Saturday, April 29, 2006

Western Suicide

Another prescient essay from the indomitable Norwegian, Fjordman, at Gates of Vienna, "A New Oslo Peace Process." Fjordman has, for over a year, quiety and persistently highlighted the problem of Western abrogation. He has, unfortunately, been largely ignored by the Western press. But slowly his voice is being amplified by the fledging, but increasingly more powerful blogosphere. Fjordman gives voice to the inchoate feeling of rage felt by a growing minority of citizens in the West. The failure of Western democratic institutions to deal with the cancer of multiculturalism and the secondary infection of Islamic supremacism has brought the West to yet another dangerous impasse, not dissimilar to that which gave rise to the fascist nightmare 70 years ago.

The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in a generation, parallel to Muslim immigration. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists in one court were born on foreign soil or of foreign parents. In a new Sociological survey, the wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed during this past year is part of a “war against Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers with immigrant background. “When we are in the city and robbing, we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” “It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy.” “We rob every single day, as much as we want to, whenever we want to.”

Sweden is a semi-totalitarian country. It’s all about façade. On the surface, Sweden is a tolerant nation and peaceful democracy. In reality, there is massive media censorship by a closed elite that is scared of having a debate about immigration. There are even physical attacks on critics of immigration by Leftist extremists, something which has been largely ignored and thus quietly approved by the establishment, until it now even targets parties in Parliament. No dissent is tolerated. Opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society, and a very significant proportion of the population have for years wanted more limitations in immigration. Yet not one party represented in the Swedish Parliament is genuinely critical of the Multicultural society or the current immigration policies. The Swedish elite congratulate themselves that they have managed to keep “xenophobic” parties from gaining a foothold while the country is sinking underneath their feet.

In general, my impression is that a rapidly increasing part of the population distrusts Muslims. Only massive media censorship conceals this fact, and I suspect the same goes for much of Europe. In 2001, two out of three charged with rape in Norway’s capital were immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases.

Not only have the authorities done nothing to stop this trend of racist attacks against native Norwegians, they have taken steps to increase crackdowns on “racism” by the natives. In 2005 Stortinget, the Norwegian parliament, passed a new Discrimination Act, prepared by then Minister of Integration, Erna Solberg, who earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway. The act says in pretty clear words that in cases of suspected direct or indirect discrimination based on religion or ethnicity, native Norwegians are guilty until proven otherwise.

[I worry about] the possibility of a new kind of powerful Fascist movement in Europe. But there is no need for this to happen if people feel that their elected leaders uphold their interests they way they are supposed to do. However, when a government can no longer guarantee, within reason, the safety of its citizens, that government’s days are numbered and that system of government’s days may also be numbered. It took centuries of hard and ingenious work to build our civilized Western society, yet judging from current events, it may take just a few short decades for this civilization to commit collective suicide. It is amazing to see such a rapid dissolution of centuries old European countries due to immigration without assimilation. I have read Norwegian historians and “experts” who claim that there is nothing to worry about over this massive immigration, since there has always been immigration and this situation is not new.

This is a clever form of lie. At the beginning of the 21st century, the total number of people on this planet is vastly larger than ever before in the history of the human race. Combined with modern means of communication, we get the largest and fastest population transfers ever recorded, large enough to destroy nations or, in the case of Europe, perhaps even entire continents. This is “the great extinction of peoples,” and small Scandinavian nations with a few million inhabitants, a drop in the sea of humanity, will be completely crushed by these processes unless they take strong steps to limit immigration. That’s the simple truth. Yet all our so-called leaders can do is warn against “xenophobia.” Ethnic Norwegians will become a minority in their own country before 2050 if the current trends continue, in Oslo long before this. The number of Muslims in Norway over 15 years has quadrupled, meaning an annual growth of more than 9%.

Norway celebrated 100 years as an independent state last year. Judging from the new Discrimination Act and the runaway Muslim immigration, perhaps the anniversary should be called “From independence to colonization”. At the same time as their women are no longer safe in the streets because of immigrant gangs, the authorities respond by making Norwegians de facto second-rate citizens in their own country. They use their own people as stepping stones for their personal careers in the UN bureaucracy, lecturing about how to create the perfect society while their own citizens find it increasingly hard to live in their major cities. We have no significant colonial history ourselves and denounce all forms of colonialism, but are supposed to smile when we are colonized ourselves. We were one of the poorest countries in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, and one of the richest in the world at the beginning of the 21st. We managed this transformation entirely on our own, and didn’t “plunder” anybody for it. We don’t owe anything to anyone, except perhaps the British and the Americans for preserving our freedom during WW2 and the Cold War. It is true that Norway is a special case, with its oil wealth since the 1970s, today the third largest exporter in the world after Saudi Arabia and Russia. But even wealth has to be managed. Norway is probably the only major oil exporting country on the planet that has managed to remain a stable democracy with low levels of corruption. By any standards possible, we’re one of the most successful cultures in the world, our largest flaw, which could eventually bury us, probably being our naivety. So why on earth should we quietly watch while our country is subdued by the most unsuccessful cultures in the world? The most basic instinct of all living things, even down to bacteria level, is self-preservation. In 2006, you have a natural right to self-preservation if you are an amoeba, but not if you’re a Scandinavian. Maybe the solution then is to argue that Scandinavians are indeed a species of amoebas, and that we need special protection by the WWF. We could showcase some of our finest specimen of Leftist intellectuals and journalists to prove our point. Shouldn’t be too hard.

With current trends remaining unchanged, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own capital city within a couple of decades, a situation that has never happened before since the foundation of Oslo a thousand years ago. Judging from all experience with Muslims previously, non-Muslim Norwegians will be ruthlessly persecuted, either cornered into a civil war or forced to flee from what was once their country. Newcomers move into an area and brutalize the natives who have become too soft to uphold themselves. There is nothing new about this scenario; it has been going on for thousands of years, as long as mankind has existed. It is the harsh law of nature. What is unique in this case is that the original inhabitants of this country are forced to fund their own colonization and eventual extinction by their own leaders, who portray this as an act of “tolerance.” I’m pretty sure that hasn’t happened before.

We are very close to a new world war and the downfall of European democracy.

The stormtrooper's boots can be heard on the not so distant horizon to anyone who bothers to listen. Those boots belong to the Islamic savages, but Western democratic abdication may soon usher in a powerful indigenous nationalistic reaction. Such a movement, far from being a harbinger of doom, is the West's only hope.

Democracy can only survive in an environment replete with a cultural pride that refuses to succumb to the malevolent forces of the world. It can only survive when we as a people are sufficiently confident in our values and culture to defend and unambiguously assert them. We in the West have been rendered soft, flaccid and effete by the chaotic forces unleashed by a mindless consumerism and an unhinged leftist nihilistic world view. We've become disconnected from our past traditions and beliefs and all that is left is the husk of our once great civilization.

In order for us to survive there must be a resurgence of cultural and nationalistic pride. We must once again unapologetically embrace our cultural and our national heritage. For nationalism and cultural pride are absolutely essential attributes of a vibrant and healthy society. We must reject once and for all that pernicious lie that nationalism equals Naziism. For Naziism was totalitarian socialism pure and simple. The left has employed this slander against nationalism to further its own ambitious utopian schemes. For the only bulwark against totalitarianism is a nationalism rooted in our Christian civilization.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Muslim American - An Oxymoron?

Srdja Trifkovic asks the question, Can a Pious Muslim Become a Loyal American? And while his answer flies in the face of political orthodoxy, he builds a powerful argument for a complete overhaul of our immigration policies based on his observations.
“We must never forget . . . that as Muslims, we are obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government—anywhere in the world – in order to replace it by an Islamic one,” the speaker concluded his remarks. The venue was a mosque, not in Rawalpindi or Jeddah but in San Francisco. When a recent convert noted that if Muslims are obligated to overthrow the U.S. government then accepting Islam was tantamount to an act of political treason, the lecturer responded matter-of-factly, “Yes, that’s true.”

He was right both technically and substantively. A breach of allegiance to the United States by naturalized Muslims is not a rarity, it is an integral part of the Muslim-American experience. It is an inherent dilemma for many; it leads the serious few to give aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem will be solved only if and when Islamic activism is treated as grounds for the loss of acquired U.S. citizenship and deportation. The citizenship of any naturalized American who actively supports or preaches jihad, inequality of “infidels,” the establishment of the Shari’a law, etc., should be revoked, and that person promptly deported to the country of origin.

For a Muslim to [swear an oath of allegiance to the United States], and especially that he accepts the Constitution of the United States as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of brazen apostasy par excellence, and apostasy is punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will. In America that is not the case and its government is therefore illegitimate.

It is equally sacrilegious for a Muslim to swear to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath of American citizenship, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith and not only in order to get that coveted passport? A devout Muslim can do it only if in taking the oath he is practicing taqiyya, the art of dissimulation that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities. The ultimate objective of the [immigration]reform process, however, needs to address two key questions: why should a Muslim want to become a citizen of a secular, pluralist, non-Muslim state; and why should that state’s non-Muslim citizens want to have him accepted as one of them.

The answer is inseparable from the fact that a person’s Islamic faith and outlook are incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are implicit in the oath of citizenship, and absolutely essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government.

Conditio sine qua non all along is to accept and declare that the First Amendment does not protect Jihadists. It is in the American tradition that nothing ought to protect those who advocate the overthrow of the United States Government by force and violence, and, at bottom, that is what the Jihadists are up to. Legal regulators need to grasp that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to American values and institutions.

The First Amendment protection to political speech should not extent to Sharia, period. We do not need new legal theories, or a different conception of the First Amendment; we need an educational campaign. A radically new form of legal clarity on Islam’s nature is needed before [a rational approach to the threat posed by Islam can be implemented]. Winning a war demands “knowing the enemy and knowing oneself,” of course, but it also demands “thinking outside the box.” This old cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.

Acceptance of these proposals would represent the long overdue beginning of serious Western defense against Islamic terrorism. It would signify the recognition that we are in a life-or-death struggle. It is being waged, on the Islamic side, with the deep conviction that the West is on its last legs, spiritually, morally, and biologically. That view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for biological self-perpetuation is indeed in mortal peril. Even at this late stage a recovery is possible, however, and the suggested measures would herald that recovery.

Any rational immigration policy should be predicated upon the admission to the United States of ONLY those individuals who can demonstrably contribute to our country, whose devotion to our core founding principles is beyond question and, at the very least, unquestionably do not pose ANY threat to our country, its citizens or our institutions. NO Muslim should be offered citizenship. There is simply no reliable way to determine if they share our national goals and aspirations and it is therefore too risky to allow any such individual admission. Additionally, any Muslim citizen, naturalized or otherwise, whose conduct calls into question his or her devotion to our country should be subject to immediate expulsion. For Islam is not a religion but a supremacist ideology devoted to the destruction of Western institutions including the Constitution of the United States of America.

Islam Bared

Srdja Trifkovic discusses "Understanding the Terrorist Mind-Set" in Chronicles Magazine:
The notion of peaceful coexistence is alien to Islam. Wherever you have the tectonic fault-line between Islam and other faiths and cultures, you will have conflict. It has been so throughout history and it is still so today, from East Timor, the Spice Islans, southern Philippines, southern Thailand, Kashmere, to the Balkans or the Caucasus. Wherever you have this fault line, you have conflict. If we were to exclude from the contemporary conflicts the strife between Muslims and non-Muslims, the world would suddenly appear an eminently peaceful place.

Those who want to “re-invent” an allegedly peaceful and tolerant Islam are the revisionists, and those who trust in jihad as a means of spreading their faith and their control are the ones who are true to the tenets of their teaching and their faith.

There is no sense of natural morality in Islam. A thing is right or wrong entirely on the basis of whether the Prophet has done so or whether Allah has said so in the Kuran. We are looking at a purely nominalistic ethical and legal system in which there is simply no scope for independent individual reasoning—and it is, furthermore, not allowed. You are not to question any Kuranic injunctions, or even the Hadith.

In terms of the Islamic world outlook, the very notion of dividing the political sphere from the religious sphere is utterly alien. Islam is a totality of existence: it is a religion, and a legal code, and the blueprint for political action. Any attempt to pigeon-hole the human experience into politics, religion, society, etc., from the Islamic point of view would be heretical.

We keep hearing from various political leaders—not only in the United States, the same syndrome is present on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean—the almost desperate attempt to make a distinction between terrorism and the allegedly peaceful and tolerant “real” Islam. This elite mindset is probably the greatest enemy of the Western world. For as long as this elusive “terrorism” is defined as “the enemy,” the war cannot be won. It has to entail the rediscovery of our spiritual and moral roots and the reassertion of our civilizational identity and worth. Unless and until the Western world does so, waging the war on terror in the name of putrid, lukewarm “multiculturalism” is doomed to fail. In addition, the sleepwalking is continuing not only among the political leaders, but even more outrageously in the academia and mainstream media. For instance, only a few days ago the Chicago Tribune had an article by a De Paul law professor by the name of Cherif Bassiouni, who claimed that Islam does not mandate a death penalty for apostates and converts to Christianity—which is a white-faced lie. The technique is called in Arabic taqqiya, mandated dissimulation by Muslims to non-Muslims. Lying to infidels is desirable and recommended. The “real” Islam has had 13 centuries of violent interaction with its environment. The “real” Islam is the one that has left the trail of blood from its birthplace into all four areas of major conquest: into North Africa and Europe, into today’s Pakistan and India, into the Caucasus, and into the Balkans.

We already have the second and third generation of Muslims in Western Europe, the North Africans in France, the Turks in Germany, the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in Britain, and we do not see any manifestations of assimilation. If anything, the European-born, second and third-generation Muslims are much more radical and much more committed than their parents and grandparents.

Trifkovic dares speak the unspeakable truth: Islam is NOT a religion of peace. It is a supremacist ideology bent on world domination. There is no such thing as a peaceful and tolerant Islam for this, by definition, would be heresy. Islam is in fact a call to arms. Of course there are many who are nominally Muslim who are peaceful, but observant Muslims who accept the teachings of Mohammad (MHRIH) MUST conduct jihad against all that is non-Muslim. Islam is a fascist hate cult and, as I have mentioned before, a civilizational "perfect storm." There can be no peaceful coexistence with Islam for Islam itself will not allow this.

Multiculturalism, relativism, socialism and tolerance have weakened and undermined the West and its citizens. Islam is an opportunistic infections exploiting the weakened West suffering from a crisis of faith. Only a confident reassertion of Western beliefs and values can save it from the odious darkness that is Islam.

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Christianity: A Suicide Pact?

I am a Catholic. I've always found solace and comfort in my Church. I love the sacraments, the rituals, the traditions and the beautiful churches and cathedrals which inspire awe and elevate the spirit. But I've been troubled recently by what seems to me to be a counterfeit version of Christianity, one that preaches pacifism in the face of a implacable enemy committed to the destruction of our Church. The enemy I am referring to is of course Islamism as embodied in the teachings of the Koran. Muslims by the millions are willing to die for their "faith" while your "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemy" brand of Christians are not only unwilling to fight for their faith they compound their sins by criticizing those that are. Has Christianity and Christian civilization become so depleted and impotent that it can no longer successfully defend itself? I cannot believe that the New Testament is a suicide pact.

I am not a theologian nor am I an expert on the Bible. I would like to better understand where in the Bible one can find fortification and justification for a Christian warrior ethic that unapologetically defends itself against the jihadists? When the Arabs marched into the Levant the Christians put up precious little fight. The Jews met the Pogroms with the same self flagellating abnegation. Pacifist Buddhists have been killed wholesale by the jihadists. Of course with Charles Martel, his son and his grandson Charlemagne, the Christian warrior ethic was born for better and worse. The long overdue Crusades further reinforced this mentality. But today it seems that Christianity has metamorphosed into something flaccid and emasculated. Certainly our culture, or that large portion of it under the sway of the leftists has been rendered thusly.

Surely Christ did not expect us to "turn the other cheek" when confronting an odious evil? Did he ask us to love those who were determined to destroy his Church and its adherents? "Christian" milquetoast pacifists are facilitating fascism. How has the Bible managed to create such ambiguity when matters of our own survival are at stake? I for one do not intend to huddle in the corner of a church some day and meekly wait for these monsters to kill me and I sure as heck will not teach this to my children.

Christianity has spawned a warrior ethic in the past. And it would seem to me that our failure to do so today has greatly contributed to the moral decay and ambiguity of our culture. For if we've become so enervated that we are unwilling to fight much less die for our beliefs then those same beliefs are doomed to extinction. If we are unwilling to forcibly defend our belief system how could it not fall to the centrifugal forces of nihilism and chaos much less to the more organized and brutish forces of a ruthless committed enemy?

Monday, April 17, 2006

Islam: A False Religion

Amil Imani, in the Persian Journal, pens an essay, Islam: A False Religion, about the hate cult that is Islam.
The biggest scam in Islam, especially Shi'a Islam is perhaps the notion of "Taqqiyeh", an immoral tactic to lie for a good cause and later retract your words, (The belief that the end justifies the means). Islam is all about schemes, war and violence.

Prophet Mohammed was an extremely violent man, a man of war. Historically, Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. The opposite is true of Prophet Muhammad. That is why we see so many suicide bombers in our era. They simply are following what the prophet of Islam had planned for them.

Muslims are true victims of Islam. However, they fail to realize that Islam is a cult, and the prophet was a demon, possessed by a huge sexual appetite. Yes, true Muslims firmly believe, that those who die in the act of killing the infidels (Christians, Jews and other non-believers) will not only gain entrance into heaven, but will be greeted by 72 virgin women - most likely, seventy-two 9 year old girls.

Being politically correct has backed fired and the world seems to be taken hostage by the Islamic fanatics. The more politicians give in and declare Islam as a peaceful religion, the more they give the Muslim fanatics impetus to harass and intimidate people of the host countries where they have been given shelter to live.

Ayatollah Khomeini said, "Quran says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God. The prophet has [had] sword to kill people. Our [Holy] Imams were quite military men. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords; they used to kill people. We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throat, stone people. In the same way that the messenger of God [Mohammed] used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people; in the same way that he massacred the Jews of Bani Qurayza."

Islam 'is' an inherently violent and fanatical faith. It is all written in the holy book of Quran. So please stop lying to the population and face the facts. The problem with Islam lies not only in the holy book, but it lies in the life of the prophet himself. Muslims incessantly proclaim that the mainstream schools of thought misinterpret the holy book of Quran, yet they fail to recognize that the prophet of Allah lived such an unholy life himself and it is due to his narcissistic life and personality that his followers savagely follow his behavior.

We cannot compare Islam to other religions because due to the prophets narcissistic manners, Islam falls in the category of a cult, not a religion. Yes, Islam is a cult founded by an Arab man from Mecca in Arabia, by the name of Mohammed, who lived from 570-632 A.D. A huge problem is that cults are incredibly difficult to dismantle intellectually.

If God chose a man like Muhammad who butchered, raped, terrorized, massacred and killed so many innocent people with the sword of Islam as his messenger, then we are dealing with a terrorist God here.

Until we understand this and put a stop on this widely spread contagious disease, many innocent people will continue to die. The very survival of the civilized world is dependent upon our understanding that Islam is mankind's greatest enemy.

The "take home lesson" is of coure: "The very survival of the civilized world is dependent upon our understanding that Islam is mankind's greatest enemy."

Islamic apostates are the pre-eminent threat to Islam for they have been in the belly of the beast. And they are treated accordingly by the "prophet" Mohammed (MHRIH) who imposed a the death sentence against those who have seen the light and thusly could shed the same on the odious darkness that is Islam. Those who have escaped the evil clutches of the Islamic hate cult have acquired, at great risk to themselves, a mental clarity that the multiculturalists have done their level best to destroy in Western countries.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Islam: Orwellian Nightmare

The analogy between Islam and Orwell's 1984 has rarely been drawn more clearly than by Mohammad Abdullah at Faith Freedom International in his article, 1984:

I wonder if Orwell had based his novel on Muslim thought. [Orwell's] dystrophic message also clearly describes the effects of Islam on civil society. From the constant war mongering, the indoctrination of children, the “thought crime”, lack of freedom and innovation, the banal salutation of brother and sister all are terrifying reminders of a Mohammedan society. Yet not even Orwell could have thought up the insidious mind control that the pedophile Mohammad conjured up, in his sick demented state, as the cult of Islam.

Consider the following: in Oceania the population are constantly fed propaganda via loudspeakers and television sets (which they cannot turn off), they have to wake up early in the morning to exercise, watched through the TV sets by an instructor. Muhammad’s five times a day prayer was the basis of his mind control. The constant call to prayer is essential in:

1. getting the “faithful” together thereby infusing in them a sense of the collective

2. a chance for the preacher to exhort and inculcate the dogma of the cult of Muhammad 5 times a day, thereby ingraining in their psyche the falsehoods of his twisted mind.

3. a chance to spy on individuals who were not as enthusiastic as others. Even though this is more difficult nowadays, but you would be surprised at the knowledge, the local mullah retains of his neighborhood in Muslim societies.

The control of the Mohammedan cult is quite impressive. Muhammad’s ridiculous ideology taps into our most basic of fears, the fear of the unknown, and provides the comfort and succor that billions of feeble-minded individuals long for. It is surprising that even in this age of reason and rational thought Muslims would cling to their flawed faith with such a fanatical zeal. Yet this is a death embrace. It drags the individual and their societies farther and farther down into the Dark Age rot that we see today as the Muslim world. Free thought and ideas are stifled, the arts, sciences, culture are all subject to censure. Without the free flow of ideas, societies suffocate and they can neither imagine nor create. Images of dirty broken streets and electricity cuts in the movie exactly mirror our daily existence in these Muslim hellholes.

Here is my fear. In this Golden age, interaction with these decaying Muslim societies will despoil those fragile civilizations that have fought for freedom of thought and justice, who have built, created, and progressed technologically. These decrepit Muslim societies could drag us all down into the Middle Ages, their perverted thoughts corrupting the sane. The savagery of Islam will destroy the delicate social balance that is required for justice, deliberation, tolerance and mutual respect. Only the intangible “frame of mind” separates the prosperous west from the rotting Muslim east. As interaction with the Muslims increase will draconian “Patriot Acts” proliferate, how can these advanced societies deal with the crass Mohammedans living amidst them? If they sacrifice those tenets that they hold dear, like Freedom of Religion thought and expression will it not be the beginning of the end. Yet how else can one deal with a totalitarian system like Islam?

This I know as true. There is an evil philosophy in this world, it must be fought…

… its name is Islam.

The Orwellian nightmare that is Islam is upon us. The last religion of the West, that debased monstrosity called multiculturalism, has rendered its adherents susceptible to the plague of Islamism. The multiculturalists and the relativists have corrupted the spirit and character of Westerners by sapping our confidence and undermining our moral certitude. They've managed to reduce the the human spirtual being to an animal thereby making him more amenable to the machinations of the utopians. There is something essential about the left’s desire to corrupt. It would appear that the left's raison d'etre, as the embodiment of evil, is corruption. Corruption of human spirit and degradation of all that makes us spiritual beings.

The left has sought to destroy authentic spirituality which fortifies us, and in the vacuum left behind the ersatz spirituality of Islam has found a foothold. Minds addled by the leftist mist have proven a fertile environment for the false promises of Islam. Islam is a hate cult - a destructive supremacist ideology committed to the destruction of civilization. Somehow we in the left have to acquire the moral certitude to denounce Islam in all its variants and declare unambiguously that Islam cannot coexist with Western Civilization.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Western Self-Hatred

Fjordman recently posted an excellent essay at the Gates of Vienna, "I'm a Terrorist Groupie, Hear Me Roar!" In this article, Fjordman explores thephenomenonm of Western self-hatred.
Ironically, it seems as if some of the chief defenders of democracy and Western civilization now are immigrants. Britain'’s first black Archbishop made a powerful attack omulticulturalsm, urging English people to reclaim their national identity. The Ugandan-born Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, said "“that too many people were embarrassed about being English.multiculturalalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me, let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its pains," he said. He said that the failure of England to rediscover its culture afresh would lead only to greater political extremism. "“What is it to be English? It is a very serious question,"” he said. "“When you ask a lot of people in this country, "‘What is English culture?"’, they are very vague. It is a culture that whether we like it or not has given us parliamentary democracy. It is the mother of it."”

Writing about the Muhammad cartoons controversy, author Ibn Warraq quoted the great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, "“Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "‘pushed to an extreme"’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."”

"“The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience,"” Ibn Warraq stated. "“How can we expect immigrants to integrate into western society when they are at the same time being taught that the west is decadent, a den of iniquity, the source of all evil, racist, imperialist and to be despised? Why should they, in the words of the African-American writer James Baldwin, want to integrate into a sinking ship?"

These are encouraging words, but they cannot conceal the fact that there is a very powerful undercurrent of self-loathing and guilt-obsession in the West at the beginning of the 21st century. Where does it come from?

Lars Hedegaard'’s view seems to mirror that of French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut, who thinks that "“Europe does not love itself."” Finkielkraut says that it'’s not forces from outside that are threatening Europe as much as the voluntary renunciation of European identity, its wish of freeing itself from itself, its own history and its traditions, only replaced by human rights. The European Union thus isn'’t just post-national, but post-European. What characterizes Europe today is the will to define itself, not from an ideology, but by dismissing any sense of identity. Europe is now built upon an oath: Never again. Never again extermination, never again war, but also never again nationalism. Europe prides itself in being nothing. According to Finkielkraut, Auschwitz has become part of the foundation of the EU, a culture based on guilt. But this is a vague ideology saying that "“We have to oppose everything the Nazis were for."” Consequently, nationalism or any kind of attachment to your own country, including what some would say is healthy, non-aggressive patriotism, is frowned upon. To remember is to regret. Europe rejects its past. "“European identity"” is the de-identification of Europe. Of the past, we are only to remember crimes. This didn'’t just happen in Germany, but in all of Europe. "“I can understand the feeling of remorse that is leading Europe to this definition, but this remorse goes too far. It is too great a gift to present Hitler to reject everything that led to him."” This is said by the Jewish son of an Auschwitz prisoner.

Finkielkraut says that Europe has made human rights its gospel, to such an extent that it threatens European history and culture. This creates a Europe without substance. "“When hatred of culture becomes itself a part of culture, the life of the mind loses all meaning."” Finkielkraut reminds us that the multiculturalists'’ demand for "“diversity"” requires the eclipse of the individual in favor of the group. The abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of the subjection of culture to anthropology. "“Under the equalizing eye of social science,"” he writes, hierarchies are abolished. The disintegration of faith in reason and common humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. "“A careless indifference to grand causes,"” Finkielkraut warns, "“has its counterpart in abdication in the face of force,"” and weakens the commitment required to preserve freedom.

Yes, we have been sold out by our elites through the creation of Eurabia and the wiping out of our own cultures through Multiculturalism. But this is only half of the story. In democratic societies, even if sometimes flawed ones, this would never have been possible if there wasn'’t a profound undercurrent of self-loathing present in the general public already. The trauma caused by the events of 70 years ago is clouding our judgment this time, since any talk at all about the threat posed by Muslim immigration or about preserving our own culture is being dismissed as "“the same rhetoric as the Nazis used against the Jews."” Europeans have been taught to be so scared of our own shadow that we are incapable of seeing that darkness can come from the outside, too. Maybe Europe will burn again, in part as a belated reaction to the horrors of Auschwitz.

It is almost fascinating to see how self-loathing and West-bashing make scores of people in the media and the academia misunderstand and misrepresent the threat we are facing. The good guys become the bad guys and vice versa, or alternatively, we'’re all equally good and bad, since all cultures are equal. Some would say that I am reading too much into a few simple movies. Perhaps. But these are the same people that claim that popular culture will destroy Islam.

Pop culture matters. It both reflects and shapes the values of a civilization. Judging from the message in too many films, almost five years after 9/11 we have hardly even begun to understand the scale of the Islamic challenge. On the contrary, many Westerners are busy demonstrating "understanding,"” even sympathy, towards the enemies of civilization.

The West cannot long survive the rot engendered by the nihilism of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism has drained the West of its vitality and confidence. It has robbed us of our belief that our Western Christian culture represents the pinacle of human achievement. Self doubt has been replaced by a malignant self loathing. And as our weakness grows it only attracts the rapacious appetites of the Islamic barbarians - both outside, and more alarmingly, within our gates. We no longer enjoy a common consensus as Westerners. Where we once shared common goals and only differed in our approach to our commonly perceived problems, we now no longer view the world similarly. We have different irreconcilable goals. And even attempts at rational discussion of those differences have become increasingly more difficult because of the constraints of political correctness.

War with Islam is inevitable and far preferable to our only other option, capitulation. Islam must be Islam and as such will continue its attacks on the West. It will not be subdued peacefully. It never has been in its 1400 year history and never will be. Liberal pluralistic democracy increasingly seems incapable of defending itself against Islam. But the West will not go down without a fight. Finally, with our back against the wall we will fight. But it will be a two front war: one against the fifth column of traitors within and the other against the Islamic barbarians. The Reconquista will not be pretty.

Slobodan Milosšević will be posthumously vindicated as his "atrocities" will be seen as small potatoes against the measures that will be forced upon those fighting to survive in Europe and the United States. And none of this would have been necessary had our elites not been poisoned by the cancer of a virulent anti-Western multiculturalism whose adherents refuse to acknowledge that some ideas, cultures, people and values are better than others. That our Western Civilization is inherently and inescapable superior to others. That we in the West have devised an astoundingly liberating civilization.

Islam is a civilizational perfect storm. Islam is not a religion but a fascist supremacist ideology that must be eradicated. Short of that, the only possible solution is absolute containment and separation. That will entail the forcable removal of all Muslims from Europe and the United States. As utterly impossible as this may seem, it will come to pass, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Nuclear Iranian Nightmare

The inestimable Mark Steyn has managed to precisely portray Iranian aspirations and the options available to the West in his article, Facing Down Iran. Steyn correctly points out that "there are never good and bad options, only bad and much much worse." Today the options we face are much worse than those faced 20 years ago and much better than those we will face only five years from now should we seek the comfort and false security of inaction.
Four years into the “war on terror,” the Bush administration has begun promoting a new formulation: “the long war.” Not a reassuring name. In a short war, put your money on tanks and bombs—our strengths. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower—their strengths, and our great weakness. Even a loser can win when he’s up against a defeatist. A big chunk of Western civilization, consciously or otherwise, has given the impression that it’s dying to surrender to somebody, anybody. Reasonably enough, Islam figures: Hey, why not us? If you add to the advantages of will and manpower a nuclear capability, the odds shift dramatically.

At hinge moments of history, there are never good and bad options, only bad and much much worse. Our options today are significantly worse because we didn’t take the bad one back then.

Anyone who spends half an hour looking at Iranian foreign policy over the last 27 years sees five things:

1. contempt for the most basic international conventions;
2. long-reach extraterritoriality;
3. effective promotion of radical Pan-Islamism;
4. a willingness to go the extra mile for Jew-killing (unlike, say, Osama);
5. an all-but-total synchronization between rhetoric and action.

Once again, we face a choice between bad and worse options. There can be no “surgical” strike in any meaningful sense: Iran’s clients on the ground will retaliate in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Europe. Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth. This shouldn’t be a touchy-feely nation-building exercise: rehabilitation may be a bonus, but the primary objective should be punishment—and incarceration. It’s up to the Iranian people how nutty a government they want to live with, but extraterritorial nuttiness has to be shown not to pay. That means swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation.

The cost of de-nuking Iran will be high now but significantly higher with every year it’s postponed. The lesson of the Danish cartoons is the clearest reminder that what is at stake here is the credibility of our civilization. Whether or not we end the nuclearization of the Islamic Republic will be an act that defines our time.


A nuclear Iran is utterly unacceptable. Iran's willingness to employ nuclear weapons at the least provocation and to accept the consequences of a nuclear retaliation make it an absolute certainty that these weapons will be used in the pursuite of Islamic hegemony. A nuclear Iran will present the world with nearly unimaginable options: Capitulation or deployment of nuclear weapons against Western interests.

Islamic Constitution

Credit to Cox & Forkum

Monday, April 10, 2006

Western Abrogation

Credit to D.T. Devareaux @ The Study of Revenge