Sunday, May 28, 2006

Imam George Bush

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

Charles Martel
Mr. Bush is one of Islam's biggest apologists and through his insane insistence on describing Islam as a "religion of peace" he sounds more like Sigrid Hunke than the leader of a CHRISTIAN nation. Sigrid Hunke - first a Nazi apologist and shortly thereafter one of Islam's greatest advocates before she mercifully died in the late '90s.

Mr. Bush has muddied the waters of debate and he continues to pollute those same waters every time he repeats the lie that Islam is a religion of peace. He may as well be bowing to Mecca for all the damage he has done. His misbegotten Iraqi adventure pursuing the chimera of "democracy" has not liberated the people in Afghanistan and Iraq. They remain enslaved by Islam. Islamic constitutional democracy is a farcical oxymoron, a cruel joke and will simply ultimately usher in an Islamic fundamentalist government. The sirens song of democracy in Iraq has addled Bush's brain and is not worth a single young American life. We should have invaded Iraq, accomplished our MILITARY objective, and gotten out. PERIOD.

He has been willing to sacrifice young American lives on the altar of his own grotesque foolish democratic ambitions in the Middle East, and yet he is unwilling to protect our borders, enforce existing laws, and LEAD! The bottomless naivete of the Kool-Aide drinking Bush supporters is simply staggering. Democracy in Iraq will last exactly as long as we are willing to sacrifice AMERICAN blood in this foolish god-forsaken pursuit. We are wasting our dry powder in Iraq.

The European powers sold out their civilization after the first oil embargo in the early '70s with the formalized ratification of Eurabia and now our establishment is doing the same for the same misbegotten reasons. There is treason in the air and it is not only the Dhimmicrats that are guilty. The implications of this Senate immigration bill Mr. Bush signed on to are nothing less than the Islamization of the United States precisely the same as occured to Europe after the oil embargo. It does not even qualify as a Faustian bargain because we are selling our national sovereignity down the toilet for exactly NOTHING in return.

Bush is a timid poltroon willing to send our boys into harms way and unwilling to fight the difficult battles here at home. He is MUCH better than Jean F-ing Kerry but we deserved much much better.

God bless Western Civilziation and God Bless America!
D.T. Devareaux
I believe George W. Bush to be a Christian man. And when I say he is Christian man, I don’t mean that he dutifully obeys every Commandment but only that he defines himself as such and that it influences his decision making. And I, unlike my fellow atheists, agnostics, nihilists and other soulless meat puppets, don’t mind in the slightest – so long as his decisions he makes, informed by his faith, are good ones.

No, I don’t believe George Bush would formally convert to Islam, but with every obnoxious salaam to “Islam is a religion of peace” isn't he, whether conscious or no, performing da ‘wa? If it is his earnest desire to convince the American public and the world of that Islam (I haven’t heard the appellation applied anywhere else, least of all to Christianity) is a religion of peace, and if such things are designed to dissemble and to bring us under Islam’s shade of swords, then Bush need not necessarily face Mecca five times a day to open the world to the word Allah.
D.T. Devareaux
Christianity and Islam share the same God.
Charles Martel
Here, my friend, you are wrong. It is specious indeed to declare such. I will quote from no lesser an authority on atheism than Orian Fallaci: "I am a Christian because I like the discourse which stays at the roots of Christianity. Because it convinces me. It seduces me to such an extent that in it I do not find any contradiction with my atheism and my secularism. I mean the discourse conceived by Jesus of Nazareth, of course, not the one elaborated or distorted or betrayed through the Catholic and Protestant doctrines. The discourse which transcending metaphysics, climbing over it, concentrates on Man. Which admitting free-will, claiming Man's conscience, makes us responsible for our own actions. Masters of our destiny. I see a hymn to Reason, a revival of clear thinking in that discourse. And given the fact that where there is clear thinking there is choice, where there is choice there is freedom, I see in it the rediscovery of freedom. The redemption of liberty. At the same time I see in it the surmounting of a God invented by men out of solitude, out of impotence, of despair, of weakness and of fear to live and to die. In short, the dimming of the abstract and omnipotent and pitiless Gods that almost all religions have shaped for us. Zeus who incinerates with his lightning bolts, Jehovah who blackmails with his threats and his vendettas, Allah who subjugates with his cruelties and senselessnesses. And in the place of those invisible intangible tyrants an idea that nobody had ever had. Certainly, never divulged. The idea of a God that becomes Man. Meaning the idea of Man who becomes God. God of himself. A God with two arms and two legs, a God made of flesh who goes around making or trying to make the Revolution of the Soul. Who speaking of a Creator seated in Heaven introduces himself as his Son and explains that all men are brothers of his Son. Therefore equally sons of that God and theoretically capable of exercising their own divine essence. Exercising it by preaching the Goodness which is the fruit of Reason, of Freedom, by spreading Love which before being a feeling is a reasoning. A syllogism or better an enthymeme from which we deduce that goodness is intelligence and wickedness is stupidity."

Even as a construct, the God of Christianity is remarkably different from the god Allah. Sublimely and exquisitely different. But I would argue that the Divinity of Jesus Christ was the only way that man could find his way to so breathtaking an insight as the God of Christianity.

Friday, May 19, 2006

Unctuous Moral Exhibitionism

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

In yet another thought provoking cartoon, D.T. Devareaux addresses the unctuous moral exhibitionism of the left.


My interpretation is that both things are mutants liberals who are taking comfort in the platitude, "At least we aren't hypocrites" in the aftermath of an Iranian attack on the west.

D.T. Devareaux

Precisely, I couldn’t resist doing the piece after listening to an analyst on CNN discussing the merits of the Iranian nuke; namely, wouldn’t it be hypocritical and unfair of us to deny the Islamic Republic of Iran nuclear technology? After all, America has nukes; India has nukes; the damn dirty Joooos have the nukes! Why not the Iranians? Never mind the doom-tongued proselytizing rumbling out of Iran for the past 30 years. Never mind Iran’s proud contributions to worldwide jihad. Never mind the repeated threats to wipe an entire county off the face of the earth and to incinerate Washington with a fiery, nuclear Holocaust. Never mind Iran’s contributions to the unrest in Iraq, the deaths of coalition troops and Iraqi civilians. None of that matters. What is paramount is that our foreign policy with proven belligerents must be sensitive, considerate and unequivocally non-judgmental.

Uproarious is the fact that in all other cases you can find these same backstabbers bemoaning nuclear proliferation yet here, for some unfathomable reason, with Iran they’re encouraging it. “Ok, naughty Communist dictator, if we give you all these nukie toy parts, you absolutely double-dog pinky swear have to promise not to make a super duper big bad bomb, ok?”

We’ve all become so crippled by the fetish of our own high-mindedness that making simple, prejudicial, but informed judgments about how best to insure our own survival are scoffed at as lacking “nuance.” Instead, we must submit, lest we be accused of being hypocrites, the question of our very security to some perfectible process whereby our national interests must be weighed [equally] against the interests of polities that are unabashedly hostile to our own.
Charles Martel

And so we have to ask, what kind of person would be reluctant to draw the obvious conclusion that nations such as Iran should be denied nuclear weapons? And the answer is, only those whose minds have been addled by the leftist mist. Only individuals whose intellectual apparatus has been thoroughly corrupted by multiculturalism and PC gibberish. It cannot be stated often enough or emphatically enough: A society 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.

I'm tired of debating these sorts of questions with mental and moral pygmies. These parasites deserve only our ridicule and derision. One cannot help but wonder where the rigorous spirit of free inquiry prevalent in the Middle Ages has gone. Today PC has been substituted for revealed truths. And reason, cut adrift from revealed truths, can only lead to tragedy which the 20th century has aptly demonstrated again and again. Our inability to unambiguously lay claim to our cultural heritage and maintain against all gainsayers its superiority highlights the extent to which post modern nihilism has enfebled us and rendered our once vibrant Western Civlization listless and confused.

Ronald Barbour

I don't see how Western Civilization can triumph against Islam unless the various Western nations suspend Writ of Habeas Corpus, impose censorship of the Media and throw literally thousands of Leftists and Muslims into concentration camps and exile millions more from the West.

The problem is that in creating such authoritian regimes you would destroy that which you would defend.

"It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."

Charles Martel

Lincoln when faced with the same dilemma did not hesitate and his justifications were far less compelling. General William Tecumseh Sherman engaged in unimaginable tactics, "I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till they beg for mercy." If the Islamic savages were smart they would simply conduct jihad demographically and allow the multicultural and PC poisons to continue to disseminate, further weakening our civilization. But they are not patient and will, as they must, strike viciously every chance they get. They will strike prematurely with some sort of nuclear device and at that point all bets will be off.

Our first duty is to protect our civilizational values against the barbarism and darkness that is Islam. Islam is pure evil and must be utterly and completely defeated. It will take men such as Lincoln and Sherman to carry they fight to the enemy. Such men will emerge. Remember, it was only 70 years ago that Americans were firebombing European and Japanese cities with arguably more catastrophic results than the small nuclear devices used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Western Civilization and Islam are absolutely incompatible. And I use as my sole source for drawing this conclusion the Koran and Hadiths. The sooner this war starts in earnest the better for the West for the longer we wait the more destruction the multicultural toxins will exert.

The fledging, but increasingly more powerful blogosphere, is amplifying the message daily, "Islam is the enemy and must be defeated." The blogosphere 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.

I for one do not believe that "the problem is that in creating such authoritian regimes you would destroy that which you would defend." A society at war MUST subordinate certain values to the cause of survival. This is natural and good. Nationalism does not equal fascism! A strong national pride is necessary for our survival. Bush with his ham fisted pursuit of the chimera of Democracy in the Middle East has done little to clarify the seminal issues of this war. For as Spengler has said at the Asia Times: “Something more than democracy is required for peace and prosperity, and that is a people committed to good rather than evil. Democracy in the Middle East means something quite different: Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. The sooner President Bush changes the subject, the better.”

Charles Martel

“Fear is the beginning of wisdom.” And it works both ways. Until we feel fear we will not mobilize sufficient will to take the battle to our enemies. And until they feel fear they will not come to realize the folly of their ways. Only fear will motivate our population to finally accept the realities of war. This war was started by the Islamic savages and they do deserve “all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.”

Sherman’s Axioms of War:

My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.

War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.

I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.

War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give them all they want.

If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.

This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.

The whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak violence upon South Carolina. I almost tremble for her fate.

If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.

I make up my opinions from facts and reasoning, and not to suit any body but myself. If people don't like my opinions, it makes little difference as I don't solicit their opinions or votes.

--- William Tecumseh Sherman

D.T. Devareaux

So I ask you: this thing [environment replete with a cultural pride that refuses to succumb to the malevolent forces of the world] of unfathomable magnitude—this great collective force of wills; what ever it may be—can it be reconstituted? (And are we contributing to the malaise ourselves with all of this self-referential abstract BSing when we already know what’s to be done?) In my estimation, we continue to pine for a reality that, given the current state and direction of our nation, is simply untenable.

Charles Martel

Yes and no. In the current environment, where our cultural mainstream has been polluted by the left’s toxic brew of multiculturalism, socialism, relativism and nihilism, even our best efforts at raising our children are being undermined by the relentless drip, drip, drip of our caustic culture. Can we rekindle our confidence in our values and culture in such an environment? Honestly, No. Our current trajectory has been long since irretrievably established. Without the action of some outside agent or agents our fate is sealed.

And in this very ironic sense, perhaps Islam, as that outside agent, will serve to save us from ourselves. For Islam will, as it must, overplay its hand. Were Islam to patiently sit by and allow us to destroy ourselves we would be ripe for the picking. But they will strike prematurely and the dogs of war will be unleashed.

As I said in an earlier post, “fear is the beginning of wisdom.” -W.T. Sherman Islam WILL strike fear in our hearts – trust me that day will soon be upon us. And the West will no longer be able to afford the luxury of the sort of idle narcissism that has dominated our culture. Fear will squeeze the cultural toxins from our system. And leaders will emerge who will articulate the wisdom of the ages and the verities of the past.

The world has faced worse and survived, but not without a terrible destructive fallout. And this time will be no exception. Man cannot ignore the immutable Truths forever without consequences. We’ve neglected our invaluable legacy – that of the Western concept of liberty and its attendant responsibilities and duties built upon the bedrock of Judeo-Christian values. These values are unfortunately ephemeral and need constant nurturing and support. This precious heritage we've taken for granted has fallen into disrepair. And there will be consequences. Terrible unavoidable consequences.

But is my hope and belief that we will emerge strengthened and invigorated with a renewed appreciation for all that makes us strong and unique in the annals of human history.

D.T. Devareaux

Granted, there have been persistent elements in this country bent on destroying or at least fundamentally changing America's charter since its inception, but the extent to which we are witnessing the disintegration of America has not been accomplished without the complicity—conscious or no—of a sizable population of its people. Prosperity gives way to excess of wealth. Confidence is exchanged for unrepentant arrogance. The gritty struggle for liberty devolves into otiose, childlike dreaming; and America, at present, is in the middle of one hell of a wet dream. Numb, drunk and disorientated—provided her skull hasn’t already been kicked in—what recourse will she have when she awakens to find herself surrounded by hostile elements hungry to carve her up for their own self-interests?

Charles Martel

The excess of wealth – therein lay the problem. Only a wealthy people can afford the luxury of ignoring the real world. Only a wealthy people can afford to build an elaborate edifice of deceit, politically correctness, wherein nearly everyone in that society is complicit in denying reality. Just start with the obvious deceits: Islam is a religion of peace! There are no differences between the sexes! Profiling is discrimination! All people are equal! All cultures are equal! All ideas are equal! There is no difference in criminality between different groups of people! All people want to work! There’s two sides to every story! Guilt is a bad thing! Alcoholism is a disease! Love should not be conditional! Express your anger! Women never lie! Children never lie! Priests are guilty till proven innocent! There is no difference between the major religions. Immigrants of whatever stripe are good for our country! Tolerance is good! Intolerance is bad! The list is endless.

Our “leaders” shrink from the truth as though it had some talismanic powers. The superstition of political correctness has trumped the faculty of reason itself and brought us to our current impasse. We have allowed ourselves to become intellectually denuded and our political voices silenced by our slavish desire to “fit in” and not rock the boat. When the immutable values of Truth, Duty and Honor are trumped by the blind unhinged “pursuit of happiness” we have become an imperiled culture. Our most fundamental freedoms have taken a back seat to that which is cheap, meretricious and evil. We've allowed our natural inclinations and instincts to become eroded by political correctness. We've become too effete to speak about that which needs to spoken.

Our freedoms have been and will continue to be sacrificed not on the altar of national security but on the altar of political correctness. We refuse to take the measures necessary to protect ourselves because of deference to a set of leftist rules which do not account for present (or past) realities. We've been able to afford the luxury of this sort of infantile extravagance because of our affluence and relative isolation. When confronted with the choice of sacrificing our freedoms or the cherished nostrums of the left we invariably opt for the former. A people so enervated by leftism that we would so easily give up our liberties do not deserve the spoils earned by men far greater than themselves.

When we are struck with fear we will FINALLY begin to behave more certainly in our own self interest. We can only hope and pray that the Islamic savages strike sooner rather than later. Our institutions are worth protecting. Our nation is worth protecting. Our freedoms are worth protecting. And we as a nation, will once again appreciate these facts once we are shorn of the shackles of political correctness. For only then can we begin to act like a nation serious about its very survival.

D.T. Devareaux

Frankly, I find no difference whether we eliminate moral categories or not. It leaves us in the same place as we were before. Because, even if you do trash all of those preconceived notions of right and wrong, good and bad, and whether they spring from religious or secular sectors you still must contend with that self-interest. (And sometimes, one may find their self-interests bettered by nuking your hometown to cinders.)

Charles Martel

Your initial point is well taken, that those who promote the equality of all cultures, are of course, though intellectual slight of hand, disingenuously promoting their own agenda. The contest of who is more evil is never fought on an even playing field. For one’s status as an aggrieved victim trumps rational discourse. And the left play this trump card INCESSANTLY.

But I do take great issue with the above statement. For if we abandon absolute standards of right and wrong we no longer have any measuring stick. Our claim to legitimacy is founded on our values. That’s not to say that we’ve always observed those values, that we are perfect, that we are without sin or that we cannot incrementally improve. But if we resign ourselves to the solitary standard of self-interest with no other competing interests then condemn ourselves to a brutish existence indeed.

As I’ve said, “A society 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.” If all that matters is “whose side you’re on” then we’ve entered the very dangerous territory of nihilistic relativism. That particularly brutish and nasty brand endorsed by Friedrich Nietzsche that gave birth to Adolph Hitler.

I accept as axiomatic that Western Civilizational values are superior to other competing systems particularly those espoused by the raving lunatic Mohammad (MHRIH). I agree with you that getting into nit picking arguments with the left about the superiority of our values is pointless particularly when we’ve ceded the terms of the debate to them. I also agree that there is some value in the clarity that can be derived in an us vs. them construction. But I reject wholeheartedly that it matters not “whether we eliminate moral categories or not.” For without these moral guideposts we would surely loose our humanity.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Islamic Imperialism

From, an interview with the author of Islamic Imperialism: A History, Dr. Efraim Karsh. Far from an abberation, imperialism was THE founding principle of Islam and has remained its most characteristic feature.

In Islamic Imperialism: A History, I show that Islamic history has been anything but reactive. From the Prophet Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of a universal Islamic empire (or umma). For generations of Muslim leaders it has been Islam’s universal vision of conquest as epitomized in the Prophet’s summons to fight the unbelievers wherever they might be found.

As a universal religion, Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities and obliges all free, male, adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising “struggle in the path of Allah,” or jihad. As Mohammad famously told his followers in his farewell address: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’” This goal need not necessarily be pursued by the sword; it can be achieved through demographic growth and steady conversion of the local populations by “an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects.” But should peaceful means prove insufficient, physical force can readily be brought to bear.

There is a pervasive guilt complex among left-wing intellectuals and politicians, which dates back to the early twentieth century and stems from the belief that the West “has been the arch aggressor of modern times,” to use the words of Arnold Toynbee, one of the more influential early exponents of this dogma. This has resulted in a highly politicized scholarship (especially under the pretentious title of “post-colonial studies”) which berates “Western imperialism” as the source of all evil and absolves the local actors of any blame or responsibility for their own problems. But this self-righteous approach is academically unsound and morally reprehensible. It is academically unsound because the facts tell an altogether different story of Islamic and Middle Eastern history, one that has consistently been suppressed because of its incongruity with the politically-correct dogmas. And it is morally reprehensible because denying the responsibility of individuals and societies for their actions is patronizing.

The birth of Islam was inextricably linked with the creation of a world empire and its universalism was inherently imperialist. It did not distinguish between temporal and religious powers, which were combined in the person of Muhammad, who derived his authority directly from Allah and acted at one and the same time as head of the state and head of the church.

Whether Europe will come under Islamic domination by the end of the 21st century really depends on whether Europeans will awake to reality and recognize the real nature of the threat confronting them. Thus far, this hasn’t happened, though some recent developments, such as last year’s French riots or the violence attending the Danish cartoons, have acted as (admittedly modest) wakeup calls. Only last month Mu’ammar Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, predicted the imminent Islamization of Europe. Many Muslims and Arabs unabashedly pine for the reconquest of Spain and consider their 1492 expulsion from the country a grave historical injustice waiting to be undone. Indeed, as immigration and higher rates of childbirth have greatly increased the number of Muslims within Europe itself over the past several decades, countries that were never ruled by the caliphate have become targets of Muslim imperial ambition. Since the late 1980s, Islamists have looked upon the growing population of French Muslims as proof that France, too, has become a part of the House of Islam. In Britain, even the more moderate elements of the Muslim community are candid in setting out their aims. As the late Zaki Badawi, a doyen of interfaith dialogue in the UK, put it, “Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.” To deny the pervasiveness and tenacity of this imperialist ambition is the height of folly, and to imagine that it can be appeased or deflected is to play into its hands.


The imperialistic and hegemonistic designs of Islam remain its most salient feature rendering grotesque and barbaric all who are pulled into its malevolent orbit. And yet Western intellectuals and the cultural mavens persistently refuse to acknowledge its 1400 year history of unparalleled mayhem. It cannot be emphasized enough: It is not the religious extremists that are causing the problems. It is ISLAM as taught and practiced by Mohammad (MHRIH). Every single article, news program, or essay that fails to deal with this fact is an irrational sop to the multiculturalists and PC gibberish.

The core problem in the Middle East is not poverty, as Western intellectuals would have you believe. It is ISLAM as taught and practiced by Mohammad (MHRIH). Man has experienced poverty more racking that this for eons without resorting to terrorism. ISLAM is the root cause of poverty. Christian Western Civilization developed the infrastructure necessary for the production of wealth: The protection of private property, an edifice of laws creating a stable social structure and protecting the rights of all individuals, the subordination of the state’s rights to those of the individual etc.. NONE of that has occurred in an Islamic society. And Bush with his ham fisted pursuit of the chimera of Democracy in the Middle East has done little to clarify the issues. For as Spengler has said at the Asia Times: “Something more than democracy is required for peace and prosperity, and that is a people committed to good rather than evil. Democracy in the Middle East means something quite different: Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. The sooner President Bush changes the subject, the better.”