Tag Archives: jihad

Australia Racism Protest

Something Rotten Down Under

While searching for the government immigration report mentioned in Cheerleading Genocidal Immigration I ran into a recent Australian government report.

Clear-eyed report spells out the risks | The Australian:

THE government’s white paper on counter-terrorism is a landmark, a watershed, a signal moment: choose your metaphor.

What I mean to say is, it’s a very important document, and for none of the reasons you have been hearing about in the past few days.

Sometimes the press gallery and the main media commentators so spectacularly miss the point that you wonder what universe they are living in.

For example, have you heard Hezbollah terror groups are operating in Australia? It’s in the white paper, but not the media.

Have you heard the government has declared the level of terror threat a society faces depends on the size and composition of its Muslim minority? It’s in the white paper but not the media.

The other criticism of the white paper is for using the term jihadist. If it really was Rudd who insisted on this he deserves high praise. It is crucial we tell the truth. The al-Qa’ida version of jihad, like that of the Muslim Brotherhood or of many Wahabi Muslims and of the strand of Shia represented by the Iranian government, is, terribly, a minority but longstanding tradition within Islam. To pretend otherwise is to intellectually disable ourselves.

The descriptive passages in the white paper are written in calm but straightforward language and have the virtue of telling the truth clearly and unapologetically.

One weakness, or contradiction, for the government is that the white paper rightly extols the need for tight border security, yet the government’s policies have weakened border security to our north. Virtually any Middle East or South Asian Muslim who gets to Christmas Island now gets to stay in Australia permanently and ultimately gets access to family reunion. That’s starting to be many thousands of people who have not been chosen under regular Australian procedures.

The white paper is online at Counter-Terrorism White Paper: Securing Australia – Protecting our Community. It is focused on al qaida and muslims. Here are several excerpts that convey the gist.

The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and/or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society.

Future geo-political events could mean other terrorist movements with a presence or support base in Australia could become willing to engage in operational activity here. And in the future new terrorist threats could manifest themselves in Australia, either as a by-product of events overseas or as a result of a political grievance within Australia. There will always be the disaffected and disempowered, often but not always at the fringes of communities or the followers of radical ideologies, who mistakenly see advantages in the use of terrorist tactics.

The aim of Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy is to protect Australia, its people and interests from terrorism.

Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are intelligence-led and focused on prevention.

Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are supported by our open democratic society. There are inherent strengths in our society that make Australia resilient to the divisive worldview of al-Qa’ida and like-minded groups. However, we know from experience that the terrorist narrative may resonate with a small number of Australians. It is incumbent upon all Australians to work together to reject ideologies that promote violence, no matter from where they arise or to what purpose they aspire. We must all support and protect the values and freedoms from which all Australians benefit. By reducing disadvantage, addressing real or perceived grievances and encouraging full participation in Australia’s social and economic life, government policies can help to mitigate any marginalisation and radicalisation that may otherwise occur within the Australian community.

To be effective, Australia must pursue a principled and proportionate response that promotes and upholds the values we seek to protect.

This chapter explains how Australia will counter violent extremism by:

* building on Australia’s history of inclusion, multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity to maintain a society that is resilient to the hate-based and divisive narratives that fuel terrorism;

Australia’s inclusive, multicultural society is one of our strengths. Australia needs to harness this strength in the face of the divisive narrative of terrorist groups. We have a key interest in not allowing messages of hate to divide our community. Maintaining a resilient society based on shared freedoms, respect and understanding of our diversity helps us achieve that.

Australia is a country that recognises, accepts and respects cultural diversity. However, Australia will not tolerate the propagation of violent extremism and hate under the cloak of that diversity. The Government is committed to promoting respect, inclusion and a sense of belonging, in ways which address issues impeding social cohesion.

Exclusion or marginalisation of any individual or group of people can affect us all. It can affect a society’s cohesiveness, economic performance and, as we have seen overseas, the security and stability of the community as a whole. There are few countries in the world where migrants have achieved the level of economic, political, social and cultural participation that they have in Australia. But we cannot afford to be complacent. We know that a small number of Australians hold extreme beliefs and some of these individuals are or may be committed to supporting or engaging in acts of terrorism.

Media, academia, and government across the West have long been cheerleading for diversity and the immigration that brings it. They have also consistently ignored, disassociated, and otherwise played down and covered up any negative consequences.

This “clear-eyed” report laying out the Australian government’s counter-terrorism priorities only pays lip service to protecting Australia and its people. It actually puts “inclusion, multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity” first. If this were not the case the report would address the hate-based and divisive pro-diversity, anti-native, anti-White narratives which have promoted and defended genocidal immigration and multicultural policies under the cloak of double-talk about inclusion. It would point out that this has created an islamic terrorism problem where none existed before – no muslim immigrants, no islamic terrorism. It would explain that the biggest threat to an Australian sense of belonging and social cohesion is the immigration of any racial or cultural aliens, and advocate a return to the White Australia policy.

Instead we get a cross-eyed report premised on a bullshit history and orwellian future in which inclusion of diversity produces cohesion.

(The image above comes from Australia Racism Protest Photo. The threat to Australians is not restricted to jihadists. Diversity is divisive. Immigration is genocide.

Swiss_Peoples_Party

Switzerland Minus Minarets

Power to the Swiss people and the Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP). The image caption reads, “Swiss quality, the middle class’ party”.

Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques – NYTimes.com:

The government must now draft a supporting law on the ban, a process that could take at least a year and could put Switzerland in breach of international conventions on human rights.

Apparently even the mildest, most indirect attempts to resist genocidal levels of immigration can put Whites in breach of “international conventions on human rights”.

Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer. There are about 400,000 Muslims in a population of some 7.5 million people. Close to 90 percent of Muslims in Switzerland are from Kosovo and Turkey, and most do not adhere to the codes of dress and conduct associated with conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, said Manon Schick, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International in Switzerland.

Nothing to see here. Only 5 percent of Switzerland’s population is muslim, close to 100 percent of them cultural and genetic aliens.

“Most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote,” said Farhad Afshar, who runs the Coordination of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland. “Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community.”

The kosovars, turks, and other muslims can go home, feel accepted, and build as many minarets as they like. Most painful for the Swiss is that if “international human rights” prevail it’s only a matter of time before the Swiss will be entirely dispossessed of their one and only homeland.

To the consternation of anti-White internationalists resistance is beginning to come not just from the “nativist”, “xenophobic”, “racist”, “nazi” SVP – but also from leftist feminists.

Women lead Swiss in vote to ban minarets – Times Online:

A right-wing campaign to outlaw minarets on mosques in a referendum being held in Switzerland today has received an unlikely boost from radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols” and reminders of Islam’s oppression of women.

A “stop the minarets” campaign has provoked ferment in the land of Heidi, where women are more likely than men to vote for the ban after warnings from prominent feminists that Islam threatens their rights.

This resistance is “right-wing” with “an unlikely boost” only if seen from an anti-White internationalist cheerleading point of view. Media bias isn’t “liberal”, it’s anti-White.

Socialist politicians have been furious to see icons of the left joining what is regarded as an anti-immigrant campaign by the populist Swiss People’s party, the biggest group in parliament.

One of them, Julia Onken, warned that failure to ban minarets would be “a signal of the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women”. She has sent out 4,000 emails attacking Muslims who condone forced marriage, honour killings and beating women.

Normal, healthy people don’t like being replaced by aliens who look, think, and act alien, obliterating their precious homeland and traditions before their very eyes, forever. Apparently, neither do radical feminists.

Swiss business is horrified. There are fears of a reaction against Swiss products similar to the one suffered by Denmark over the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in 2005.

“The brand ‘Swiss’ must continue to represent values such as openness, pluralism and freedom of religion,” said Hanspeter Rentsch, a member of the board of Swatch, the watchmaker.

It’s more horrorifying that Swiss businessmen feel free to favor “brand ‘Swiss’” over people Swiss. The irony is that openness and pluralism will eventually destroy the Swiss and all their “brands”, and the freedom to build minarets will ultimately be very, very bad for business.

Can you guess who else thinks openness, pluralism and freedom of religion are more important than Swiss self-determination?

Push to ban minarets in Switzerland a ‘threat’:

Switzerland’s biggest Jewish groups said Wednesday that a far-right push to ban the construction of minarets here was a “threat” to religious harmony and hindered the integration of Muslims.

- The referendum infringes religious freedom, a concept enshrined in the constitution – said the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities and the Platform of Liberal Jews in Switzerland in a statement.

It – also poses a threat to peaceful relations between the religions and inhibits the integration endeavours of Muslims in Switzerland – they added.

This is pure double-talk. Immigration brings the threat to harmony. The Swiss citizenry, who to the extent they’ve been informed and consulted have expressed their disfavor for immigration, muslim or otherwise, and should not be forced to suffer it, whether the immigrants wish to “integrate” with them or not. It is their very existence which is being infringed. What gives “jewish communities”, who have not integrated after more than two millenia among Europeans, any standing to lecture anyone about immigration or integration? They consider themselves jews first, not Swiss, so they can STFU or move to israel and lecture their own tribe about immigration and integration.

The two Jewish groups said they – take seriously the fears of the population that extremist ideas could be disseminated in Switzerland. -

- But banning minarets is no solution — it only creates in Muslims in Switzerland a sense of alienation and discrimination – they said.

If creating a sense of alienation is the concern then surely the alienation the native Swiss feel at the sight of minarets in their homeland trumps the senses of migrant muslims and jews, who after all are only guests. What the Swiss and all other Whites should take seriously is how jews and muslims do not hesitate to “discriminate”, i.e. identify with and advocate in favor of their own groups, even as they pathologize Whites for any attempt to do so.

It’s true that banning minarets is no solution. Deporting aliens would be better, but even that wouldn’t solve the problem. The problem is “international human rights”. What horrifies Swiss business is the precedent for internationalist punishment that has already been set by organized jewry. See The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany: The Economic Boycott of 1933.

Why would any normal, healthy people want to see the dysfunctional middle east recreated inside their country’s borders? In part because we’re constantly told, as we’re reminded here in this case, that it harms peaceful relations, harmony, and integration to see it this way. And in part because if we set that concern aside and persist then we’re threatened – all the double-talk about peaceful relations, harmony, and integration aside – with open war.

Some pundits characterize what’s happening to every White country, and only White countries, as “suicide”, or “self-destruction” caused by “liberalism”. This story of resistance from Switzerland, among others, puts the lie to that poisonous, blame-shifting meme.

UPDATE 2 Dec 2009: In a comment on Interview: Arthur Kemp, Hunter Wallace writes:

Banning minarets is treating symptoms, not the disease.

I disagree.

The disease is the idea, which produced its most fateful results during the Enlightenment in the service of emancipating jews, that Whites, and only Whites, must not “discriminate” against “minorities”. Since this meme took root it has been fed and twisted to genocidal proportions. Whites everywhere now live under a regime which subsidizes, supports, and even directly imposes “discrimination” against Whites, defending the interests of interloping aliens over the interests of the native-born citizenry.

The banning of minarets by popular vote strikes only obliquely at this idea, but it is a blow against the disease itself. Organized jewry roundly condemns it for exactly this reason. “Liberal” feminists played a prominent part in the minaret ban, putting the lie to the corollary meme, pimped constantly by faux-White pro-jews and others, that “suicidal” White “liberalism” is to blame for all that ills us. Even “liberals”, it turns out, resist when their “suicide” becomes too blatant. The genocide is inflicted in the name of “liberal” “non-discrimination” in name but not in fact, and it is inflicted by “the international community” – which means the plutocrats, their media, their jet-setting cosmopolitan courtiers, jewish groups, muslim groups, and the treaonous costume clowns who serve their interests in their governments.

“Treating symptoms” is more fairly applied to much of what conservatives do here in the US – for example, to their focus on the transfer of wealth via taxes or healthcare, never identifying who the wealth is transferred from or to; or to the “culture war”, never identifying who’s at war with whom.

061109top2

If Hasan Were White

Contrast this…

Obama: Hasan May Have ‘Cracked’ From ‘Stress’ | The FOX Nation

On Fort Hood shooting, Obama says: Do not jump to conclusions | Jerusalem Post

with this…

Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks – CBS News, by Bonnie Erbe.

The Big Hate – NYTimes.com, by Paul Krugman.

- – -

If Major Nidal Malik Hasan were White these people wouldn’t hesitate to recognize and denounce his motives. Likewise if James von Brunn had been a palestinian muslim. The one constant is that when jews perceive a threat to jewish interests, the conclusions they jump to get aired, no matter how insane, illiberal, or insensitive, and usually without any challenge or retraction. When there is no direct threat to jewish interests, as with the Fort Hood attack, then defending against indirect threats to minority privilege (the presumption that non-Whites, including jews, are disadvantaged) and dual loyalty (it’s ok to be a jew or muslim first) is paramount.

There is no need to jump to conclusions about the anti-White regime. Pay attention to its reaction to any particular clash of White and non-White interests and the conclusions jump out all by themselves.

00000afghanistan

A Marine Asks Why

Can anyone handle the truth?

U.S. official resigns over Afghan war, October 27, 2009:

When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.

A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.

But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.

Rather than being satisfied with the selective snippets of Hoh’s resignation letter provided in media accounts, I recommend you read the whole thing. Here are the portions I found most interesting.

I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end. To put it simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.

The value of the GWOT is to keep the world safe for plutocracy.

If the history of Afghanistan is one great stage play, the United States is no more than a supporting actor, among several previously, in a tragedy that not only pits tribes, valleys, clans, villages and families against one another, but, from at least the end of King Zahir Shah’s reign, has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional. It is this latter group that composes and supports the Pashtun insurgency. The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies.

Another way of seeing it is that Afghanistan is no more than a supporting actor in our so-called “culture war”.

The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.

Psy-ops could try calling the Pashtuns “haters” and “racists”. It would take decades of repetition and indoctrination, and its probably essential to have some verbally-skilled Pashtun-looking “anti-racists” to supply the poison, but it really does work in the long run. In a generation or two Pashtuns themselves will be clamoring to import diversity into the most hideously Pashtun areas, just like Whites do.

I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

The stated reasons, to spread freedom and democracy, are specious. The stated strategy, to have our infidel military win over alien muslim hearts and minds, is absurd.

What’s really going on is the US’s judaized, urban, secular, educated ruling class is at war with its White rural, religious, illiterate (or at least misinformed), traditional class. In this war, the plutocrats kill two birds with one stone by sending a disproportionately White military to stir up trouble and die trying to repress Afghan peasants who quite understandably resent their presence.

All that’s being spread is misery, not freedom or democracy. Here at home the freedoms we Whites require for survival (association, arms, speech) are under constant assault. In the age of mass media, broadcast to a dumbed down, cowed, misinformed electorate our vaunted democracy is only a fig leaf for plutocracy. Our politicians answer to wealthy cosmopolitans, not the citizenry they’re supposedly sworn to serve.

More so, the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. Finally, if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.

The threat to us comes mainly from the plutocrats and their globalism, and no, they are not tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. They compel our politicians to allow millions of hostile aliens to flood over our borders even as they send our guardians overseas, ostensibly to guarantee peace and safety for other aliens.

Overseas the plutocrats know their enemies, our military men, will be maimed and killed with bullets and bombs. Here at home they employ more insidious legalistic weapons, like “hate” laws and anti-White “civil rights”. Coupled with biological weapons, like immigration and refugee resettlement, the damage is more devastating, and lasting. When the U.S. military finally withdraws the Pashtun will still be Pashtun. Whites face extinction.

Alongside the genocide an epic swindle is perpetrated.

We are spending ourselves into oblivion” a very talented and intelligent commander, one of America’s best, briefs every visitor, staff delegation and senior officer. We are mortgaging our Nation’s economy on a war, which, even with increased commitment, will remain a draw for years to come. Success and victory, whatever they may be, will be realized not in years, after billions more spent, but in decades and generations. The United States does not enjoy a national treasury for such success and victory.

Of course “we” aren’t spending ourselves into oblivion. The plutocrats have had their political lackeys hand them monumental sums and stick taxpayers with the bill. The trillions spent on endless global war also end up in their pockets. What’s happening is they’re spending us into oblivion.

france_riot

What Anti-Migrant Anti-Hornet Racism Tells Us

Yet another case of non-human biology providing a headline highlighting a similar, but suppressed, human reality.

Tourists warned as Asian hornets terrorise French:

Tourists are being warned to steer clear of Asian hornets that are colonising France, after swarms of the aggressive predators attacked seven people.

That’s odd. The threat pales in comparison to the swarms of aggressive predatory alien muslim youths who have been permitted to colonize France and who pose a far more deadly threat, yet neither the authorities nor the media have issued correspondingly omnious warnings about that.

Odd also that even though all of the trouble-making Asian hornets were born and raised in France nobody has started calling them French hornets, nor do they pretend they can’t or shouldn’t notice any difference from the indigenous hornets. Curiously, the article also fails to emphasize that not all of the Asian hornets are trouble-makers. Nor does it assert that they are France’s greatest strength, that France is a nation of insects, or that the undocumented migrant hornets are just coming to do the jobs French honeybees won’t do.

Very, very strange.

“Never attempt to destroy an Asian hornet nest yourself but call on specialist organisations, as this species charges in a group as soon as it feels its nest is threatened.”

Whoops. Another uncomfortable similarity, and another contrast. The human invaders also attack in groups, stirred to murderous riot by the flimsiest pretexts. But “specialist organisations” will only answer calls to destroy the nests of hornets.

As a knock-on effect of the invasive species, the European hornet has become more aggressive, due to a lack of food.

When European people, as opposed to hornets, respond similarly, the “knock-on effect” is that the government openly militates against the indigenous species, not the invasive species. In Britain, there’s even an Asian human in charge of doing it. Labour says they will ease up on Muslim fanatics:

We shall be putting a renewed focus on resisting right-wing racist extremism. We cannot dismiss or underestimate the threat.

This typifies the genocidal official response all across the Eurosphere. For those of us who see this, we shall resist the reality-inverting “racist extremism” rhetoric used to pathologize our perfectly natural reactions to violent colonization. We cannot dismiss or underestimate the threat it poses.

ayaan-hirsi-ali

The Value of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I am prompted to write in response to this question from whodareswings:

I’m wondering why you have a link to Hersi Ali. Isn’t she at the American Enterprise Institute working for them now? And isn’t AEI a neocon outfit? And aren’t neocons the enemies of White nationalists? Why have you given this Somali feminist “change agent” a pass?

I listen to many people. In spite of the fact that many have worldviews that conflict with each other or with my own they often expose me to opinions I consider valuable. What I value most is truth. What I value about Hirsi Ali is the truth she speaks.

I have not read everything Hirsi Ali has ever said, but I am not aware of any lies. She does not pretend to be what she is not. Lawrence Auster, in contrast, is no friend of neocons. He often speaks truth, but like neocons he pretends to care about the West when what concerns him most is what is good for jews.

From an interview Hirsi Ali did with Reason in November 2007, titled The Trouble Is the West:

Reason: Should we acknowledge that organized religion has sometimes sparked precisely the kinds of emancipation movements that could lift Islam into modern times? Slavery in the United States ended in part because of opposition by prominent church members and the communities they galvanized. The Polish Catholic Church helped defeat the Jaruzelski puppet regime. Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?

Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.

Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.

Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, “Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution,” he’s wrong?

Hirsi Ali: He’s wrong. Sorry about that.

Hirsi Ali is a clear and articulate anti-islam iconoclast – one of the few of an extremely rare breed. What she says about islam is not only the unvarnished truth, without any PC dithering, it is far beyond what the vast majority of neocons (or White nationalists for that matter) have the courage to say.

From her review of Lee Harris’ book Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History:

The second fanaticism that [Lee] Harris identifies is one he views as infecting Western societies; he calls it a “fanaticism of reason.” Reason, he says, contains within itself a potential fatality because it blinds Western leaders to the true nature of Islamic-influenced cultures. Westerners see these cultures merely as different versions of the world they know, with dominant values similar to those espoused in their own culture. But this, Harris argues, is a fatal mistake. It implies that the West fails to appreciate both its history and the true nature of its opposition.

Nor, he points out, is the failure linked to a particular political outlook. Liberals and conservatives alike share this misperception. Noam Chomsky and Paul Wolfowitz agreed, Harris writes, “that you couldn’t really blame the terrorists, since they were merely the victims of an evil system — for Chomsky, American imperialism, for Wolfowitz, the corrupt and despotic regimes of the Middle East.” That is to say, while left and right may disagree on the causes and the remedies, they both overlook the fanaticism inherent in Islam itself. Driven by their blind faith in reason, they interpret the problem in a way that is familiar to them, in order to find a solution that fits within their doctrine of reason. The same is true for such prominent intellectuals as Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama.

Harris does not regard Islamic fanaticism as a deviancy or a madness that affects a few Muslims and terrifies many. Instead he argues that fanaticism is the basic principle in Islam. “The Muslims are, from an early age, indoctrinated into a shaming code that demands a fanatical rejection of anything that threatens to subvert the supremacy of Islam,” he writes. During the years that this shaming code is instilled into children, the collective is emphasized above the individual and his freedoms. A good Muslim must forsake all: his property, family, children, even life for the sake of Islam. Boys in particular are taught to be dominating and merciless, which has the effect of creating a society of holy warriors.

By contrast, the West has cultivated an ethos of individualism, reason and tolerance, and an elaborate system in which every actor, from the individual to the nation-state, seeks to resolve conflict through words. The entire system is built on the idea of self-interest. This ethos rejects fanaticism. The alpha male is pacified and groomed to study hard, find a good job and plan prudently for retirement: “While we in America are drugging our alpha boys with Ritalin,” Harris writes, “the Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive and ruthless.”

The West has variously tried to convert, to assimilate and to seduce Muslims into modernity, but, Harris says, none of these approaches have succeeded. Meanwhile, our worship of reason is making us easy prey for a ruthless, unscrupulous and extremely aggressive predator and may be contributing to a slow cultural “suicide.”

Hirsi Ali’s critiques of islam and the West are, in my opinion, accurate. Once again, contrast her with a charlatan like Chomsky.

Whether Hirsi Ali is a feminist, an african, or an immigrant is beside the point. She is not a charlatan. At some point she will realize, as I did, that the progressivist globalists, the West’s leftist-plutocrat alliance, don’t see any fundamental incompatibility between themselves and islam. That they’re helping subvert the West and establish a worldwide caliphate. That pundits like Pipes, Chomsky, and Wolfowitz are gatekeepers. That they help channel public opinion and define the bounds of legitimate discussion primarily in the best interests of jews, not the West, and certainly not Europeans or somalis.

If she comes to this realization before she dies I think she’ll have the courage to say it out loud. After facing muslims and their bloody knives I can’t believe she would fear politically correct liberals and their bloody lies. They’ll defund her, they’ll call her crazy, they’ll threaten her with hate crimes. Then we’ll know she has really put her finger on what troubles the West.

brussels3

Political Correctness + Multiculturalism + Diversity = White Extinction

Only 16 million Hispanic voters will be eligible to cast ballots in next year’s election – so why are so many of our politicians acting like they run the country? The politically correct answer: a sign of respect to the fastest-growing segment of American society. The unpleasant truth: it is a craven capitulation to a flood of invaders coming from Latin America to fulfill their dreams of reconquista.

What is reconquista? The politically correct answer: a completely bogus conspiracy theory/fantasy/boogeyman imagined by anti-immigration activists. The unpleasant truth:

"It doesn’t end with secession," Norwood wrote. "The final plan includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African and Asian descent out of `Aztlan.’"

Reconquista is a fantasy, a brown supremacist fantasy that’s coming true. The ethnic cleansing is well underway.

Why have European elites invited Muslims to flood their countries? The politically correct answer: there is no danger from Islam, only bigotry. The unpleasant truth: Saying there is a problem with Islam is considered bigotry worthy of repression. As accommodating and tolerant of Islam as Europeans have been, it still hasn’t been enough. They have been attacked, by doctors even, and will continue to be attacked until the only diversity that remains will be of the very narrow sort permitted by Sharia, and the only culture that remains will be an Islamic culture.

Throughout the Western world the citizenry sees this growing threat, and implores their leaders to do something. Yet instead of stopping immigration they increase it. Instead of enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders they make excuses why it can’t be done and open the gates ever wider.

It is clear our elites put a very high priority on immigration. The media boosts only those political candidates who are pro-invasion. Any candidate who strongly opposes immigration is portrayed as a marginal nutjob who can’t possibly be elected. The power of this propaganda is difficult to overestimate. Observe the number of people who regurgitate the media’s sentiments with barely any direct knowledge to support them. Do they control your mind? Do you know what Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo stand for or against before you call them kooks and say they have no hope to win an election?

What is the purpose of the immigration invasion? Does it matter? It is an essential element of the elite’s globalist agenda, their pyramid scheme, steroids for their almighty economy. But there is no need to chase them down their rabbit hole, no need to debate how much wealth trickles down or whether Wal-Mart is good or bad. Whatever the justification, whatever the goal, immigration is destroying our culture, our infrastructure, our families, and our quality of life.

Yes, it makes the immigrants very happy. And yes, it makes the elites very rich. But why would the citizenry, the ordinary folk who are being disenfranchised and displaced, why would any of us favor immigration? Having until recently been of that belief myself and to this day encountering many others who still are I can say with certainty that the main reason is delusion.

Every day the news brims with the disastrous consequences of immigration. But most of this isn’t seen for what it is, not only because to do so is politically incorrect but also because we are simultaneously fed a constant dose of pro-immigration propaganda. There is a constant stream of statements from people in positions of authority to the effect that immigration is wonderful, it is essential, and without it our economy would collapse. None of it is true. It is a deliberate inversion of reality. It is disinformation.

Upon examination every justification for immigration boils down to either benefits for the elites or benefits for the invaders. There is nothing for the citizenry but the imaginary joys of multiculturalism and diversity. And if you don’t enjoy watching your culture be dismantled and your town being overrun by invaders? The explanation for such political incorrectness is that you must be crazy or mean, and probably both. Whether you’re a loser who can’t stand competition, a paranoid who imagines conspiracies, a racist who just doesn’t like brown people, a xenophobe who hates foreigners, a fascist craving boxcars and concentration camps, or all of the above. You are nothing but a hater driven by irrational fear.

Multiculturalism and diversity are lies. When our elites tell us to "celebrate diversity" they’re asking us to celebrate our demise.

Am I worried about America and all of its ordinary law-abiding tax-paying Americans? Yes. But I’m also concerned about Europe. And I’m particularly concerned about my race. Under the strictures of political correctness whites aren’t supposed to criticize other races, even indirectly, and it is absolutely verboten to consider what might be good or bad for whites. Non-whites are free to think and talk all day long about their race, to dedicate their lives and their fortunes entirely to that cause, and to speculate what is in their own collective best interest. Far from being frowned upon, it’s considered noble. It is only fair that the same should be true for whites. Political correctness forbids this. Thus I reject political correctness and everything associated with it. Those under its influence are misinformed. Those who preach it are evil.

I reject the requirement that whites must stand by and watch silently as their race, which is already an overall minority of the world’s population, is reduced to minority status everywhere. Minorities are often abused, and whites have been so thoroughly demonized and unfairly tarred with the blame for the ills of the world that we know what to expect wherever we are outnumbered. We are brutalized. The violence begins even before we are outnumbered. Look at our cities. When and where we slip entirely from power we can expect far more grim treatment. Look at South Africa or Zimbabwe.

So I ask, what is it about replacing the white majorities in the US and Europe with non-white aliens that is so good? Can somebody explain this? Why are we blamed for resenting what we didn’t ask for and so clearly don’t want? Aren’t we entitled to protect our ever dwindling homelands?

Of course we are.

Update, 15 Sept 2007: The insane denial continues in Europe:

We have to look at immigration not as a threat but – when well-managed, and that is our new task – as an enrichment and as an inescapable phenomenon of today’s world.

Enrichment? Inescapable phenomena? Unbelievable.

Update, 15 Sept 2007 #2: Two frank assessments of what happened in Brussels this week: Democratic Europe RIP, and And Shariah For All? When US elites announced their collaboration with the invaders we at least had the opportunity to publicly and peacefully rebuke them. Opponents of the European elites will not have that opportunity. If the people cannot get redress via the vote or peaceful demonstrations then only one avenue remains. In the US it’s still possible to hope that the treasonous bureaucrats can be deposed in a bloodless reboot. In Europe, it seems clear now, if it happens at all it’s going to be bloody.

46

Time to Celebrate Fatigue

Is there anything more hypocritical than the New York Times complaining about 9/11 tributes?

Again it comes, for the sixth time now — 2,191 days after that awful morning — falling for the first time on a Tuesday, the same day of the week.

Again there will be the public tributes, the tightly scripted memorial events, the reflex news coverage, the souvenir peddlers.

Is all of it necessary, at the same decibel level — still?

Each year, murmuring about Sept. 11 fatigue arises, a weariness of reliving a day that everyone wishes had never happened. It began before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack. By now, though, many people feel that the collective commemorations, publicly staged, are excessive and vacant, even annoying.

Six times in 2191 days! The horror!

The virulently anti-American NYT and their loyal readership of holier-than-thou world-saving bleeding-hearts don’t have any problem celebrating the anniversaries of Abu Ghraib. In fact they don’t need any anniversary as an excuse to pay it tribute. Every day, several times a day. Umpteen days and counting.

Even more frequently the media concocts and then marks a fresh grim milestone of casualties in Iraq. For some reason they and their readers never bore watching a counter tick up.

The anniversary of Hiroshima just passed – 62 tributes in 22630 days – and the anniversary of Pearl Harbor approaches – 66 tributes in 24090 days. No complaints of fatigue from the NYT on these tributes.

There is something I am fatigued with however that I wish the NYT, or anybody with a national soapbox for that matter, would address. That would be the widespread denial of the Jihad, the immigration invasion, and how the two are related.

In the few short years since 9/11 the West has suffered several serious attacks and preempted many more. We have seen enough to recognize a general pattern:

A) The attackers are Muslim. Their rhetoric and rationale arise directly from Islam. They consider themselves jihadis (holy warriors) waging jihad (holy war) in service of their faith.

B) Their organizations are decoupled and command is decentralized. They are legion and they answer to no single man or nation state.

C) They deliberately infiltrate areas they do not control to wage guerilla war and gain control.

On all these points our leaders and the media feed us lies. Why do they try so hard to obscure these objective facts?

First of all they use the generic word “terror”. As in “terror attacks” perpetrated by “terrorists”. This would be fine if we were faced with a variety of unrelated people working toward a variety of purposes. The threat this situation would pose might then be most accurately described as “terror”. On the contrary, the clear and common purpose in all the high-profile attacks (of which 9/11 was only the most severe) is jihad and the attackers are jihadis. If we used the proper words to describe what is really happening, The War on Terror would instead be called The West’s Inept and Incomplete Attempt to Counter the Jihad.

Second, whenever a travesty occurs the authorities and talking heads stumble over themselves to quickly assure the public that it couldn’t possibly have been a terrorist attack. What’s obviously impossible is that they could be so certain of that so quickly.

Then, as soon as the facts indicate it is an attack, the very next thing we hear are questions whether the attackers were tied directly to Al Qaeda. If they aren’t card-carrying Al Qaeda, the thinking seems to be, then the attack has nothing to do with 9/11. Ergo there’s nothing to worry about, it’s just another random terror attack in no way whatsoever related to that imaginary War on Terror. Decentralization, infiltration, and other sneaky tricks are classic jihadi tactics. They are also the best means the jihadis have at the moment to attack the West. If our talking heads studied Islam, or history, or the history of Islam they might know and share this information instead of spreading the mistaken idea that these jihadi attacks are random.

When the attackers turn out to be undeniably Muslim, the next thing we hear is how they are “home grown” – a description directly at odds with reality. Virtually nothing about Islam or its jihad philosophy has its roots in the West, and the jihadis perpetrating these jihad attacks are predominantly here on visas or are the children of immigrants. They are often here illegally. The only thing “home grown” about these attacks is perhaps their planning and funding.

Finally we hear, for the zillionth time, the “terrorists are a tiny minority” lie. They hate us. We know they hate us. And still our leaders let them come here. Still our leaders deny that a wide open Mexican border makes no sense, not only because it allows in a flood of poor, uneducated, unskilled, reconquista-seeking Mexicans, but also because the jihadis can so easily join them. After so much terror perpetrated by Muslim immigrants why do our leaders continue to insist that multiculturalism, diversity, and immigration are good? Doesn’t diversity just make it harder to spot them? Doesn’t multiculturalism just make us hate and distrust each other? How much would it cost the West to eject all Muslims? At what point will it become clear that the costs of pretending that we need alien Muslims with heads full of hate walking among us and the internal security we require to defend against them far outweigh any contribution they make?

I think these thoughts every time I take my shoes off at the airport, every time I look around and see myself surrounded by aliens, and every time the news starts buzzing with the latest travesty. I’m getting pretty fatigued.

Note: I downloaded the image above several years ago from a jihadi site discovered by Tracking Al Qaeda, an amateur obviously more skilled and motivated to expose the truth of the jihad than the NYT or anyone else in the mendacious MSM.