Tag Archives: jihad

Blog

The Value of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

7 Comments

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.

Blog

Political Correctness + Multiculturalism + Diversity = White Extinction

17 Comments

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.

Blog

Time to Celebrate Fatigue

10 Comments

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.

Blog

Timely Reminders of Z-ality

4 Comments

In the middle of our nation’s “great debate” over its immigration policies Venezuela reminds us of two recurring themes in Latin politics: dictators and marching mobs.

Not that we should need reminders. Surly mobs march in our streets several times a year now. One of the many joys of multiculturalism. We’ll find out if we have a dictator in about 18 months.

Speaking of reminders, Lawrence Auster put his finger right on the problem:

We know the pattern. London, Fort Dix, JFK, and each subsequent event will be treated as though it were something “shocking,” new, and unique, because our liberal belief system refuses to recognize the transcendent reality that we have an enemy, that the enemy is among us, and that he is among us due to one cause and one cause only: immigration. There is therefore only one way to end Muslim terrorist attacks in the West, and that is to keep Muslims from entering the West and to initiate a steady out-migration of the Muslims who are here back to their native countries. Sixty-five percent of the Muslim population in the U.S. are immigrants.

Once everybody’s a zitizen the media will have a much easier time selling their “home-grown terrorist” whitewash. Just some “random” Americans planning “random” attacks. You have to be a racist who doesn’t want what’s right for the country to think our double plus wonderful open border policies are in any way to blame.