Category Archives: Western Civilization
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/
90 year old veterans storm the Barrycades
Ethel C. Fenig
The large World War ll Memorial on Washington’s National Mall is a series of outdoor groupings; not encased in a building, it is open in all kinds of weather 24/7/365 for the many tourists, especially the remaining veterans of that devastating war which ended nearly 70 years ago.
The Mall itself has police and some other security, both visible and disguised, but at the beginning of the government shut down the President of the United States, Barack Obama (D), whose own grandfather fought in World War ll, ordered Barrycades and guards around the Memorial, forbidding access. Indeed, there were more guards protecting the Memorial from the aged–and apparently extremely dangerous–veterans than protecting Americans at the presumed peaceful American compound in Benghazi, Libya according to a report in the Washington Examiner.
At the World War II Memorial on The Mall in Washington, where veterans have been staging protests to keep it open, Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering reports that at least seven officials were dispatched Wednesday morning to set up a ring of barricades to block tourists from the memorial. That is two more than the State Department had in Benghazi a year ago on the night of the terrorist attack that killed four, including the U.S. ambassador.
However the World War ll veterans, many of whom arrive at the Memorial on Honor Flights, complimentary flights from across the country paid for by grateful citizens, ignored the Barrycades. Having endured the horrors of freezing European winters while bombarded by German soldiers or survived the terrors of a Japanese prison camp in their youth, the now 90 year old plus veterans weren’t about to surrender to a petty Commander in Chief. Leo Shane lll of Stars and Stripes describes their brave resistance.
Wheelchair-bound elderly veterans pushed aside barricades to tour the World War II Memorial Tuesday morning, in defiance of the government shutdown which closed all of the memorials in the nation’s capital.
The four bus loads of veterans — visiting from Mississippi as part of a once-in-a-lifetime Honor Flight tour — ignored National Park Police instructions not to enter the site as lawmakers and tourists cheered them on.
“We didn’t come this far not to get in,” one veteran proclaimed.
The scene was both emotional and comical at once. After it was clear they had lost control of the situation, Park Police officials stood aside, telling press that they had “asked for guidance on how to respond” to the breach of security.
As 80-something veterans slowly walked around the massive war memorial, Park Police stood quietly to the side, advising other tourists that the site was technically still closed. But they made no moves to stop the wishes of the war heroes.
The Republican National Committee has offered to pay for guarding and protecting the Memorial from the vandalizing senior citizen veterans during the government shut down; the Democrats predictably dismissed this as a publicity stunt.
The RNC said that, “when the House Republicans proposed legislation to keep open the nation’s parks and monuments, President Obama promised to veto it.” Here is Chairman Priebus’ statement from the memorial:
“The Obama administration has decided they want to make the government shutdown as painful as possible, even taking the unnecessary step of keeping the Greatest Generation away from a monument built in their honor,” said Chairman Priebus. “That’s not right, and it’s not fair. So the RNC has put aside enough money to hire five security personnel to keep this memorial open to veterans and visitors. Ideally, I’d hope to hire furloughed employees for this job. “Seeing that the DNC has bragged about fundraising off of the government shutdown, I’d invite my counterpart, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to join with us in keeping this memorial open. “These brave Americans have sacrificed so much for our country. House Republicans have acted to keep parks and monuments open; Democrats are standing in the way. We want to do what we can, in the face of the intransigence from the White House, to support our veterans. “If the White House complains that such action is not permitted, I’d simply remind them that their unilateral action to give exemptions from Obamacare to big business and their political allies wouldn’t seem permissible either. If they can go to such lengths to protect their political interests, surely they can do something to support the interests of those who fought in World War II.”
Benefiting from the veterans’ sacrifices, another group of people, ostensibly furloughed federal government employees, added to the surreal scene. Patrick Poole of PJ Tatler discovered some interesting information about these alleged protesters.
After about an hour, about 20 protesters arrived on the scene chanting “Boehner, get us back to work” and claiming they were federal employees furloughed because of the shutdown.
In the video below these protesters were marching towards the press gaggle and I was asking them to show their federal IDs to prove they were in fact federal workers. No one wore their federal ID and none would provide it to prove their claim
UPDATE: Huffington Post reporter Arthur Delaney states that the protest was organized by a group called “Good Jobs Nation,” not SEIU as I previously reported, and that, remarkably, the protesters weren’t even federal employees at all but individuals who WORK in federal buildings affected by the shutdown..
Then, remarkably, a guy carrying a sign passed by wearing a McDonald’s employee shirt, which I noted. I then began asking them how much they had been paid to protest, at which point the guy wearing the McDonald’s shirt came back and admitted he had been paid $15.
About a minute later a protest organizer ran up to me telling me that the man in question is a contractor working at the McDonald’s in a Smithsonian Museum — a claim she made no effort to prove. The same story was told to Jake Tapper at CNN who was on the scene and made the same inquiry.
And yet that doesn’t explain why he was paid $15 to attend a protest targeting our nation’s honored military veterans.
Hmmm, $15 an hour is well above the minimum wage. So perhaps the government shut down is helping private businesses.
As of now, the government remains shut down, many people still can’t get the Obamacare they’re forced to purchase and yet, somehow, the sun still rose over Washington DC this morning.
Surreal and Suicidal: Modern Western Histories of Islam
Rereading some early history books concerning the centuries-long jihad on Europe, it recently occurred to me how ignorant the modern West is of its own past. The historical narrative being disseminated today bears very little resemblance to reality.
Consider some facts for a moment:
A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the “Islamic world” — including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China — much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.
Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.
In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 700 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Constantinople’s Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.
The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany. That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” These fears were not unfounded since as late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island, seizing four hundred captives and selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.
Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s “right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.”
In short, for roughly one millennium — punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing — Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.
And therein lies the rub: Today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians. That’s exactly what a TV personality recently told me live on Fox News.
So here we are, paying the price of being an ahistorical society: A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11 — merely the latest in the centuries-long, continents-wide jihad on the West — Americans elected a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president, who openly empowers the same ideology that their ancestors lived in mortal fear of, even as they sit by and watch to their future detriment.
Surely the United States’ European forebears — who at one time or another either fought off or were conquered by Islam — must be turning in their graves.
But all this is history, you say? Why rehash it? Why not let it be and move on, begin a new chapter of mutual tolerance and respect, even if history must be “touched up” a bit?
This would be a somewhat plausible position — if not for the fact that, all around the globe, Muslims are still exhibiting the same imperial impulse and intolerant supremacism that their conquering forbears did. The only difference is that the Muslim world is currently incapable of defeating the West through a conventional war.
Yet this may not even be necessary. Thanks to the West’s ignorance of history, Muslims are flooding Europe under the guise of “immigration,” refusing to assimilate, and forming enclaves which in modern parlance are called “enclaves” or “ghettoes” but in Islamic terminology are the ribat — frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.
All this leads to another, perhaps even more important point: If the true history of the West and Islam is being turned upside its head, what other historical “orthodoxies” being peddled around as truth are also false?
Were the Dark Ages truly benighted because of the “suffocating” forces of Christianity? Or were these dark ages — which “coincidentally” occurred during the same centuries when jihad was constantly harrying Europe — a product of another suffocating religion? Was the Spanish Inquisition a reflection of Christian barbarism or was it a reflection of Christian desperation vis-à-vis the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who, while claiming to have converted to Christianity, were practicing taqiyya and living as moles trying to subvert the Christian nation back to Islam?
Don’t expect to get true answers to these and other questions from the makers, guardians, and disseminators of the West’s fabricated epistemology.
In the future (whatever one there may be) the histories written about our times will likely stress how our era, ironically called the “information age,” was not an age when people were so well informed, but rather an age when disinformation was so widespread and unquestioned that generations of people lived in bubbles of alternate realities — till they were finally popped.
Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians, which deals with both history and current events. A Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, he wrote his master’s thesis on an early battle between Islam and the West under the direction of military historian Victor Davis Hanson.
Found at The Daley Gator
From Bare Naked Islam
From American Power BLog
Most of these photographs will never be shown by the mainstream media. But they should be emblazoned in every American’s mind.
9/11 NINETEEN MUSLIM HIJACKERS
From BNI: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Cushing Biggs Hassell who says, in passing, among many other things:
“… of the young members who, having no spiritual life, cannot partake of spiritual food, and for the raising of money for pretended religious purposes—such as strawberry and ice-cream festivals, oyster suppers, concerts, burlesque hymns, comic songs, amateur theatricals, Sunday School excursions, and picnics, and banners, and emblems, Christmas trees, Easter cards, charity balls, and ” church fairs” (with their rafflings or gamblings), rightly termed ” abysses of horrors,” mingling* sham trade with sham charity, obtaining money under false pretenses, teaching the selfish and thoughtless patrons how to be ” benevolent without benevolence, charitable without charity, devout without devotion, how to give without giving and to be paid for ‘ doing good’…”
Got it? Now try the whole sentence on for size: Running On from Futility Closet
Cushing Biggs Hassell’s thousand-page History of the Church of God (1886) is notable for a single sentence — this one, on page 580, beginning “The nineteenth is the century …” It’s six pages long, with 3,153 words, 360 commas, 86 semicolons, and six footnotes. Many regard it as the longest legitimate sentence ever written in a book.
Weak minds would just give you the link to History of the church of God @ Google Books. But we are not that forgiving. We’re giving you the whole enchilada. Take a deep, a very deep, breath.
Found at American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
In order to understand things in the Middle East, it is necessary to look back in time . . . a VERY long way back in time. I once pointed out to a group of Arabs, “Your people are still fighting the Crusades.” Yes, of course, they all agreed. “In America, people don’t even know what the Crusades ARE!”
Let us study the three key pieces to the puzzle that is the Middle East;
Egypt, Iraq and Syria.
Egypt is the most populous of the Arab countries, and the most cosmopolitan. Egypt has had extensive interaction with the West since before the days of the Roman Empire. Cleopatra was actually the last of the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled over Egypt for 275 years, from 305 BC to 30 BC. Egypt was the bread basket of the Roman Empire.
Cairo, Soliman Pasha Square, circa 1941
Modern Egyptians are well aware of their heritage, and they regard the oil-rich Gulf Arabs a bunch of hick hayseeds. The fact that these provincials are sitting on top of a giant underground puddle of oil just adds to the Egyptians ire.
Iraq is the seat of the ancient Arab Caliphate. The city of Baghdad was a center of learning during the Islamic Golden Age, 8th to 9th centuries. Back when London was still a swamp, Arab intellectuals in Baghdad were developing the sciences of astronomy, mathematics and the foundations of modern medicine.
The first operation using anaesthetic was performed by an Arab. While our ancestors were burning libraries during the mass-hysteria that was the Dark Ages, it was the Arabs who preserved the writings of Aristotle, Thucydides, Homer, Virgil, Ovid, and countless others.
Syria is the traditional center of the Arab culture; the essence of Syrian society is a complex geometric Arabesque pattern of interwoven of sects and tribes and philosophies and arts and cults. Syria is strategically located between Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and Iraq.
Damascus, circa 1511
Damascus is the oldest continually inhabited city in the world, situated across ancient trade routes and roads that radiate out from it like the spokes of a wagon wheel. The Apostle Paul had his vision on the road to Damascus. Jesus was crucified at the base of a hill in Jerusalem – Golgotha, which means The Skull – at a crossroads on the Damascus Road, directly across the street from what is now Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate.
The Modern Era
During World War I, the successful campaign to topple the Ottoman Turks involved Field Marshall Allenby’s push up through the Holy Land to take Damascus. Once he held Damascus, he owned the Middle East and all the oil in it.
Following the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, the English and the French carved up the Middle East. The English got Iraq and all its oil, while the French established the Mandate of Syria. Following the Roman tradition of ‘Divide and Conquer’ the French showed favor to the minority Alawite tribe in their colonial administration and the armed forces.
French Foreign Legion soldiers at their outpost at Homs, Syria, 1940
The Alawites were able to hold on to this unbalanced power. Since Hafez al-Assad took power in 1970, Alawite Assad family has dominated the government. During the Islamic uprising in Syria in the ’70s and ’80s, this establishment came under tremendous pressure. The conflict continues today as a function of the Syrian civil war.
In the 1950s a charismatic leader emerged in Egypt; Gamal Abdul Nasser. He threw out the decadent King Farouk, and began an effort to modernize Arab society. Nasser’s vision included a united Arab nation, a United States of Arabs, as it were. What he accomplished was the United Arab Republic (UAR; Arabic: الجمهورية العربية المتحدة al-Ǧumhūriyyah al-ʿArabiyyah al-Muttaḥidah) a short-lived political union between Egypt and Syria that began in 1958 and existed until 1961, when Syria seceded from the union. Egypt continued to be known officially as the “United Arab Republic” until 1971. The UAR flag was horizontal red, white, and black bands with two stars to represent the two parts.
This continues to be the flag of Syria. In 1963, Iraq adopted a flag that was similar but with three stars, representing the hope that Iraq would join the UAR.
The three countries collaborated in strategic planning against Israel resulting in the Six Day War, a decisive victory for Israel due to Israel’s pre-emptive strikes against Egypt and Syria. As previously discussed, the Arabs view Israel as the modern incarnation of the old Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and Crusader holdings Antioch and Tripoli – Western footholds in their lands. They eventually crushed the Crusaders and ran them into the sea, and it is their intent to do the same thing to the modern State of Israel.
The Post-Modern Era
Israeli Paratroopers on the Temple Mount during the Liberation of Jerusalem, June 1967
This epoch of the Middle East is punctuated by the Six Day War of Israel versus the forces of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan. Decisive win: Israel. Subsequent campaigns of this conflict include the ’73 Yom Kippur War – another decisive Israeli win – the First Gulf War that featured the liberation of Kuwait and limited excursion into Iraq; a brief but deadly adventure in Somalia; numerous terrorist atrocities in Israel, terrorist operations against our forces in Lebanon ’83, Saudi Arabia ’96 and USS Cole October in Yemen ’00.
When we toppled Saddam Hussein in ’03 what many feared has come to be; Saddam’s secular Ba’athist regime in Iraq was a stabilizing factor in a powder keg neighborhood. Hindsight is twenty-twenty; it seems Saddam played a shell game with the West regarding the weapons of mass destruction issue. It was critical to his hold on power that his enemies – notably the Iranians – believed he had chemical weapons. At one point he did; we know this because he used them on the Kurds, but by the time we showed up they were for the most part gone.
Where did Saddam’s chemical weapons go? It’s not easy to dispose of chemical weapons and there certainly is no evidence of a disposal program in Iraq. The obvious answer is to look to Syria; Iraq’s Ba’athist co-regime.
What if Al-Qaeda set off the chemical weapons on their own people? Think about it. Why would Basher Assad gas his own people? What’s in it for him? On the other hand, al Qaeda nerve gasses their own people to create exactly what is happening; the U.S. ends up mobilizing against Assad, in other words on the same side as “the rebels”.
Think about it. Last summer the Syrian rebels overran and controlled a government base that had chemical weapons. Leon Panetta admitted that chemical weapons may have fallen into the hands of rebel forces i.e. Al-Qaeda.
“If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as Al-Qaeda.” Journalist Robert Fisk
This penultimate statement summarizes the current dilemma; Assad is a pig and a bloodsoaked dictator thug, but the rebels that oppose him are co-opted by Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists of the worst kind: al Qaeda. If we are to make missile strikes against Assad, we will essentially be siding with al Qaeda – politics makes strange bedfellows but this is beyond ridiculous.
In the quickening march to madness for military action in Syria, have we heard anything about a possible objective, or perhaps a mission statement? And has anybody at the highest levels given any consideration whatsoever to the international lineup out there? On the one hand we have the United States AND . . . nobody else. No Brits, no French, no Germans, no Spaniards, no Italians, no Canadians, no Australians, no “Coalition of the Willing” . . . nobody.
On the other hand, Assad has the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and Hezbollah on his side. He has at least 200 Scuds – which we must assume are chemical-tipped – and he has stated that if he is attacked by the United States he will launch them on Israel. The Iranians have their missile forces and they are willing to follow suit. The Israelis will not wait for this to happen – they will take preemptive action.
To me this sounds like a Major League shitstorm waiting to happen. We are already stretched to the breaking point, in debt up to our eyeballs, and there is nothing to be gained – certainly no threat to our national security – by engaging in a totally pointless, unnecessary military adventure. Assad knows we cannot take him out without “boots on the ground”, and nobody believes Obama is willing to go that far.
Choose your battles – that’s Sun Tzu 101, People . . .
Posted by Defend the Modern World
As I wrote in my post ‘Muslim Social Terrorism’, the most significant consequences of allowing Muslims to reside in the free world are not political, but social. The vague (and over-advertised) issue of Muslim ‘terrorism’ is, in-truth, likely to affect no more than 2-3% of Western citizens, and of these, most will live in major cities and so be already accustomed to the risks involved.
The social tragedies enabled by Islamic immigration are much more frequent and (for me) just as morally offensive as explosions on a subway.
Of all these social tragedies, perhaps the most widespread and horrific has been the ‘Muslim rape-wave’, also known as the ‘Rape-Jihad’; a phenomenon that has traumatized thousands of European and other non-Muslim women across the European Union.
There is no way I can think of to sugar this pill. In every Western European country, innocent women have been raped (on a massive scale) for ideological reasons. Females of all ages (including mothers and minors) have been subject to indescribable defilement by the worst human elements the earth has yet produced.
Although it predates the attacks, this project accelerated rapidly after 9/11 and the subsequent mainstreaming of Islamist thought in Muslim communities. By 2010 at the latest, the word ‘epidemic’ was being openly used in conservative journals. As things stand now we should have no qualms about using the term ‘rape war’.
And these rapes are not the ‘lesser’ kind of rape (whatever Kenneth Clarke may have meant by that). They are typically angry affairs; sex mixed with assault. In many cases, should the victim have wandered alone into a Muslim ghetto, the rape will involve many different men (from the very young to the very old) and will leave the victim with severe internal injury and blood-borne infection.
In other cases, an initially willing female, after having had sex with a Muslim for the first time, will be plied with sedative drugs (especially highly addictive benzodiazepines) in order to make her more likely to agree to future sex, this time with paying associates of the original male. Such a process is known in the UK as ‘grooming’ and is estimated to have affected thousands (yes, thousands) of girls (predominantly those from broken backgrounds – orphans, runaways, those in social care etc…) across the country.
In Oxford, the green, ancient home of Anglo-Saxon learning, a group of young girls (all white English) from local care homes fell prey to a network of Pakistani pimps and sexual opportunists. In one case, reported in detail during the trial of the offenders last year, an 11 year old girl was lured to addiction on both alcohol and tranquilizers. By her own estimates she was penetrated by more than five men an evening, often as she travelled in and out of consciousness. According to the BBC, on one occasion she vomited repeatedly over the side of the bed during intercourse, but even this didn’t grant her any mercy. She was quickly cleaned and prepared for the next Muslim in line.
After many weeks of this process, the same girl was branded (using a heated pin) with an ‘M’ for Mohammad; not the Prophet, but the name of her new Muslim ‘owner’. She later (aged 12) became pregnant by this same tormentor, and was forced to have a backstreet abortion using crude and disgusting implements. She would only escape fully after turning 15, having endured four long years of incarceration and medieval torture.
Although it is a Europe-wide project, the main focus for the Rape-Jihad in recent years appears to have been Scandinavia.
The countries of Scandinavia have long pursued some of the most senseless immigration policies in the EU area. As a direct result of these, prospective Muslim colonists are increasingly choosing Nordic countries over traditional settlement targets like England and France. The social cost of this has already been appalling. Daniel Greenfield wrote the following (harrowing) summation of the situation in Sweden in Frontpagemag:
“Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.
In 2003, Sweden’s rape statistics were higher than average at 9.24, but in 2005 they shot up to 36.8 and by 2008 were up to 53.2. Now they are almost certainly even higher as Muslim immigrants continue forming a larger percentage of the population.
With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology.”
Now, I am aware of the dangers of believing statistics from Sweden on this issue. Sweden has a notorious problem with militant feminism and what constitutes ‘rape’ in Stockholm may not even earn a reprimand in New York and London. Nevertheless, even if we adjust the statistics to focus exclusively on the most sensible definition of rape – ie. unwanted penetrative sex – then all Nordic countries still have a social crisis the scale of which is bewildering.
ii. Why do they do it?
The way Muslims rationalise their predation on women is as follows:
Because Western women wear short skirts and mingle with people of the opposite sex, they consequently have no virtue. They are slags, who, by their behaviour define themselves as sex-objects. Consequently, for someone to rape or molest them is no more than their behaviour invites and probably something they’ve experienced before. It may even be something they secretly desire.
This logic has a rough equivalent in a phrase used by violent pimps: “You can’t rape a prostitute’. By this, the pimp means that ‘his’ women have fallen voluntarily (by their being prostitutes) through a moral floor and that since they have done so, they have lost the right to complain about certain types of treatment.
While Pimps imagine this moral floor to have been broken by the woman allowing herself to be penetrated for money, the Muslim believes it to be broken by the wearing of high heels, or by making innocent jokes about sex with male friends.
As a woman then, you won’t fully know that you’ve ‘fallen’ in a Muslim’s estimation, until he’s forcing himself on top of you.
I am not a feminist. I do retain the unfashionable belief that men have a responsibility to protect women. Consequently, I believe we all deserve a portion of the blame for this scandal. Our reaction to date has been timid and inadequate. If one (just one) Afghan Muslim Woman was raped by a European soldier today, we would lose a hundred troops in the cause of her avenging. Yet thousands upon thousands of European women have already been traumatized by the enemy in our own countries and we have failed to respond.
The guilt may be theirs, the shame is our own.
D, LDN. From Defend the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
“Hate is today’s equivalent of Victorian sex.”
The denizens of the 21st century, educated liberals in especial, think they are above hate. They are too smart for that sort of s**t.
Today we have codes against “hate speech”, social taboos against “hateful behavior”. But a moment’s study will readily show that much of this is just sugar coating, that inside the “anti-hate” paintjob lurk actual hate campaigns themselves. Hate is today’s equivalent of Victorian sex. Everyone affects to know nothing of it, yet the body politic would grid to a halt, not to mention go broke, without it. | Belmont Club » Addicted to Hate
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Recent growing support for the English Defence League was evident in the large turnout for the rally.
Sadly, but not unexpected, left wing fascist counter-protesters caused bloodshed, when rocks, bottles and cans were hurled at EDL supporters during the march.
Sir Winston Churchill was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time and was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries. He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome…”
Sir Winston Churchill, The River War first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250, London.
Churchill saw it coming . . .
Found at Gates of Vienna
Tommy Robinson Has Committed No “Real” Crimes – Britain is Collapsing and Won’t Protect Her Own Citizens
The Blog of The Re-Enlightenment has published an excellent article entitled “Middle England must listen to Tommy Robinson” about the EDL and the necessity for the English middle class to wake up to the dangers of Islamic supremacism.
One of the difficulties in building a broad-based British political movement to resist Islamization is the reluctance (or should I say obstinacy?) of middle-class Britons to have anything to do with a phenomenon that is spearheaded by the working class.
We can only hope that this article is a bellwether of things to come. The author is a self-described “privately educated, second generation immigrant, middle class lawyer who lives in a big house with a small mortgage”.
Below are some excerpts from a much longer piece:
I wrote a post last week called “Time to be honest about the English Defence League”, in which I expressed some frank views about the EDL and its leader Tommy Robinson, and since then I’ve been regretting it. Not because I was too honest but because I wasn’t honest enough.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about everything more carefully and I’ve watched a number of clips of Robinson on YouTube. In short I’ve been completely blown away by his bravery, his commitment, his intelligence and his integrity. I really think it’s about time everyone started taking him seriously for what he is, which is a political activist of the highest calibre.
There are dozens of things on the internet but these are the ones I watched. I really hope you commit some of your time to watching them (the second one is audio only). If you don’t then I can’t see how you can dismiss Robinson so lightly.
- Speech at the European Parliament, Brussels
- Radio clash with George Galloway
- Interview after the murder of Lee Rigby
- Assaulted with Kevin Carroll of the EDL, and then arrested
- BBC3 Free Speech
- Piece to camera in the lounge
Robinson is completely committed to defeating Islamism. We all know he has a dodgy past but that’s nothing unique amongst the general population and it’s certainly nothing unique amongst political activists. His past doesn’t disqualify him from speaking out against Islamism and it doesn’t make his opinions any less valid.
We forget that taking part in an institutional system of rules-based theft is no disqualification to sitting in either of our legislative chambers, or that being violent in a Houses of Parliament bar (twice) merely makes an elected public official an eccentric character, or that committing criminal damage as an undergraduate at Oxford University provided you’re wearing a nice suit and you’ve had the finest education money can buy, and smoking cannabis at Eton College, is no disqualification to becoming prime minister of the United Kingdom. Yet criminal convictions are an automatic bar to disapproving of ruthless, totalitarian ideologies.
Robinson’s real crimes are not actual crimes, though. I can’t stand class-based victim narratives but even I have to conclude Robinson has committed the ultimate crime of being a working class white lad and expecting to have an opinion on Islamism, which will be the defining issue of the century people reading this blog post will die in. I dismissed Robinson because of his background and because of the EDL’s image. I should have known better than to be such a snob.
From Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.net/
Liberalism has reached the point in formerly great Britain where authorities will literally throw you in jail for preaching the gospel:
Tony Miano, a retired deputy sheriff and former chaplain with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., was charged with “using homophobic speech that could cause people anxiety, distress, alarm or insult.”
Miano had been preaching on a London street corner during the Wimbledon Tennis Championships with a ministry group called Sports Fan Outreach International.
He was preaching about immoral living – and cited homosexuality as an example of lifestyle choices that are contrary to biblical teaching.
That constitutes a thought crime.
“I talked about women addicted to romance novels, men addicted to pornography, people with lustful thoughts, heterosexual fornication and homosexuality,” Miano told Fox News. “When I mentioned that the Bible was clear that homosexuality is a sin, a lady walked by and she glared at me and hurled the f-bomb.”
Miano said the woman came back a short time later and began to videotape his sidewalk sermon. Then, she called the police.
Probably believing himself to be in a free, Western country, Miano was aghast.
“I did not speak solely about homosexuality as a form of sexual immorality but also about any kind of sex outside marriage between one man and one woman, as well as lustful thoughts,” he said. “All of these are considered mainstream Christian positions and have been taught and believed by Christians for thousands of years.”
What Miano doesn’t realize is that thousands of years of history are irrelevant. All that matters is what our moonbat rulers demand we believe and allow us to say at this particular moment in time. Homosexuality isn’t a sin; acknowledging that it is a sin is a sin.
This is what happens when we let liberals bully us with their proscriptions and when we play by their authoritarian rules. Even professed conservatives now join the fascists by demanding that people lose their jobs for the crime of saying something a homosexual would deem to be irreverent.
If we had dug in the moment the first liberal tried to tell us what we can say, our own culture and heritage would not now be on the verge of becoming illegal.
Miano was dragged off to jail, fingerprinted, and interrogated. They took a sample of his DNA, presumably to aid in his capture should he again engage in preaching scripture.
“It was very distressing to be arrested and interrogated for openly expressing my deeply held Christian beliefs,” he said. …
Miano spent about seven hours in jail before he was released without explanation and without an apology.
You don’t need to be a prophet to see our immediate future:
“I believe that’s what our government is going to eventually do here,” he said. “I believe homosexuals or others who are sensitive to their point of view will be visiting churches to listen to what preachers say from the pulpit. And I believe that pastors will be arrested in their pulpits for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality and other sins.”
The Supremes’ twisted rulings on homosexual “marriage” have made this nightmare scenario all but inevitable.
On tips from Troy, Clingtomyguns, and Wilberforce.
Thanks Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League, receives numerous death threats via Twitter. When he retweeted some of them, the Bedfordshire Police took prompt action to track down the threatening tweeters, arrest them, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law…
A few days ago Tommy tweeted the following:
@bedspolice just called me to say don’t retweet death threats or I’d be arrested as they cause people distress? I ****ing kid u not!
A Facebook post on the same topic was put up at about the same time, but before I could acquire a copy of the text, it was gone. Not only was the post removed, but the entire group was taken down by Facebook.
Tommy can’t show the world all the death threats that have been made against him on Twitter, but Vlad Tepes lives in Ottawa, and is therefore less at risk of being arrested. He has compiled a brief selection of some of the threatening tweets aimed at Tommy.
Note: Obscene language is used in any number of these tweets:
Found at Gates of Vienna
Do You Value Your Life Style and Country? There is one Group of People Who Want to take it From You – Muslims. Wake up Before They Do.
“Let Cant cease, at all risks and at all costs : till Cant ceases, nothing else can begin.” – Thomas Carlyle.
So you disagree with the Counter-Jihad tendency in its entirety; You’re a Leftist, or a Marxist, or a self-declared ‘anti-Racist’. Perhaps - like the majority – you’re still undecided on Islam, but incline against confrontation with it. Whichever category you fall into, you probably loathe people like us – ‘hateful people’ who stress the need to take the fight to the enemy.
Some people, at this point, would begin to call you names; the term ‘Dhimmi’ is typical, and is used to suggest a mixture of stupidity, passivity and learned helplessness in the opponent. I’m sure you’re not stupid. In fact, compared to some of the footsoldiers of the Counter-Jihad tendency, you probably possess a far superior grasp of international affairs. You might also do sterling activist work on other issues like poverty, economic inequality and minority rights. You are bright, good-natured people and among your number I once proudly counted.
I can understand how you found your position on this subject too. The case against Islamophobia is well-presented, reasonable and often convincing.
Perhaps some of the following ideas undergird your argument:
1. Islamophobia is Racism.
Islamophobia has an ugly face and a hateful, inarticulate voice. The anti-Islam English Defence League boasts hundreds of men with bald heads and bomber jackets, and whenever a BBC camera lingers on a crowd of them for more than five seconds, it seems inevitable that some dickhead makes a Nazi salute.
The BNP, too, never stop talking about the threat from Islam, and yet we know that they hate Blacks, Gays and Jews as well. Perhaps ‘Islamophobia’ is just a case of racists picking on Islam as an alternative to doing nothing, and maybe when they’ve finished with the Muslims, they’ll move on to other minorities.
2. Islamism is Over-Hyped by Zionists.
Jewish Nationalists (Zionists), have a clear vested interest in ‘Islamophobia’ and the way it can draft Europeans into the fight against Israel’s enemies in the Middle East. Consistent with this, many of the authors most identified with anti-Islam sentiment (Mark Steyn, Pamela Geller, Bat Yeo’r, Sam Harris etc…) are of Jewish extraction. Perhaps this is reason enough to doubt what they - and we - are saying.
Muslim countries have valuable minerals and resources they usually won’t give to us. Perhaps our elites require a degree of anti-Muslim feeling in order to sell colonial wars to the electorate which would otherwise be impossible to justify.
4. Why Can’t we Move On?
The attack which seemed to start it all – 9/11 – occurred over ten years ago. Isn’t it time we all moved on? Americans behave like it was the end of the world, and yet it wasn’t really the end of a day’s trading. 3000 people died. A similar number die each hour from poverty. Why should you care about the fat, bloated Yanks when there are people dying all over the world, including those impoverished by American policy?
Many of these points are valid and all of them have foundations in reality.
Not one of them however succeeds in abolishing the Islamist threat.
Let’s tackle them in reverse order:
The events known as 9/11 were not (contrary to what the internet might tell you) American initiatives. Whether too much is made of the tragedy is besides the point. It happened, it was evil and it demanded a response.
The issue of the Islamic world’s resources (and their exploitation by the West) is something we can actually agree on. The modern Jihadi Enterprise has been largely enabled by America’s foolhardy sponsorship of the Saudi royal family and the injection of trillions of dollars into the economies of the Wahhabi Gulf. Similarly, the American purchase of oil and gas from Iraq or indeed any Islamic source is, to us, wholly undesirable and we recommend alternatives be sought out.
Jewish Nationalism, whatever some of its adherents might believe, has not benefited greatly from anti-Islam sentiment. The greatest enemies of the Jewish state – Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, are black-listed on the grounds of terrorism, genocide, and totalitarianism. Their identity as Islamic is not the foremost reason for their isolation. If it were, then Saudi Arabia and Egypt would have been disowned long ago.
Still, this is not to say that Jewish Nationalists don’t desire a Western World more sympathetic to their position. Why on Earth wouldn’t they? It is fundamental to any type of activism that one wants ones cause to succeed. The pursuit of sympathy and alliance can hardly be called sinister or underhand, and the methods used to acquire sympathy must be judged, in any case, on their independent merit. Books about Islam by Jewish authors should be open to the same scrutiny as any other political work, but if that scrutiny, after finding nothing wrong with them, continues unabated, it can justly be reclassified as bigotry.
The English Defence League is not a registered political party. It is open for all to join without qualification or even so much as a background check. Given that its marches allow for (and indeed encourage) aggression and the display of nationalistic sentiment, it is inevitable that some undesirable elements will be pulled in alongside the best of the catch.
Unconvinced? Let’s go on then….
You might possess a more general objection to ‘victimizing’ a group of people for the cultural affiliation into which they were born. This too is perfectly sane and morally sensible. Our answer, however, is necessarily hard-hearted:
This is a war for the future of our civilization. All manner of cruelties are obliged of us in times of war that, in a time of peace, would be considered reprehensible. We must murder those who wish to murder us before they can try. We have no sensible reason to doubt the intentions behind words such as ‘Death to the West’. When Iranians and Egyptians chant this, they are not threatening a distant immaterial concept, but you and I, our families and friends.
And while we talk of civilization, tell me, do you value any of the following things:
Music, Television, Art, Non-religious Literature, free mixing of the sexes, Sport…?
Well, the Salafi brand of Islamist (if he is successful) will prevent your children from enjoying any of these activities. They will be banned by the state and religious authorities.
Our various and hard-won society will collapse into a tedious rhythm of prayer, food and sleep. Nothing else. Popular entertainment will be limited to the sadistic festivals of public execution.
If you’re a woman, I must ask, do you like your family?
Well you better had do. For in Salafist Europe, you will be answerable and obedient to your family until the age of marriage and after that to a husband chosen for you by them.
Do I really need to go on?…
All I’m asking you to do is think; To be honest with yourself. I’d wager that youdo like music, that you do like mingling with people of the opposite sex. I think you value our civilization as much as we do and would miss it greatly should it disappear.
It may be good nature that led you down this road of untruth, but unless you rejoin one that is more rational, you will end up in alliance with some very terrible people indeed.
If you’re able to think about these things – even for a short while - without political conditioning, you’ll come to see very quickly which side is yours to defend.
D, LDN. at Defend the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/