had ever had contact with the militia outside of Bundy Ranch.
I know this will not be a popular post. I know there are several police officers and deputies who read this blog, so let me be very clear here. It is not a question of whether I support the Millers for their act any more than it is a question of whether they support the deputies who flash-banged a toddler in his crib in Georgia.
There is also a distinction to be made. Yes, cops risk their lives and many, many times in arresting true criminals, murderers, thieves, gang members and rapists. That conscious decision to engage these criminals takes courage and they deserve our respect, but they chose that occupation; they knew the risks and assumed them. In this case a couple of officers were killed with, as far as I know, no connection to the Bundy Ranch, or other acts of overt, criminal oppression, but they tolerated in their midst bad cops and probably said nothing, perhaps laughed at their antics of cruelty.
A child in a crib did none of these things and suffered the same fate (even though the child in GA did not die). It was sleeping in a crib for heaven’s sake and got flash-banged by eager, arrogant, careless and ruthless men with badges. I know the life of a baby means nothing to the media, they report on them every day, they encourage abortion and see nothing valuable in the state of innocence of a child, but I do.
That distinction is critical to understanding the difference between the causes of one death and the senseless death of another. It is the difference between understanding that one makes themselves a target by their complicity to corruption and brutality and not understanding what a baby in a crib could possibly be complicit in.
The feds have put me in association with the Millers, because they want me there. It gives them a reason to kill me and my family without regret, remorse or anything, except a high five. If that is you, if you recognize yourself in these words, you do not deserve my respect and I will not feel sadness at your passing.
You cannot continue to take citizen’s lives so lightly and expect them to cherish yours. The police department is supposed to be a cooperation between citizens and those expected to enforce the laws the people have designed to order a civil society. When the police turn their power against the people they cannot expect and do not deserve the support of the people. If that manifests itself in acts as committed by the Millers, only the police have the ability to reverse the trend.
Perhaps you have enough cover on the force that they would never come after you, but they will come after people like me, who will not blanch in the face of pressure. My beliefs in God and the Constitution are solid, that will never change and if those things make me a target, well I will have to deal with it, but you are looking at yourself as an individual suddenly targeted by psychotics and feel uncomfortable. Trust me, it is a much different feeling when you see some of those psychotics driving around in police cruisers, with the weapons, law and society on theirs side. Not all, surely, but enough. Did you know that a police officer is 137 times more likely to be guilty of misconduct severe enough to warrant a news story than of being killed in the line of duty? That is one in five. Now, what are my chances of encountering a cop who is willing to commit misconduct severe enough to warrant a news story? 1 in 5. I think I have a lot more to worry about than you. I mean, in my line of work, I put my life on the line every day as well. I can’t even begin to count the close calls, not of mere disfigurement, but death. I accept that and I assume you have as well.
Of course there are no absolutes, but I don’t know which one will turn their eye on me on behalf of a police department owning many thousands of gifts to the current administration in the form of military-style vehicles and weapons including snipers and night vision goggles.
No, I am not cowering inside my home for having written the previous post, I wouldn’t give them the satisfaction, but it is nearing the time when you will have to decide whether you are on your employer’s side, or the side of liberty.
I risk a lot writing this blog, but I consider it a duty to express the frustration and outright illegality going on as commonplace in the world of government. I have suffered the wrath of the government already in my journey of patriotism, so I am not confused as to whether I have been targeted or not. I don’t care, because my right to free speech is as dear as the right to bear arms. Put me in jail if you must, kill me if you think it will get you a promotion, but do not mistake your role in the affair.
Don’t take my word for it, the bad cops are running loose in society with guns and badges we gave them, go here. It is, at best, an epidemic. There were seven convictions in May alone and we have to figure in that these were just the ones to get caught, run through the process and eventually convicted. How many get away? How many criminals get away rather than convicted? How much harder is it to get a conviction against a cop?
Having said that, the police officers and deputies that frequent this blog are like all who consider themselves defenders of personal rights, good, decent, hard-working people. I don’t mean to besmirch them all, but the odds are not good. These are truths that must be faced in order to begin a restoration of the proper order of things. It will take a critical look at the facts and make some judgments and maybe take action against it.
At some point the good cops have to take some responsibility. Yes, the link above shows that the system can work, but my point is the system must work or it breeds people like the Millers. I daresay that it is breeding them much faster than is imagined. An escalation of force can do nothing other than make martyrs and breed resistance. It is hard for cops to recognize that while they might have all of the armor, the tanks, the SWAT teams it wants, a few motivated people who feel the injustice of the system can do unprecedented damage to society as a whole.
My advice is to back off, reassess the trajectory of militarization of your forces and the message it sends to everyone who values their rights. If you light enough fuses a few bombs are liable to go off.
Books advocating stoning, beating, loving death more than life found in Islamic Elementary School in the UK
Books were found at the Islamic Olive Tree Primary School in Luton, England suggesting that stoning and lashing individuals were proper punishments for misbehavior, according to government investigation.
Breitbart After an Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) investigation, the inspectors found library books at the school that shared and promoted extremist Islamist views and had “no place in British society.” Ofsted declared the Olive Tree Primary School “inadequate” following the finding of the extremist texts in the elementary school library.
The inspectors found that the students’ “contact with different cultures, faiths, and traditions is too limited to promote tolerance and respect for the views, lifestyles, and customs of other people.”
Additionally, the inspectors found that, “There are too few books about the world’s major religions other than Islam.”
Somali woman stoned to death
Farasat Lartif, a spokesperson for the Luton Islamic Center, responded to the allegations, “Ofsted came into the school looking for problems of extremism and intolerance and didn’t find any.” He continued, “We have a large number of books about different faiths, which inspectors failed to to notice, including The Diary of Anne Frank.” Lartif warned, “Many Muslims will feel alienated and victims of state Islamophobia.” (Oh, Boo Hoo)
Ofsted reported that books available in the library included The Ideal Muslim, which implores parents to beat their children if they do not start mandatory prayers by age 10. The books says of a woman’s role in the family, “if you knew the rights that your husbands have over you, every one of you would wipe the dust from her husband’s feet with her face.” Another book, Commanders of the Muslim Army, praised a principle seen espoused by radical jihadists that individuals should love “death more than life in their pursuit of righteous and true religion”.
The new findings came on the same day Ofsted warned in a report of the possibility of an Islamist takeover of 21 state secondary schools, which has been explained as a “Trojan Horse” takeover. The report found that many UK schools have been subject to a “culture of fear and intimidation.”
From BNI: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you’ll live… at least a while.
And dying in your beds, many years from now,
would you be willin’ to trade ALL the days, from this day to that,
for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies
that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take…
Found at RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…A Police State Superbowl
Above, Bronco quarterback Peyton Manning (left); Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson (right).
Today, the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks football franchises will participate in the 48th playing of the National Football League’s Super Bowl.
Would even one of the fans then sitting in the Los Angeles Coliseum have believed that the same venue would see the US national soccer team booed in favor of the Mexican —or that a Los Angeles Times columnist would praise this development? [Again, it's red, white and boo, By Bill Plaschke, June 26, 2011]
Would even one fan believe that an elite academic institution, Stanford University, would not only willingly abandon the teaching of Western Civilization course required of all freshmen (“Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go…”—Jesse Jackson), but consider Richard Sherman’s worthy of admission despite his low SAT score just because he runs an above-average 40 time?
How could you convince those fans, who had casually strolled into a stadium with almost no security, that to enter Super Bowl 48, they’d be subjected to an invasive search of their person, presumed a potentially terrorist threat until deemed innocent and worthy to enter the stadium?
More than 30 federal agencies, 100 law enforcement agencies, 700 state troopers, 3,000 private security officers, snipers hidden on among the crowd, US Army Black Hawk attack helicopters enforcing a 10-mile “no fly zone” around the stadium, and US Air Force F-16s on emergency stand-by will protect this XLVIII playing of the Super Bowl.
The America of 1967, when the first Super Bowl was played, was 90 percent white, bursting with social capital and upward mobility for its citizens. But, thanks to the 1965 Immigration Act and the simultaneous collapse of immigration enforcement, the America of 2014 is a country where the majority of births are non-white, the middle class is shrinking—and the state of social capital is devastatingly summed up by the Police State measures required to ensure the safety of a football game.
Fans with tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl can’t even tailgate outside MetLife Stadium. [No tailgating at Super Bowl, By Jane McManus, ESPN, December 9, 2013] You can’t even walk to the stadium, with the NFL devising “Fan Express Zones” (at a cost $51 per ride), where you can board a bus and be shuttled to and from the Broncos-Seahawks game. [You Can’t Walk to the Super Bowl Because You Are the NFL’s Personal ATM, By Sean Conboy, Sports Illustrated, January 28, 2014]
What would one of those 1967 fans have thought if they’d be able to see Super Bowl 48? (Mind you, the number of black players on the field in that first game resembles the number of white players on the field in today’s game.)
You don’t have to be InfoWars.com’s Alex Jones to understand something is seriously wrong, as police state measures are implemented not just in the NFL and at the Super Bowl, but across all of America. [NFL wants pat-downs from ankles up at all stadiums, USA Today, September 15 2011]
Jones, whose webzine is one of the fastest growing media organizations precisely because so many Americans are becoming increasingly worried about their freedoms, has called for a boycott of the NFL, arguing that the league’s TSA-style security at stadiums is just another way of conditioning fans to accept the encroaching police state. [NFL Faces National Protest, Infowars.com, December 4, 2013]
Purses and backpacks have been banned from games, with the Department of Homeland Security providing a stamp of approval for the NFL’s safety measures. [NFL Bans Purses and Backpacks, Limits Fans to One Gallon-Sized Baggie, By Zenon Evans, Reason, August 6, 2013]
Jones noted, in announcing his decision to call for a boycott of the NFL, that the league vetoed a Super Bowl commercial by rifle manufacturer Daniel Defense:
The company’s “offensive” ad depicts a former marine arriving home to greet his wife and child, accompanied by a voice over stating, “no one has the right to tell me how to defend them.”
The ad supposedly violates the NFL’s advertising guidelines, which bar ads featuring “firearms, ammunition or other weapons,” even though the ad doesn’t actually show any of the above, aside from an illustration of their popular DDM4 rifle featured below Daniel Defense’s logo.
[National Movement to Boycott NFL Launched: Pro-Obamacare NFL launches war on Second Amendment, InfoWars.com, December 4, 2013]
How could you tell the America of John Wayne that, one day, several U.S. states would be waging war with the 2nd Amendment and that the NFL—with Bob Costas of NBC’s Football Night in America leading the way—would be an active participant?
Some fear the NFL’s Police-State measures amount to something far more pernicious: The NFL’s Role In the Coming Martial Law, By Dave Hodges, Lew Rockwell.com, December 10, 2013]
But 2014 America is radically different from 1967 America precisely because of the racial composition of the country. With such drastic changes, the social capital that once held the country together is in short supply. And with such changes come consequences.
What was it The Economist just published about diversity? Something about the downside of diversity based on research on “ambient cultural disharmony” by Roy Y.J .Chua, of Harvard Business School, I believe:
Tension between people over matters of culture, he says, can pollute the wider environment and reduce “multicultural creativity”, meaning people’s ability to see non-obvious connections between ideas from different cultures. “Ambient cultural disharmony” persuades people to give up on making such connections because they conclude that it is not worth the trouble.
The downside of diversity, January 21, 2014]
The security measures required at Super Bowl 48 are a metaphor for the changes in America. A Police State is required to keep the peace in—to paraphrase Chua—the “polluted wider environment created by tension between people over matters of culture”?
Symmetrically, there apparently will be plenty of seats available (“18,000 Super Bowl Seats Still Available”) for the 48th version of the game as well, now that the US is an increasingly heterogeneous empire, with a Police State required to hold it together.
Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Escape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013.
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Topsy turvey world, ain’t it?
Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the West, including the United States, for eschewing Christian values and opting instead for a “path to degradation.”
In his State of the Nation speech last month, Putin asserted that, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.” Russia has adopted new laws that ban homosexual propaganda and criminalizes the insulting of religious sensibilities.
The law on religious sensibilities was approved in the wake of a protest in Moscow’s largest cathedral by a female punk rock group, Pussy Riot. State-run television said the group’s “demonic” protest was funded by “some Americans.” Russia’s newfound embrace of traditional values has prompted a rise in Orthodox vigilantism. Extreme groups such as the Union of Orthodox Banner Bearers, an ultraconservative faction who adopted a slogan “Orthodoxy or Death,” are gaining prominence.
It was not that long ago that the United States was accusing Russia for being a “godless nation.”
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
The advantage to being a dreadful awful ghastly racist like Paul Weston, Chairman of Liberty GB, is that you can say things that most people don’t even dare think about:
A civilization is defined not by its physical location but by the people who live there. When the homes of Western Civilization — Europe, North America, Australia — are populated predominantly by Third Worlders, Western Civilization will cease to exist in these places. With nowhere to live, the civilization that brought us everything from the Roman Empire to da Vinci to Mozart to the US Constitution to flight to men walking on the moon will die.
This is fine with the liberals in charge, who are driving the importation of millions upon millions from the Third World with welfare incentives financed by overtaxing the very population they are eradicating. Their treason is on a scale that defies comprehension.
The demographic trend cannot be reversed until the political situation has been reversed.
On a tip from DJ.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
By popular demand, Angolan authorities have taken pre-emptive action and decided to ban the Muslim religion, which they consider a cult, NOT a religion. They see what Muslims are doing to Christians, especially in Africa, and are taking steps to prevent the same from happening in Angola.
Xibaaru In early October 2013, the Muslims living in Luanda in the municipality of Viana Zango were shocked to see the minaret of their mosque dismantled into pieces on the ground without permission. On Thursday 03 October in the morning, the Angolan authorities decided to destroy the mosque Zango located in the urban district of Viana 17 km. The governor of Luanda Bento announced in a radio spot that radical Muslims are not welcome in Angola and the Angolan government is not ready for the legalization of mosques in Angola.
And on Tuesday, November 19, the Minister of Culture, Rosa Cruz e Silva said. “Regarding Islam, the legalization process has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. Therefore all mosques would be closed until further notice. “ It should be noted that the Angolan government has made closing of all mosques a priority. The only two mosques located in Luanda have already received a warning document signed by the mayor of the municipality of Viana José Moreno.
Poste reveille (h/t Susan K) The provincial governor of Luanda, Bento Bento, said on the airwaves of local radio that “radical Muslims are not welcome in Angola and the Angolan government is not ready for the legalization of mosques.” Minister of Culture, Rosa Cruz e Silva explained that the law on freedom of religion will be reviewed given the current national context , noting that the Government will redouble its efforts to fight relentlessly against religious cults like Islam which are contrary to the customs of Angolan culture.
95% of Angola’s population is Christian. A quarter belongs to Protestant churches founded during the colonial period, including congregational evangelical church.
This decisive action taken by the Angolan head of state is based on a desire to guard against the rise of the Wahhabi ideology that has created havoc, death and destruction in Africa and elsewhere. And as rightly explained Tunisian philosopher Mezri Haddad: “Islamism and Islamophobia feed each other. Worse, long-term Islamism as an ideology destroy Islam as religion. “
Africalap According to the International Religious Freedom Report 2008, Islam in Angola is a minority religion with 80,000 – 90,000 adherents, composed largely of migrants from West Africa and families of Lebanese origin. The Muslims comprise between 2.5 to 3 percent of Angola’s overall population of 17 million people, most of them Christians.
in the last decade, but especially during the last few years the Muslim community in Angola has grown appreciably and Islamic activities have become more common in major cities. Mosques have sprung up in a number of places and Qur’anic schools have been built to provide Islamic instructions and teach Arabic language to adherents.
Public attitudes toward Islam have been generally negative. Cultural differences between Angolan and Muslim West African immigrants have been the basis for negative views toward Islam, as was the perceived link between Islam and illegal immigration. Since the September 11 attacks, there has been a deliberate attempt to link Muslims with terrorism. It has become a matter of routine at Luanda airport for security officers to detain Muslims arriving from Sahelian countries.
On September 1, 2008, a Muslim mob attacked the Christian community in the town of Andulo. The school-age daughter of a deacon at one of the churches was decapitated. Forty Christians were assaulted or tortured. The mob burned three church buildings. They also went to Christians’ houses to intimidate them or destroyed items of property. Stones were thrown at the headquarters of a local Christian project, causing some damage. An Angolan Christian leader said that the local police were unable to stop the attack and fled the scene.
From BNI: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
British students were threatened with a “racial discrimination note” if they decided to skip a field trip on Islam. The note would be a permanent stain on their school records.
Families were told to pay £5 per child for the Explore Islam trip.
Field trips are generally a fun break from the ordinary school routine. But for some British students, not going on a field trip could have put a dark stain on their permanent records.
In a letter sent to students at Littleton Green Community School, students and parents were warned that skipping a religious education field trip would result in a “racial discrimination note” on their permanent records.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
What follows is the transcript of the speech I delivered at the second National Policy Institute’s conference, which was held at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC on October 26th.
(Ed.Note: Emphasis mine. ZTW)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is not always easy to tell the difference between destiny and chance.
I discovered the “Alternative Right” three years ago, by a link posted on a Swiss blog. It was a perfect illustration of a famous line in Simon and Garfunkel’s song The Sound of Silence: “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.”
I was going through a period of questioning at that time. I had been working for a couple of years for the “conservative movement” in Paris and I couldn’t fail to notice that all my efforts had been invested in a cause that was not really mine, that had never really been mine actually.
Until that fateful day of July 2010, I had always centered my attention on France. My only knowledge of the other Western countries was through history books, movies or touristic trips.
Regarding politics proper, I wasn’t much interested in what was going on outside France. Though I was involved with the Right, I had always been wary of the American Right. For me, being right-wing in America meant worshipping the Holy Scrap (also known as “the Constitution”), waving a stars and stripes flag in the garden of a generic white-picket-fenced house, and making boring, tired jokes about the French who “always surrender.” I had still not digested my dish of freedom fries.
Discovering the Alternative Right was an Epiphany for me, as I think the discovery of the European New Right was for many Americans present in this room today. I’m thinking particularly of Richard Spencer and of John Morgan, the editor-in-chief of Arktos Media.
I discovered that though I wasn’t feeling at home in the French “conservative movement,” there were “people like me” on the Web, all over the Western world, who shared my hopes and concerns.
Ironically enough, I even discovered French authors thanks to American publications like AlternativeRight.com or Counter-Currents.com. Of course, the name “Alain de Benoist” was familiar to me, but he was not very popular, let alone read, in my corner of the Right.
Now, it seems that more and more Western people (White people as you say in America) are aware of the fact that what brings them together is much stronger than what divides them. And I’m not only talking about activists like us here. When this British soldier was beheaded in London by two African Muslims last Spring, I could see many manifestations of solidarity by average Western people. It’s something that would have been unthinkable a mere decade ago. As this example shows, reasons for this growing awareness among Western people are often negative ones: Westerners face the same danger of being displaced in their historic homelands.
There are positive reasons too, the first of which being the fact that we are the heirs of a great civilization. But although it is important to focus on the positive more than on the negative, it’s about a problem that is remarkable but not often commented on that I want to talk today: the generational divide.
When I say that this problem is not often commented on, it is not quite true. Actually, the liberal narrative about generational relationships is that the baby-boom generation, thanks to a courageous revolution, managed to put an end to an oppressive, reactionary, boring society.
There is some truth to that liberal narrative. But the generational divide applies differently to nationalist movements, and this is what I want to dedicate my attention to today.
More than a generational divide, there is, first off, a generational gap in right-wing movements. If the generation of my grand-parents (born between the two world wars) was rather conservative in the right sense of the word, the baby-boom generation is, in my experience, much more liberal in its outlook, hence the lack of right-wing activists from this generation. This is what explains “gerontocracy,” i.e. government of the old, in many right-wing movements, especially in Europe.
Even self-defined right-wingers born during the baby-boom are liberal in their views.
The most striking thing that I noticed, in France, Europe and America, was the inability of baby-boomers, even when they see themselves as dissidents, to completely break away from the institutions. The desire of recognition, the fear of social rejection makes the right-wing baby-boomer gives legitimacy to the very institutions that are willing to destroy him.
For instance, right-wing baby-boomers show a great deal of respect to Academia. They are very proud of their PhD when they hold one, and when they don’t, they are all the prouder to mention that an author they publish does. Well, at a time when there are PhDs in queer, gender, black, and even chicano studies in America, is it so important to mention that? Wouldn’t we be better advised to give as little legitimacy to university degrees as we can, given the circumstances?
This PhD cult among right-wing baby-boomers is related to their own rationalistic, scientistic delusions. Since conservatives are outmoded liberals — and many White nationalists are conservatives: they just want to conserve their people as it is, as if it were possible to save said people without becoming a new one in the process — they still believe in the Enlightenment myth that one would just have to show “the truth” to people to gain credibility and support. (And trying — in vain — to gain credibility from an Establishment that despises or hates them is an important trait of right-wing baby-boomers.)
But this idea that people would just have to know “the truth” to support the cause of saving Western civilization and the White race is fallacious. People have to be inspired rather than convinced, and they won’t be inspired by a set of bell curves, IQ tables and cranial measurements. Furthermore, it reduces “the truth” to the only things that can be numbered and quantified. The problem with that idea is that our struggle is a qualitative one. We can’t “prove” that architecture has become ugly since the 20th century, for example. Yet it’s something that has to be said.
I mentioned the PhD cult because it is one of the most obvious problems in right-wing intellectual circles. But this excessive respect of right-wing baby-boomers is granted to institutions in general, chiefly to the State, the Nation-State.
Since I was born in the 1980′s, at a time when the main Western countries had already been “enriched” with mass immigration, I understand that it is easier for me to dissociate myself from my own Nation-State.
Here, I’m reminded of an American friend I met in Paris a few weeks ago. He was born in the 1960′s, and when I mentioned to him the idea of an Ethnostate, he chuckled: for him, up to ten years ago, he had always considered he was already living in an Ethnostate: the United States.
And in day-to-day life, it remains common to hear people say “we” and “us” when they talk about the State. “We went to Iraq.” “Our troops are bringing democracy there.” “Syria’s chemical weapons threaten us.” I’m using silly examples here to make a point, but if you listen to people around you, you will inevitably notice that they keep saying — and thus thinking — that the State is them. That the State is the Nation.
But it’s getting more and more necessary to get rid of this false consciousness. Since the end of the 18th century and the American and French revolutions, the Nation-State has monopolized the way Westerners see themselves. This triumph is so complete that even multiculturalists use the Nation-State as a comforting reference to impose their dogma on the West. In every Western country, you can hear the same mantra that “Our [national] identity is diversity.”
Some people in our movement suggest that we should likewise use the Nation-State as a means to make people aware of our goals. The problem is that we can’t use the same tactic, for two reasons: first, we are obviously not in charge of the State. Second, a strict national consciousness leads to serious errors of interpretation. It is common in countries that used to have colonies and slaves to hear people say that our problems are rooted in colonization and slavery. In my homeland, the troubles with the Algerian community are thus attributed to French colonization and civil war there.
But Sweden, which never had any colony nor slaves, is facing similar, if not graver threats than Britain, America or France. We are not attacked for what our ancestors did, or allegedly did, but for what we are: White, Western people.
From my understanding, it is easier for my generation to see a brother or sister in another Westerner than it is for the former generation, which was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. In France, Front National is still anti-German, as well as it is anti-British and anti-American. But for the young generation, all these grudges are fading into irrelevance. A Briton might dislike the Germans or the French, wrongly or rightly, but those are unlikely to drug and pimp his daughters, behead a soldier in broad daylight, or burn the city down when a drug dealer is killed by the police.
In case you are wondering, I’m talking about things that actually happened in Britain in the last years.
Young Westerners know that they are more and more becoming one nation, the same way that other races, as Jared Taylor had noted in his book White Identity, are more and more seeing themselves as one people when they live in the West.
The right-wing baby-boomer is not able to fully understand what is happening in other Western countries, since he relies solely on national, liberal media, unlike young right-wingers who get information via alternative, Pan-Western websites. The liberal media gives him a distorted image of reality. As he knows that mainstream journalists are liberal, he basically inverts their depictions of other “far-right” movements in other Western countries to make his own opinion of them. Right-wingers, most often, only define themselves in opposition to the Left. What the Left likes, they hate. What the Left loathes, they love. It is thus easy to manipulate them into supporting a controlled opposition, given that their only justification to support is: “Since liberals hate it so much, it must be doing something right.” By this false standard, George W. Bush “was doing something right” when he made up the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to invade this country.
Generally speaking, the right-wing baby-boomer is subject to the bourgeois dream, which has been known as the “American dream” since the end of the Second World War: a world of peace, trade, and boredom.
Right-wing baby-boomers share the project of two American politicians (both born before the baby-boom though), Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, whose similarities are more obvious than their differences. Their common motto can best be summed up as “Leave us alone.” Well, we of the New Guard don’t want to be “left alone.” We want to rule. We want to rule not only because we want actual power to get ourselves out of the present situation, but because we know that the “leave us alone” idea, which was behind the White flight phenomenon, is precisely what has led us to our current dispossession. Baby-boomers wanted to be “left alone,” so they fled to even further suburbs, moving further and further away from their own responsibilities. It is this process, White flight, that guaranteed that the ongoing dispossession could go on without being too painful.
The “good news” is that it is becoming impossible to continue the White flight process. Rising housing costs, growing gas prices, the concentration of jobs in city centers are putting the bourgeois dream to an end. It is now almost impossible for a generation that can only wait tables after a masters degree to keep fleeing. Problems will have to be faced, and dealt with.
At this point, I realize that I might seem unfair to the previous generation, but keep in mind that baby-boomers did what everyone else would have done if given the choice. This choice no longer exists. The quiet, suburban life has become impossible for the reasons mentioned before.
What is to be done, then? As of now, nobody, including myself of course, has a genuine solution to offer. Many in our circles claim that it is “five to midnight,” but I would argue that it is “five past midnight.” Not because it is too late, but because it is too soon. A mere decade ago, many people in this room, including, again, the foolish 20-year-old liberal that I was, were not aware of what was going on. Our awakening is too recent to find political solutions to our current problems now. For politics as we would like it to be to become possible, we have to win the intellectual and cultural battles, which right-wing baby-boomers have never really considered worth fighting. It is time we do so.
What we can thus do in the meantime is to get intellectually prepared as a movement (for the individual and practical aspects of this preparation, Piero San Giorgio and Jack Donovan are more competent than I am). The first task would be to get rid of intellectual debates dating back to the Cold War, with the false dichotomies between libertarianism and socialism, conservatism and progressivism, etc.
This necessity to go beyond these false dichotomies seems obvious to activists like us, but it is still in these terms that politics are debated today.
When I say that we have to go beyond Left and Right, I don’t mean that we have to reject both notions altogether — our ethno-national project obviously belongs on the Right — but the way they have been defined and falsely opposed for these past seventy years. The alternative is not between the kolkhoz and IKEA, the best reason for that being that the kolkhoz and IKEA are two sides of the same materialistic coin. We have to find a way out of here, a way forward and upward, and that implies rising above these irrelevant debates.
As a radical movement, we need to attract intelligent and educated young men, who are the future.
Crime statistics and differences of achievement between races are important, to be sure, but no snowboarding session on the bell curve will attract young men to us. We need to show them a way out, and thus to remind them of the need to gradually withdraw from the prevailing disorder, but we also have to show them a way into, and that is what the Old Guard has been unable to do so far.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to bury the Old Guard, or even to dispute its achievements. We wouldn’t be here today if the Old Guard had not taken the first step in the past. But we can’t keep doing the same things for decades.
It is now clear why we want to found a new society, now is coming the harder part: what we want and how we are going to achieve it.
The answer is not sure at this point. What is sure is that the powers of creation, not only of reaction, will have to be summoned.
Thank you for your attention.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/children-of-oedipus
UK Muslims say Prime Minister David Cameron should be lauded for his consistent attacks on ‘Islamophobes’ while painting a rosy picture of Islam
Over the last decade meetings with senior ministers in the previous Labour administration around Islamophobia or anti-Muslim prejudice literally led nowhere. The focus was extremism, extremism and extremism.
TellMamaUK* Over the last 3 years, there have been problems, though there has been an important re-shifting of the relationship between the Government and Muslim communities. Out has gone violent extremism just related to Muslim communities and in has come ‘tackling extremism,’ which includes Far Right and other forms of extremism.
* TellMamaUK lost its government funding for lying about ‘Islamophobic’ incidents: Muslim-hate-monitor-to-lose-backing.html
Out has gone groups that placed themselves as sole representatives of Muslim communities, and in has come a multitude of voices from Muslim communities. Out has also gone inaction about Islamophobia or anti-Muslim prejudice and in has come a consistency in dealing with this social phenomenon which Baroness Warsi stated in early 2011, had sadly passed the ‘dinner table’ test.
This change in position around anti-Muslim prejudice is clear through recent speeches by the Prime Minister and others. Take for example, David Cameron talking recently at the Eid-Ul-Adha celebration at 10 Downing Street. The full text of the speech can be found here and is well worth a read to reflect the change in position.
The Prime Minister makes clear the following: “We still have a huge battle fighting prejudice in our country, and I think perhaps particularly Islamophobia – people telling lies about your religion – is one that we have to face up to particularly strongly in our country. And it’s a time to remember that. It’s also a time to remember that welcoming people to our country of all faiths is something that has to go across every single part of life.”
Or take this position by David Cameron regarding misinformation circulated in his consitituency regarding the development of a local mosque. Or take a range of projects that ministers within his Government have approved and will be looking to approve.
What the Prime Minister needs right now, is people who believe in pluralism, equality and fairness in our society and communities to stand with him; to support his vision of a country where hate should be challenged through existing systems and structures and where every community has a role and a part to play in that future. We say to the Prime Minister, this is a vision that draws all people towards a modern, stronger and more competitive Britain. Thank you!
That the West is in steady decline, is clear for all to see, and equally clear is the answer to the question which forces are destroying it: generally speaking, the misguided ideas of the left and extreme left, the delusions of utopianism, collectivism, –as it is often termed- and egalitarianism, etc. For many conservative intellectuals and commentators, this seems to be a sufficient explanation for the development that definitely set in after the first world war, and had already begun at least some decades before. The answer to the problems that have beset the West is a return to the social and moral codes of the past which had always worked so well. The idea that society can be molded according to human wishes has to be forgotten; the mind is not omnipotent, and it is utter foolishness to try to alter the traditional form of society, the product of generations of organic growth. Although the conservative family is a large one, and many variations exist within it, even touching on fundamental issues, this is roughly the point of view espoused by this school of thought.
From Brussels Journal: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/
“Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad?
“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.
“If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens?
“I would rather infinitely — and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion — have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke.
“I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him.
“If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne?
“Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push?
“But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! We shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?“ – - Patrick Henry, Virgina Ratifying Convention: June 5, 1788
America isn’t the only country being fundamentally transformed out of existence. In Britain, liberal authorities are achieving this by facilitating massive welfare colonization by Muslims.Indications of how bad the situation has gotten already:
[T]he Department of Education revealed that is recruiting former agents of the British secret service, MI5, to investigate the alleged infiltration of British schools by Islamic extremists. The agents will form part of a new counter-extremism unit, established to investigate schools in which radical activity has been suspected. Speaking to the Sunday Times on September 29, Education Secretary Michael Gove said some schools are being “taken over” by Muslim hardliners in the hope of radicalizing pupils and staff. He also said he was determined to “weed out” schools whose practices do not conform to British values.
Good luck with that. “Islamophobia” is a criminal offense.
A … survey published by Lord Ashcroft Polls on September 1, showed that six in ten Britons thought immigration had produced more disadvantages than advantages for their country; only 17% thought the pros outweighed the cons. The biggest concerns were about migrants claiming benefits or using public services without having contributed in return.
But the British Government no longer represents the will of the people, so polls like this are moot.
In other news, a total of 186 Muslim inmates at three different prisons aresuing the British government, claiming their human rights were violated after tests confirmed that halal food being served to them contained pork meat. A total of 11,248 Muslim prisoners make up 13.1% of the jail population in Britain. The legal cases come amid fears of a growing “culture-of-being-compensated” among prisoners. More than £60 million ($97 million) was paid to criminals, prison staff and visitors to British jails over the past four years for prison-related incidents.
Muslims might be told, if you don’t like our prison food, stay the hell out of our country, or at least stop breaking our laws. But that would be Islamophobic.
Monstrous mega-mosques are arising throughout Europe to establish beachheads for radicalization of the welfare colonists, who reproduce several times faster than the local populations. If the process continues, Europeans will be a minority on their own continent within the century. When this tipping point is reached, their civilization will be erased, as has happened to every culture conquered by Muslims, going back to the early seventh century. Where Islamic armies failed for centuries, liberals will have succeeded by destroying Europe’s defenses from within.
On a tip from Spuds McKenzie.
From MM: http://moonbattery.com/