Monthly Archives: September 2010

A Critique of Islam

This comes from the comments section of a conservative White racist publication, American Renaissance. The comment quotes several websites, apparently all rightwing. At least one is run by anti-Muslim Jews. Let us put aside for a moment that this critique is written by our enemies, Zionists and the Right.

The painful question is how much truth is there in this critique?

When it comes to identity among Muslims, nationality does not count at all in comparison with culture and religion. The consequence is a powerful and growing opposition to Western culture and values in Muslim ghettos throughout Copenhagen and other major European cities.

To a Muslim (as to the regional precursor peoples going back to Alexander) tribe is nation And failure to make that correct interpretation is a direct result of our legacy inheritance from a millenia of manorial feudalism because Nascere means by birth, not by land. We come from peasant serfs. Not them.

Myself before my brother, we brothers before our cousins, our cousins before the tribe, the tribe before state. And all before Islam.

Islam did not change these peoples exploited, exploitative, natures, it harnessed them by explicitly forbidding them any other lifestyle choice and rewarding them with breeding rights and loot for becoming part of a robber gang.

Said gang takes tribute from one area, denuding it of females on a 4:1 basis of reward to warrior males. Then it recruits on the basis of pillage as genetic persistence rights in the next area over and so on and so forth. Growing as it expands. Because if you want anything from Islam, you must convert.

Before the Renaissance, Islam was the most successful, expansive culture on the planet.

Finding those they cannot convert or kill outright, Islamically trained young toughs today are at a complete loss for how to interact on a cop:boss:landlord level of graduated hierarchies above them because respect and dominance is their whole (rote) acquired culture.

A system of warrior privilege that cannot live but that it grows through conquest.

And what’s most despicable about this is that the Muslims know it quite well themselves, choosing to conceal it behind a facade of ‘Taqqiya’ or tactical disinformation.

Indeed, back in 2005, shortly after the Beslan tragedy, the brother in law of the owner of Al Jazeera, himself the owner of a very influential newspaper in Kuwait, wrote a personal editorial that basically said: “Look you idiots, the whole world thinks Islam is a terrorist religion because 9 out of 10 terrorist acts in the last 10 years have been by or included Islamic indoctrinated youth. You had better get your young men under control or we will be the pariahs of the planet.”

And nobody listened to him. Because he wasn’t telling a shocking unknown.

What The West refuses to acknowledge is that Islam is a majority fundamentalist religion (which is to say natively extremist), of which the high-IQ, college bound, ‘Ivy League sweater wearers’ of the upper class moderates (that Islamic and particularly Iranian TV occasionally parades before the camera) are entirely non-representative. Anymore than the Kennedys are accurate reflections of our culture.

Jizya (legal extortion from non-believers) payments only reinvigorate the belief that strength deserves to dominate weakness as the system or ‘racket’ by which Islam functions as a warrior cult built upon conquest.

For two years I’ve been researching a book about Alexander the Great’s counter-guerrilla campaign in Afghanistan, 330-327 B.C. What struck me most powerfully is that that war is a dead ringer for the ones we’re fighting today – even though Alexander was pre-Christian and his enemies were pre-Islamic.

The heart of every tribal male is that of a warrior. Even the most wretched youth in a Palestinian refugee camp sees himself as a knight of Islam. The Pathan code of nangwali prescribes three virtues: nang – pride; badal – revenge; melmastia – hospitality. These guys are Apaches.

What the warrior craves before all else is respect. Respect from his own people, and, even more, from his enemy. When we of the West understand this, as Alexander did, we’ll have taken the first step toward solving the unsolvable.

Islam is a revealed religion with a distinct set of unchanging rules and guidelines to follow. It is not a religion that is supposed to “come from within” like some new age religion. It seems quite incongruous to claim that one believes that Muhammad was Allah’s prophet and therefore profess to be a Muslim and then reject clear Islamic doctrine as established by Muhammad when the Qur’an demands that Muslims obey Muhammad and follow his “perfect” example.

The religion is named Islam, meaning submission, because its founder, Muhammad, claimed that is the word Allah said to him in several alleged revelations. Otherwise, the religion would surely have been known as Muhammadanism or something similar.

What Went Right Set The Stage For Decline

Understanding what went wrong in the Islamic world is, perhaps, best addressed by first recognizing what went right because the initial success of Islam and its early rise to economic, political, and military power is also a primary cause of what ultimately went wrong.

When Muhammad and his early followers arrived in Medina, it is clear that they were in a less than secure economic state. They had cut themselves off from the protection and support of their tribe – an act that was considered tantamount to a death sentence at the time. Moreover, this severance from their tribe’s support and protection occurred in a hostile environment.

The Arabian Peninsula consists mainly of desert that, under normal circumstances, can only support a low-density population. Whether Muhammad felt that he had no other alternatives or whether he felt he had other options is something we will probably never know with certainty, but there is no question that Muhammad chose to create a society that sustained itself and advanced its interests by preying upon non-Muslims.

Mohammed said: “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, and whoever says, None has the right to be worshiped but Allah, his life and property will be saved by me…Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captives. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth…Clearly, Muhammad viewed non-Muslims’ land and property as fair game, and his conduct established that he practiced what he preached.

Instead, we see Ahmadiyya Muslims, many Sufi Muslims, and Bahai Muslims all believing they are “Muslims” when they have deviated so far from the religion Muhammad preached and practiced that Muhammad would hardly consider them Muslims. Muhammad once ordered a mosque, whose members were practicing a heretical form of Islam, burned, and his followers burned it to the ground with the heretical Muslims inside, thereby establishing in Islamic doctrine that schisms were not only not to be tolerated, but should be violently suppressed.

One important answer to the question lies in an ingenious social invention arising among the early Muslims. This was a breeding system that motivated successful warriors with a great incentive to spread their faith and their culture. Bloom puts this motivation in stark terms as “the restless effort of human males to find more wombs to carry their seed.”

Islam has the remarkable advantage of being highly patriarchal and polygamous with great sexual benefits for those warriors able to conquer in its name; Islam was and remains a great male racket. Furthermore, these advantages are not the temporary kind that have always been associated with warfare, but continue to exist within the peacetime new order.

Warriors were not the only Muslim males sexually rewarded for advancing Islam. As seen above, Islam was also spread by trade and mercantile activity. The wealth accumulated by a successful merchant could be considerable. Thus, those responsible for promoting Islam beyond the borders of the Dar-al-Islam could also obtain the means of purchasing concubines and of affording multiple wives.


Filed under Antiquity, Arabs, History, Islam, Islamic, Middle Eastern, Race/Ethnicity, Religion

Race and Politics in America: What Whites Say on the Internet

In the previous post, we noted that contrary to both the White Nationalists and the Abagond Sphere, Whites do not appear to discuss race very much, at least here in California. They are neither the PC Critical Race Theory bogeyman types of the White Nationalists, nor are they the all-encompassing racists that Black paranoia says they are.

Instead, California Whites regard race as a toxic subject to be generally avoided. If poked or provoked, which I love to do, you can sometimes get them to say a thing or two. Usually they do so in carefully chosen language designed to appear as non-inflammatory as possible.

However, on the Internet, it is another story altogether. See here for instance.

One wonders what exactly is going on. Is it possible that White society is so tightly policed in meatspace that they don’t dare breach the Race Barrier, yet on the Net these same repressed folks feel the freedom to let the racist dam burst so to speak, and say what they really feel? Perhaps this is what is going on.

One thing is quite clear in my observations on the Net over several years reading intensively about race, including comments on my site.

In US Whites, comments displaying negative feelings towards non-Whites in the US are almost always a marker of conservatism. If you Google “liberal racism,” you will see a great deal of nonsense about how liberals, presumably White liberals, are actually racist people. Coming from rightwingers, this is so ridiculous as to be patently nonsensical. It actually smacks of projection. US White liberals display very low levels of racism towards non-Whites, if they display any at all. In fact, refusal to criticize non-Whites is an excellent marker of liberalism/Leftism in US Whites.

I don’t believe that all conservatives are racists, at least on a personal level. I’ve seen too many who seem to lack any interpersonal racism. Yet it seems that almost all, if not all, racists are conservatives.

So not all White conservatives are racists, but all White racists are conservatives.

This seems to be a good golden rule.

Another thing we can note. Almost all White racists hate socialism and Communism. These same folks often say that Blacks and Hispanics are natural socialists or Communists.

White racism is also very closely associated with fiscal conservatism. Not many US Blacks or Hispanics are fiscal conservatives and small government enthusiasts.

These two things are well-connected. Socialism and Communism in the US means productive, hard-working Whites get taxed to pay welfare money to lazy, leeching, criminal Blacks and Hispanics. It’s not socialism, it’s racial wealth transfer.

We can see that the entire White Nationalist Sphere opposed Obama’s health care plan. White racist sites like Niggermania and Chimpout, which I read sometimes, were also dead set opposed to the health care plan. These racists often explicitly stated that it was a transfer of White money to Blacks and Browns. Never mind that a lot of Whites might need health care too.

The strong suggestion here is that many white conservatives are voting Republican at least partly on a racial or even racist basis. That’s so clear as to beyond all doubt.

This state of affairs is preposterous. Why would any White person vote rightwing just to “stick it to the niggers and the Mexicans.” What for? What possible benefit could construe for the White person.

I’m a socialist. When I go into the voting booth, I vote for what’s good for me and mine. Mostly what’s good for me! Why should I care about race in the voting booth. I vote for A, B or C. What do I care how A, B or C feels about Whites, Blacks or Hispanics? What possible relevance could those positions of theirs have to do with my life anyway? The traditional Marxist position is that economics is everything and race is not important. I could not agree more.


Filed under Blacks, Conservatism, Economics, Europeans, Hispanics, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics, White Racism, Whites

“If Not For Israel, We Would Never Have Invaded Iraq”

So says Bay Area Guy in the comments section. I don’t believe it. Angela on the other hand, disputes that the Israelis were involved at all.

Me: They pushed for this war from day one, and then after we blew the whistle on them, they said the war wasn’t good for Israel after all. Typical Jewish double-talk, lying, sophistry, sociopathic realpolitik crap.Angela: Who is the “we” that blew the whistle and when did they do it?

Well, the Jew-wise folks had been saying this all along, but there was a lot of resistance to that kind of talk. I remember my father got furious when my brother and I tried to imply that Thomas Friedman was stirring up a war with Iraq on Israel’s behalf, which he was, and which so many Jews in the US and the media were also doing loudly and persuasively.

After the war, there started to be a lot of talk about PNAC, JINSA and the rest of the clowns, including this wonderful document.

Of course, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, the Wurmsers, and many others were involved in this conspiracy. Karen Kwiatkowski was there and laid out all the dirt. The Israeli defense officials coming to the Pentagon to meet with their Jewish buddies at the Pentagon, where they were whisked past all security, told not to sign, and in, and hustled off to secret rooms. Israel was behind the sausage factory cooking up a lot of the fake intel about Saddam’s WMD’s too.

It’s just that I think that the Israelis and their frankly Jewish agents in the US were not so slick as to push George Bush into attacking Iraq solely on the behest of the Israelis. Bush and US imperialism had their own reasons for wanting to get Saddam. It’s just that the interests of the Israelis and their US dual loyalists buddies in the US along with US imperialism tended to coincide in this case. The US and Israel both wanted Saddam gone. I suppose the Israeli push was an extra added factor, but Bush was going to war anyway.

The notion that if not for Israel, we would not have gone into Iraq, as BAG said, is ridiculous. US imperialism has a very serious project in the Middle East, mostly centered around control of the oil fields. All of those oil fields are supposed to be in the hands of US friendly regimes supplied by US arms  often housing US bases. Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US in that region, bad news. We wanted him gone so we could plant bases all over the country like we’ve done in the rest of the region. That’s now a done deal. The US Embassy in Iraq is the largest embassy in the world. We didn’t build that embassy for the Israelis.


Filed under Conservatism, Europeans, Imperialism, Iraq, Iraq War, Israel, Jews, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, The Jewish Question, US Politics, War

Did the US Go To War With Iraq For Israel?

A Jewish commenter recites the typical Jewish and especially Zionist apologia for Israel’s involvement in the Iraq War:

Anyone who believes that the US went to Iraq because of Israel has to explain how Israel has benefited from the Iraq War. Any takers?

Another comment is sure that were it not for Israel, there would have been no war in Iraq:

Well, a potential regional rival was eliminated. Also, logically speaking, whether or not Israel benefited is irrelevant.

Without Israel and the Israel lobby, there would have been no war. That is a fact.

Israeli leaders were pushing for the war, Israel provided us with much of that bogus WMD nonsense, etc.

Either view is too simple.

I don’t think we went to war “because of Israel,” but I do that the Israel Lobby wanted the war. That’s quite clear. The Lobby was one of the forces pushing the war. And the Lobby was working closely with the Israeli government in doing so. Still, to say that the US imperialist Bushies were the puppets of the Jews whispering in the King’s ear is ridiculous.

Israel has long wanted Saddam gone. A seminal paper issued about ten years ago by the JINSA and PNAC crowd, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, lays that out quite clearly.

Get rid of Saddam’s regime. Done. Saddam is gone. Saddam’s regime was one of Israel’s worst enemies.

Other goals:

Get rid of or disarm Gaddafi in Libya. Done.

Regime change in Syria. Not done, but I believe Syria is under sanctions.

Disarming or demobilization of Hezbollah. Not done, but the Lebanon War was part of this project. Incredibly, the UN has gotten in on this too with UN resolutions aimed at Hezbollah. Also Israel killed Imad Mughniyeh, military brain of Hezbollah.

Get rid of Yasser Arafat. Done. Israel probably killed him with poison.

Regime change in Iran or stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Not done, but there has been a low-level war against the nuclear program, UN sanctions, and constant threats of hot war.


Filed under Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, North Africa, Palestine, Politics, Regional, South Asia, Syria, Terrorism, The Jewish Question, US Politics, War

Race and Politics in America: What Whites Say in Meatspace

After living in US society for a while, you get kind of an idea about race and politics among US Whites. But it’s only an idea, because contrary to the nuts in the Abagond Sphere, Whites, at least here in California, really don’t talk about race that much. Conservative Whites, liberal Whites, no Whites here have much to say about race. The topic is for all intents and purposes taboo. This suggests right away that two polar opposite views are seriously incorrect:

The Abagond Sphere holds that US White society is a horrifically racist place. US Whites have a severe level of racism towards Blacks and possibly other non-Whites. The result of this apparently is serious damage to the psyches of US Blacks, at the very least.

Further to the Left, the White Left in the US holds that all of the various discrepancies of US Blacks, overrepresentation of negatives, underrepresentation of positives, can only be due to White racism. White racism must be a pretty vicious tornado of an entity to cause such serious damage to Black society. This view is so strange that it almost seems a caricature, but White Left colleagues have told me this right to my face, so I know that they think like this.

Since viciously racist Whites talk about race all the time and US Whites don’t do that, we must reject the Abagond Sphere view of US Whites, at least in California.

The other view is that of the White Nationalist or White racist Right. This view holds that US Whites, especially the liberals, are a bunch of Tim Wise PC clones. That’s not really the case. I can almost count on my fingers the number of PC Whites who have lectured me on race. White people, outside of Tim Wise speeches, just don’t talk like this. At least the ones I meet don’t. This is a fantasy.

Since one almost never hears a White person sounding like a PC Tim Wise clone, we must reject this view of US Whites.

So if California Whites are neither PC nuts nor vicious bigots on the subject of race, what is their opinion on race? Around these parts, from the Left to the Right, race is simply not discussed. Whites either associate with other races or they do not. If they don’t, they don’t make many racist comments. If they do, you don’t hear them complaining a lot about their non-White associates.

There are a few overtly racist Whites here and there, mostly in White towns, but they are not common. If you get to know them well, some Whites will let loose some racist talk. One friend told me, “I think Blacks are savages.” I asked how much experience he had had with Blacks. Some, he had lived with a Black man back in the hippie days. “But he was kind of a savage too,” he allowed.

Whites, Left to Right, don’t discuss illegal immigration much either. Maybe if you pry, you might get a word or two, but once again, we are into the Taboo Zone. I told Abagond himself this once, but he almost did not believe it. It clashed with his view of White society as a viciously racist place, so he rejected my view out of hand.


Filed under Blacks, Conservatism, Europeans, Illegal, Immigration, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Quote From Sarah Palin, Republiscum Hero

“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic?” –Sarah Palin, admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada’s single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010.

What an evil bitch. The health care in her own state was so crappy, and Canada’s health care was so much better, that she used to haul her own family over to Canada to get treatment in their socialist health care system. Then she demonizes and goes on jihad against Obama’s health care system on the basis that it is Communism, when it doesn’t even come near the socialism of Canada’s. The reason that Sarah “Whore” Palin opposed the Obama plan? Mostly party line. What an evil hypocrite bitch. Symbolizes her party perfectly.


Filed under Americas, Canada, Democrats, Economics, Government, Health, North America, Obama, Politics, Public Health, Regional, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics

Another View of US Muslims

An anti-US Muslim perspective from an American.

I can’t say I have had the same experience.

About the article: Muslims do this same crap in Paris. They take over entire public streets on their holy days, overflowing out of the mosques and onto the streets, stopping all traffic and forcing pedestrians out of the way. The French also claim that this more all about a “show of force” than mere prayer. Maybe it is.

It’s incredible that New York City has more Muslims than Paris or London. Compared to those two places, New York’s Muslims are incredibly well integrated. But what about the future? I wonder when a European-type situation will develop with US Muslims, if ever?

The debate about the Cordoba House is ridiculous. For the longest time, thanks to the Scum Media, I didn’t even understand the debate. I actually thought this was some uber-multicultural project dreamed up by the Left, including the Democratic Party and Obama, to build a damned mosque right smack in the middle of Ground Zero as a gesture of peace and understanding with Islam, interfaith dialogue, and all that crap. That’s a totally insane idea of course, but the fact that I actually thought that’s what was going on shows either how loony US liberalism has become or how evil the media is.

After a number of weeks, I finally figured out that the mosque is not at Ground Zero itself (thank God!) but is a couple of blocks away. It’s not being planned by the US Suicide Left, but instead some Muslims actually own the property and want to build a mosque there. Which, of course, is their First Amendment right, as correctly noted by Obama, who then stepped aside from the whole debate, once again properly as a law professor would do.

However, I must say it’s awfully arrogant of the Muslims to build that mosque right by Ground Zero.

But it’s typical Muslim supremacism.

Muslims get to proselytize in the Diaspora, but we can’t do the same in their country.

Muslims can build all the mosques they wish in the Diaspora, but we can’t do the same in their sandboxes.

We build a church in one of the desert oases, and they promptly build a mosque right next to it, always sure to make the mosque just a tiny bit higher. So a rigged game of cock-measuring with construction materials is part of the Muslim repertoire.

Building that mosque right next to Ground Zero is those bastards’ way of giving us the finger with an intimidating show of superiority. But it figures.

Nevertheless the people building the mosque are Sufis, about as reasonable as Muslims come these days, though I actually prefer the Alawi, Alevi and Ahmadiya.

The debate is ridiculous. If you support building the mosque as I do as a matter of rights, then you “support Sharia law.” A friend of mine is a Left-liberal too. He recently showed up at band practice, and the Dittohead asked him, “Did you just get back from your Sharia meeting?” This is the corner these rightwing rats have backed us into. Bastards.

Build The Dang Mosque!—To End Muslim Immigration

By Matthew Richer

As an immigration patriot, I obviously sympathize with those who oppose the construction of the Cordoba House Mosque near the World Trade Center. Only the most recalcitrant globalist cannot see what an extraordinary insult this is to the victims of September 11th and their families.

Unlike many of those who support the mosque’s construction, I was actually in Manhattan on September 11th. And while I was not close enough to the Twin Towers to be in any danger, I was close enough to see them fall with my own eyes.

It’s hard to describe the collective sense of dread we all felt that day. You just had to be there.

Nevertheless, I am actually relieved that a mosque is being built near the World Trade Center. Let me tell you why:

Lost in the debate over the Cordoba House Mosque is the fact that New York City now has a larger Muslim population than London, Paris or any city in Western Europe. There are over 800,000 Muslims living in New York and over 100 mosques—some estimates are much higher.

There are also an incalculable number of Muslim prayer rooms or “musallas” in the city, located in the backrooms and basements of restaurants, warehouses, and offices buildings. There was even a musalla on the 17th floor of Tower One.

Since Muslims pray five times a day, and half the cab drivers in New York are Muslim, you will often find many cabs double-parked outside these mosques and musallas, clogging up already overcrowded streets. Sure, the meter maids write them tickets, but the imams provide the cabbies with letters to bring to traffic court claiming that double-parking one’s taxi is a constitutionally protected act of religious freedom.

The Masjid al-Farah Mosque, which is nothing more than a converted storage space, is just a fifteen minute walk from Ground Zero, and has been there since 1985. During the Muslim Sabbath on Fridays, the police cordon off the streets and sidewalks outside the mosque to accommodate the overflow of worshipers, who are either kneeling or fully prostrate on the ground.

The fact that their prayers stop traffic and force pedestrians to cross the street doesn’t seem to bother them; in fact, I think that‘s the whole point.

I’ve witnessed this bizarre ritual many times. Certainly, it does not resemble other forms of public prayer, such as pro-lifers praying in front of abortion clinics, or evangelicals holding hands and forming a circle around a flag pole. No, these Friday prayers are an act of cultural intimidation, an attempt to arrogate part of the city and declare it Muslim territory.

The first originally-constructed mosque built in New York, the Islamic Cultural Center, opened in 1991 on East 96th Street. The mosque was largely paid for by the Emir of Kuwait, and other Muslim governments. Its opening was delayed because the original Iranian-born architect was dismissed for having hired a Jewish consultant.

Only days after September 11th, I attended a Rosh Hashanah dinner with some Jewish friends on East 96th Street near the mosque. Afterward, as we walked home, we noticed that the mosque was surrounded by a number of policemen who were there to fend off the much-anticipated anti-Muslim backlash that, of course, never did happen.

As we drew closer, a helicopter flew low overhead and aimed its searchlight directly on us. One officer then approached and ordered us to cross the street.

It was a close brush with the brave new world of diversity, and not my last.

A few years later, St. Ignatius Church, my former Park Avenue parish, ran an “interfaith dialogue” trip to the Islamic Cultural Center. The event was hosted by Imam Omar Saleem Abu Namous, one of the most prominent Muslim leaders in New York.

The Islamic Cultural Center is an imposing facility that looks more like a fortress than a place of religious worship. It lacks any beauty or warmth and is surrounded by a thick iron fence and heavy gates.

Imam Namous was perfect for the job of ecumenical outreach—smiley, personable, and able to peddle off the whole “religion of peace” routine as well as anyone could possibly do it.

After a brief tour of the mosque, Imam Namous asked us if we had any questions. I asked him if we were welcome to come back to the mosque on our own time. He assured us that we were all welcome to visit any time we liked.

So, naturally, I decided to take him up on his offer. It was time, I figured, to put diversity to the test. Obviously, it helps that I’m a pretty big guy. Still, I decided I’d better bring along a friend, just in case.

Several days later, my friend and I chose to visit the mosque just after their midday prayers had ended, so as not to intrude on anything. We entered through the rear entrance of the mosque at 97th street, just as I had done with the parishioners from St. Ignatius.

During my previous visit with St. Ignatius, the members of the mosque kept a considerable distance from us. But not this time. As soon as we took off our shoes, in compliance with Muslim custom, we were met with several icy stares.

We then headed toward the main prayer hall while several men followed close behind, muttering angrily in Arabic. As soon as we entered the prayer hall, they confronted us.

“Are you Muslim?” one of them demanded to know.

“No,” I replied. “But we were invited to come here by Imam Namous.” This did not impress any of them, even though I could see Imam Namous on the other side of the room talking to a group of children.

The man then glowered at us behind a set of almost lifeless eyes. “You have to leave,” he shouted at us, “Now!” and he thrust a clenched fist into his palm.

This was the future of Muslim-Christian relations in America staring me right in the eye.

We grabbed our shoes and left.

Shelby Steele once wrote “Most people could empty half of any room simply by saying what they truly believe.” One of the positive, and sadly brief, outcomes of 9-11, was that many Americans actually had the courage to say what they really thought about the world around us.

Terrible as September 11th was, it awoke the instinct that has for so long been suppressed among the American people—and among all Western peoples—the instinct of self-preservation.

On the afternoon of September 11th, and in the days following, many people gathered on Central Park’s Great Lawn, where you could watch the Twin Towers smolder over the Manhattan skyline for days. They also met in bars, restaurants and coffee shops.

Scores of people began to honestly speak their minds about the world around them, even among strangers, and no one was afraid of censure.

“Stop all Muslim immigration.” “Deport all illegal aliens.” “Start racially profiling.”

This racial realpolitik only strengthened when it was reported that in many Muslim enclaves in New York and New Jersey, Muslims publicly cheered when the Twin Towers collapsed.

Unfortunately, ten days later President George W. Bush addressed the nation and said

“I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. ”

He also told the nation that America was attacked not because of our race or religion, but because of our democratic values.

The Mainstream Media and the Conservative Establishment immediately began to parrot these patently ludicrous assertions which tragically lacked any emphasis on self-preservation.

Our response to 9-11 suddenly became about defeating our enemies “over there” in the Middle East.

But our enemies are not over there. They are here—and in greater numbers than ever before because we still allow them to come.

In the meantime, sharia law continues to inch its icecap over New York City. Muslim activists have been lobbying Wall Street to practice sharia-compliant finance. They have been pushing the public schools to recognize their holy days. Whenever a mosque or musalla opens in the city, they try to muscle any liquor stores or bars out of the neighborhood. You get the picture.

The real insult to the victims of 9-11 is not that a mosque is being built near the spot where they died—it is that Muslim immigration continues to flow into the city and country most of them called home.

Moreover, even if opponents of the Cordoba House Mosque successfully prevented it from being built by Ground Zero, it will probably still be built a short distance away. What kind of victory is that?

If we really gave a damn about the victims of 9-11, we would immediately prohibit all Muslim immigration. But that isn’t going to happen unless people begin to demand it.

Given that most of our post-American leaders in New York and beyond support the Cordoba House Mosque, there appears to be nothing that can be done to stop it.

My hope, then, is that the mosque’s construction will help to reignite the instinct of self-preservation that is so essential if the country is to avoid having a Muslim problem on a scale like that of Western Europe.

While the instinct of self-preservation remains sadly dormant among our elites, it still burns within the rest of us. We have seen it in the number of people who already oppose the Cordoba House Mosque. We have all seen it in the thousands of outraged citizens who crashed the Senate switchboard to oppose another amnesty.

And, of course, we have seen it in the number of people who read and support

The construction of the Cordoba House Mosque will hopefully awaken Americans to the reality that our enemies are not “over there”.

They are already here, and living among us; they are swelling in strength and size, and right now, they appear to be winning.

Matthew Richer is a writer living in Massachusetts. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine.


Filed under Christianity, Culture, Immigration, Islam, Religion, Social Problems, Sociology

Typical Mexican Parties

Party on down to the hospital.

A wedding, a birthday party, it doesn’t matter what the occasion is, it’s not a real Mexican party until they break out the knives, fisticuffs and even guns. Usually one or more folks end up in the hospital or on a slab. Want to turn a whooping group of happy and loving Mexicans into a human cockfight? Just add alcohol.

We native White Californians have known about this Mexican proclivity forever. It’s a hallowed tradition, probably from old Mexico. We’ve always avoided their “parties.” They have some pretty big Mexican parties around here, and they look like they could be a lot of fun, but no way am I going to one. I got invited to a New Years Party full of Mexicans aged  around 18 years old or so. That might have been OK. Too young to do much damage, and the crowd was OK.

I’ve also heard that Italian and Greek weddings sometimes end up like this too. Ouzo and knives anyone? Truth or what?

What is it with these Med types anyway? Passionate folks. I’m Northern European. I’ll pass on the “passion,” thank you very much. I may be cold, but I’m alive and out of the ICU, and that’s a nice place to be.


Filed under Culture, Europeans, Greeks, Hispanics, Italians, Mexicans, Race/Ethnicity, Whites

Blacks Support the Tea Party?

No way is this true. Forget it. I think it may have had to do with the wording. Sure, 1/3 of likely Black voters would possibly vote for a Tea Party-backed candidate. However, in the reality-based community (real world) Blacks vote about 90% Democratic, thank God. In the last election, they voted 94% Democratic. Juan McCain got only 4% of the vote.

How many Whites would possibly vote for a Tea Party candidate? Probably over 50%, no doubt.

But how many agree with the principles of the Tea Party Movement? 20% of Americans. How many call themselves Tea Party supporters? 14% of Americans.

Yet 1/3 of Blacks are Tea Party supporters. Yeah right.

The poll was done by Pajamas Media. Pajamas Media is a hard rightwing aggregation of blogs following basically the line of the US Republican Party. An entire channel of Pajamas Media TV is set aside for the Tea Party Channel. They’re the ones who conducted this poll. LOL.

1 Comment

Filed under Blacks, Conservatism, Democrats, Europeans, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, US Politics, Whites

What Is the Radical Feminist Line on Womanizers?

On the Are Most Womanizers Gay or Bisexual post, BAG perceptively poses a couple of questions:

Are most womanizers gay or bisexual?

Short Answer: Hell No!

Slightly Longer Answer: This is simply more radical feminist BS.

Really? Is that the radfem line? Is this how the Fempire Strikes Back?

A pox on those shrews, dykes, bitches, misandrists, hags, maids and witches. I hate them so much. They’ve taken the feminine principle and ran nuts with it. They’re long past the goal line, so far away we can’t even see them anymore. They are truly producers of nothing, following Weininger.

Au contraire, this theory is just wrong. Many or most true womanizers are actually philogynists (which is what I am). There! I made up a new word. Someone give me a MacArthur Genius Grant, will ya? Or is gynophile better?


Filed under Radical Feminists, Scum