Sunday, October 21, 2007

Those Islamic Native Americans

Go here to see a power point presentation on the Early Native Americans Muslims.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The Light of Islam in the Americas:

Native American Muslims and African Muslims Slaves


*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


Even the old Soviet Union didn’t claim Native Americans as their doing, but according to this revisionist version of the story "Islam has had a titanic impact on American history."

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. These people need help.

A reader says this presentation was given at an Islamic school in New Jersey.

15 comments:

ZionistYoungster said...

Yes, yes, it is very tempting to laugh at it all. Until you keep in mind that the Muslims, for all their inadequacies elsewhere, are masters of propaganda, and are capable of churning out thousands of years of alternative history from scratch.

The presentation is off to a good start with its talk of "Native American Muslims" and "Black African Muslims"--it has the great potential of recruiting Leftists, trapped in the fashionable anti-white "corrective" racism, to the Islamic cause. Just as the fabrication of the "Palestinian nation" has provided anti-Western Marxists and post-WWII Jew-haters in general with a cause celebré.

And don't be surprised when future Europeans resisting Muslim colonization of their continent are accused of "dispossessing the native Muslims, who have been here since time immemorial".

The Bedouin of the Arabian Desert has always subsisted on robbery, but it was only physical robbery until the advent of Islam. Ever since Islam arrived, the adherents of this desert brigand ideology have padded their concrete plundering with an ideological one, appropriating the histories, cultures and even religious narratives of the conquered peoples and then, in the ultimate act of chutzpah, claiming Islam to be the restoration of the pristine state! As fundamental a basis of Islam as the Koran does so: a cheap rip-off of the Bible, the Muslims claim it "restores" the "original" which the two preceding religions "corrupted".

This war is a war of minds first.

atheling2 said...

Yeah, right, they split the first atom, domesticated the first livestock, invented agriculture, blah blah blah...

ZionistYoungster said...

Anyway, it's an historical fact that the indigenous peoples of Ireland were blacks until pushed out by the invading Basques. Proof: Barack O'Bama, of the noble clan from whom the Ard Ri stemmed, now poised to regain his rightful role as the Etaoin Shrdlu, I mean, Taoiseach of the Islamic States of Amerika.

Also, the sages of Judaism have, in the Talmud, the phrase, "if you have toiled and found, believe it", which in Hebrew goes, yagata umatsata taamin, which means that the Israel/Palestine conflict can be finally settled by returning the land to its true owners: the Japanese. I mean, that phrase sounds Japanese, doesn't it? Yeah, that settles it!

Another recent groundbreaking historical find is the memoirs of the Roman General Marcus Junius Tullius Platypus, who, on a raid against the Phoenician pirates, strayed too far away, sailing to the land down under. Living historical proof of his visit is that one of the strange species of that land still commemorates that visit, carrying his name after all those years.

Finally, we can also get rid of that pesky legend of Leif Ericson. The transatlantic voyage did happen--there's a grain of truth behind every myth--but it was carried out by ancient Greeks from the hitherto obscure city-state of Andes, led by the adventurer (and later demigod) Aristophanes Patagon. Here too the results of their historic voyage is recorded in the lands they discovered: after traversing the Southern Straits, they named him for their leader, and then settled in throughout the western coast of South America, on the mountain range they subsequently named for the city they'd left. It is patently clear that justice, as well as reward for their numerous scientific achievements, demands the Greeks be given the continent to possess, and not the faux-Pakistanis that that spaghetti-eating daydreamer Chris found.

It is very tempting to laugh at it all. I succumbed. Wheeeeeeee! Ain't historical troof-seeking fun!

Dymphna said...

Zionist Youngster said--

Yes, yes, it is very tempting to laugh at it all. Until you keep in mind that the Muslims, for all their inadequacies elsewhere, are masters of propaganda, and are capable of churning out thousands of years of alternative history from scratch.

Excuse me, but where was I laughing at this? I said it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

All utopian groups are propaganda masters. I don't think the Muslims are any better at it than, say, the Soviets were. They simply have more money and more cannon fodder to waste.

This is not about "minds" at all. It's about feeling, about faith, and the heart. And it is very fragile, which is why it cannot bear any disagreement with its teetering theology...it's the fact that their theology is actually political that makes them ignorant and dangerous.

ZionistYoungster said...

Dymphna,

It was a general comment, internetly* phrased. Mea culpa.

The Muslims have had over 1,300 years, and beyond, to practice it. Even before Islam, the Arab tribes in the desert relied on psychological warfare to win their internecine battles. Like the Assyrians, it's interesting to mention. (The Assyrians made "terrorism" a household word in their day.)

The heart and the mind are not so neatly separated. The mind follows the heart for its directions of inquiry, and the heart relies on the mind for rationalizations of the findings, all the time. I'm a total unbeliever in the concept called, "detachment". It is a Platonic ideal, with no correspondent reality.

Oh, and from my previous comment:

PIMF: "they named him for their leader" should be "they named them for their leader"

---

* Carrying onto a text-only medium the assumptions of real life.

gun-totin-wacko said...

Ironic isn't it, that the colonists wouldn't accept Islam because they were illiterate and ignorant, whereas today it's the illiterate and ignorant who most often embrace it.

I'd simply shrug and call this "drivel", except that much of the "history" that is taught today is equally ignorant.

Profitsbeard said...

And when the astronauts reached the moon (precious symbol of Islam), they hit a golf ball and it bounced off... yes, the ruins of a minaret!

Left behind by Abu Ben Loonie, the first Islamonaut, who flew to the satellite on the back of Mohammad's celestial steed, Al-Pollo, which the infidels secretly named their entire Moon Project's rocket fleet after.

It's rumored that a partial Koran was found in the Goldschmidt crater, although it was actually located in the one named Abul Wafa, of course.

And, when looking back toward Earth, the only human construction visible to the astronauts was the Ka'aba.

Buzz Al-Drin, one of the crew, was a covert convert to Islam, as is well known in Cairo University's secret archives of Faux Infidels.

(The Dog Star, to be sirius, has nothing to do with Mohammadism.)
____________________________________________________________



This is a dangerous and Irrationlist trend in "historicism".

But then so is Islam, itself.

Reason never entered its precincts.

Banned by the first line of the Koran:

"This book is not to be doubted."

After that, it's all downhill.

Before you even read a word, you are forbidden to question that which you have not yet considered.

Once you have sacrificed your Critical Intellect on the altar of obedience and obeisance, any folly can sound plausible.

Dymphna said...

Abu ben Loonie???

Oh my.

Lauri Olavi said...

Until you keep in mind that the Muslims, for all their inadequacies elsewhere, are masters of propaganda, and are capable of churning out thousands of years of alternative history from scratch.

The Muslim propaganda is ridiculous to everyone else but the Muslims themselves. However, if and when Europe were to become Islamic, all history books would of course be rewritten to suit their fantasies. But they've already been rewritten according to the multiculturalist/egalitarianist/antiracist dogma, which will make the transition a bit easier.

bernie said...

They left off a minor point in the presentation, that Islam was one of the facilitators of Slavery at the time, see Islam and Slavery - Good together

ZZMike said...

Besides Bernie's excellent link, just search for 'arab slave trade'. Besides a Wiki entry, there are thousands of links.

Dymphna said...

zzmike--

That's where we get the word "slave" from ... while they took Africans, they were particularly fond of the Slavs. Thus the word eventually changed its vowel sound and became
"slave."

Ninety percent of those they castrated on the way to their work as eunuchs bled to death before arriving. Captives were so numerous the Musselmen could afford to be wasteful.

All of us descend from primitive, brutal people, but the Beduoins may be the worst. Nor have they evovled much...e.g., Saudi Arabian culture and Al Qaeda's tactics.

ZionistYoungster said...

Slightly off topic for this thread, but not for the blog; I already have comments here, so I chose this thread so as not to hijack others. Intended as a coda for the long Fjordman thread.

I realize I made a mistake.

No, I'm not recanting culturalism. I stand by the opinions I expressed there, and I haven't budged an inch from my view that racialism is both dangerous and to be abhorred.

My mistake was to fail to see how important a part the perception of race plays in the identity of the nations of Europe (especially Western Europe). I made the fallacy of carrying over what I'm familiar with to what I'm not familiar with.

Contrary to the Leftscum's portrayal of Israel as "racist apartheid state", the situation in Israel militates against seeing things through racialist glasses. For example, the hot-button issue of racial profiling does not exist in Israel, because it would be rendered totally useless by false positives (Jews who look like Arabs) and false negatives (white, blue-eyed Arabs--plenty of those in the Galilee). Culture and religion are the only possible defining parameters where I live.

But Europe is different. I have realized that pretty much the only ones in Western Europe ready to take on the Muslim colonialist invaders are the racialists. And when I gave that fact--lamentable in my mind, but a fact nevertheless--some thought, I realized it's because the issue of "whiteness", or race, is inextricably tied to European identity. That it is well-nigh impossible to treat the Islamic invasion in isolation, ignoring the general issue of non-white immigrants.

I was hoping to see the anti-Islamization movement completely removed from the general immigration problem, but now I understand it's not possible. While Israel and the USA are melting-pot societies, bound by cultural cohesion to varying degrees of success (Israel more so than the USA), Europe has historically experienced meltings and mixings only among white cultures: the admixture of Celts, Romans and Franks to make up France is a prominent example. Native Europe never was and is not now ready to accept the idea that non-whites can share its heritages in substantial numbers. Spengler of Asia Times makes a compelling case for Christianity as a common heritage, a melting-pot, for the most varied of races; but he then makes the case that the Christian religion never ultimately succeeded in taking the primal pagan urge, the racial tendency, out of Europe. I used to be skeptical of that claim of his. Not anymore.

I have therefore decided to comment on Europe only in those situations where I am reasonably certain my view is not a derivative of my parochial experience. On principle, I support the resistance against Islamic imperialism wherever it is taken up; in practice, I realize the sameness of that enemy doesn't amount to the sameness of the general situation everywhere. Let Europe find its mode of combating Islam as best it can. I can express personal disgust at racialism, but I cannot change a mindset which, I now realize, has had its thousands of years to become entrenched.

Chris Bering said...

ZionistYoungster said:

"Let Europe find its mode of combating Islam as best it can. I can express personal disgust at racialism, but I cannot change a mindset which, I now realize, has had its thousands of years to become entrenched."

If Europeans are such racialists, why do Danish childless couples dare to adopt children from all over the world, including Africa, Asia and South America ?

Why have Danes tolerated African and mid-east immigration for 25 years before speaking up ?

What has caused Danes to finally speak up ?
1. The colour of immigrant's skin ?
2. The immigrant's propensity for crime and violence ?
3. Immigrant's drain on resources in a country where people already pay outrageous taxes ?

Pick any two.

In Denmark, high profile muslims that come out and call for "lazy muslims, get off your butts, quit feeling sorry for yourselves, realize the oppertunities that are offered to you and start *earning* some respect", such muslims are treated as heroes, breaths of fresh air, by Danes - because the truth is valued all the more, when it is uttered rarely and only by the few.

Indeed, muslims that have "seen the light" might prove our most powerful champions, because they are the "untouchables", they are immune to any attack from the leftist multiculti grievance/rights mafia.

You can't accuse them of being racialists.

ZionistYoungster said...

Chris Bering,

Of course my statements are generalizations. But apart from the exceptions, it looks to me that pretty much the only ones in Europe who are serious and vigorous in opposing Islamization are the racialists. I could be wrong, but I see that there is great difficulty in separating the issue of Islamization from the issue of immigration in general.

My statements are not so much a condemnation as they are a confession of my realization that, when talking about Europe, I'm pretty much out of my depth. A realization far more shocking to me than if I had realized I was entirely wrong about, say, Thailand; because I consider myself being of Western upbringing. But no, an American upbringing, though Western and Anglophone, does not make for an understanding of Europe.

Still not going to stop me from buying Danish, though. :-) Good luck to you all. We're different, and I have my issues of conscience, but not for one moment do I doubt that the fall of Europe to Islam would be far worse than the other option. A superstate or empire of tyranny is always worse than a multitude of even the most fascistic individual states.