Monday, December 20, 2010

An Axe to the Roots

As far as our cause is concerned, we Counterjihad activists generally regard opinion journalists in the Legacy Media as pretty useless.

There are some notable exceptions — Diana West and Mark Steyn come to mind — but most MSM columnists, even those sympathetic to the struggle against sharia, are timid about examining the deeper implications of the Islamization of the West. They are chronically infected with the Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers — which may explain their irrational hope for the “moderate Muslim”, and their reluctance to trace out the potential futures that lie ahead for us if present trends continue. Given what happened to this blog after it published El Inglés’ essay “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”, the timidity of mainstream commenters is understandable — after all, they risk losing their livelihoods if they color too far outside the PC lines.

All of this was brought to mind by an exchange of emails with one of our European readers. He and I are in general agreement, but I took exception to his assertion that if it were not for newspaper columns and radio discussions and books about Islamization, most people would still not know what’s happening.

This is no longer true, although it may have been the case six or eight years ago. More people read anti-jihad blogs and websites now than read most newspaper columns. Information travels through different channels nowadays.

This fact is not immediately obvious, because there are fewer “stars” in our environment, and we lack an obvious internet information commons, such as the one the BBC provided in Old Media. For that reason many people still look to the old organs — the Times, the NYT, the Telegraph, CNN, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, etc. — to provide an overview of what is going on. What does the nation think? What are the trends? Read The Washington Post!

This is especially true of people who hold significant power in politics, the media, academia, and big business. As a result they remain largely unaware of a massive groundswell of change that is moving beneath them.

I am aware of what is happening, because I am a bottom-dweller in the current information structure. I inhabit an extensive distributed network of information sources, but my connections don’t extend to the rarefied empyrean realm where dwell the great pundits and thinkers of our time. My lines of communication are almost entirely horizontal, thus providing a fairly reliable gauge of the frustration and pent-up fury felt by ordinary people throughout the Western world.

The elite oligarchs have deliberately eliminated alternative opinions from their lofty eyries, and they suppress the expression of public dissent whenever possible. This is a fatal error. It’s similar to the one made by Stalin regarding Hitler’s intentions on the western borders of the U.S.S.R.: by closing off all but permitted opinions, he denied himself full intelligence about what was really happening.

For another Soviet analogy, consider the completely bogus statistics for industrial and agricultural production cooked up by middle-level commissars in order to satisfy the demands of the Central Committee. The communist system refused to allow negative or embarrassing information to be propagated, so that factory and kolkhoz managers just made the statistics up, and coped with the resulting shortages and chaos as best they could. After about 1929, the Politburo could no longer obtain accurate economic statistics about what went on internally within the U.S.S.R. They were flying blind right up until the day their immense jury-rigged machine crashed and burned.

The same thing is occurring amongst the trans-nationalist oligarchs who run our current system. They really don’t know what is going on below the upper levels, because they have systematically excluded accurate and complete information, exerting their control through a combination of political correctness and fiscal authority.

There they sit in the leafy crown of the tree, having pulled up the ladder to ensure that no one threatens them on their exalted perch. They don’t realize that even now an axe has been taken to the roots far below.

The occasional shiver felt through the top of the trunk makes them a bit nervous, but they soldier on regardless. The sudden plunge which awaits them will come as a complete surprise.

Who knew?


bewick said...

Volcanoes are always "safe" until the pressure becomes too much. Then they explode in a devastating way. I think the analogy fits what is about to happen, and of which you warn. History (not my subject)tends to support that in many scenarios.

Fjordman said...

No, Western civilization cannot be saved, it is already dead. All living entities, right down to bacteria, fight for their self-preservation. The West is no longer fighting for its self-preservation, which means, by definition, that it is no longer a living entity. Western civilization is dead. Loving Western civilization today means loving a corpse. It's effectively a form of necrophilia.

That doesn't necessarily imply that the European peoples are dead, though. Perhaps what we today call Western civilization will in the future be seen as merely one phase of European civilization. The ideas of universalism and "progress" towards ever-greater egalitarianism and equality have run their course and come to their logical, but self-destructive conclusion. They must be replaced by entirely new concepts to relight the white man's inner fire.

As I stated in my review of Byron M. Roth's book The Perils of Diversity, the French writer Guillaume Faye predicts a real collapse at some point between 2010 and 2020. I am tempted to agree with him. I don’t think the current political and economic order in the Western world is stable at all. On the contrary, I suspect we are fast approaching a serious historical discontinuity that will sweep aside today’s suicidal liberalism. It’s a house of cards that will collapse as soon as the geopolitical tectonic plates make a sudden shift, which they will.

My personal opinion is that the euro as a currency probably won’t exist a few years from now, and may well take the European Union down with it. I view this as a desirable outcome since the EU constitutes a primary engine behind the ongoing destruction of European civilization and the peoples who created it. I also cannot see how the escalating debt crisis in the USA can be resolved without social unrest of some kind. Frankly, I will not be surprised at all if the rising tensions we are witnessing, and episodes such as the Muhammad cartoon Jihad in 2006, will by future historians be viewed as early skirmishes in an impending world war, triggered by the implosion of the Western world order. If we are lucky, out of the ashes will emerge a new generation of European civilization, with a different mythology and concept of morality.

Nick said...

What I find interesting in America is the way that Sarah Palin has abandoned the traditional route to political power, and only engages with the media on her terms. She has embarked on a course of action that embraces both a grass roots movement and the "high tech" information pathways referred to in the Baron's article.

fanfan said...

Alternative information sources will probably play an increasingly important role. For example, the European rally about islamization was broadcast live. Since Saturday, the original videos have been accessed about 600 000 times (now there are copies on YouTube and Daily).

Also, one of the main non-MSM news blog in French
is visited by about 100 000 visitors per day and its audience doubles each year whereas the one of MSM news websites decreases.

People realize that the information they are feed with does not fit with the reality they are experiencing.

Nick said...

As to Fjordman's comment: I think that there are two crucial elements within any society which will engage in war (in whatever form).

One is that another society is seen as 'the other'. This is one of the most basic survival tools human beings have. The second is that there is evil on the earth. An undeniable fact to anyone who has either bothered to crack open a book, or who has actually experienced real life (instead of being locked away inside an ivory tower).

In today's world however, these two concepts have been eroded over time by those in power, and their lackeys in the media - in fact the only 'evil' in their eyes is someone standing up and stating those two fundamental truths. The thing is that (as Fjordman says) without those two ideas being accepted throughout a society, the possibility of that society finding it within themselves to stand up and fight for anything, or against anything, becomes vanishingly small.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces

"Spieglein, Spieglein, an der Wand / Wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?"

Islam is Western Civilisations magical mirror.

Zenster said...

The elite oligarchs have deliberately eliminated alternative opinions from their lofty eyries, and they suppress the expression of public dissent whenever possible. This is a fatal error.

Little do they know or bother to recognize just how fatal that error may prove to be.

Fjordman: … Western civilization cannot be saved, it is already dead.

If by "Western civilization", you mean the current socio-political environment with its Politically Correct and Multiculturalist superstructure, then that may well be true.

I do not agree that the basic infrastructure of representative government, due process and capitalist free market economics cannot survive. They are a breed apart from the Socialist chimeras conjured up by those who are infected with Cultural Marxism and Gramscian self-loathing.

Just before opening up this page, I sent to the Baron an essay titled, "A Modest Proposal". I hope he will be so kind as to speed it to press in that it might help mirror the concerns expressed here and provide a potential avenue of resolution that does not include the profound discontinuities of civil war or total societal collapse.

bewick said...

I think that Fjordman is probably supporting my original comment in a rather more literally competent way.
I can't write to please or impress - Fjordman's writings always impress me with their cleverness. Me? Well I spent 40 years writing management consultancy reports which by nature couldn't countenance literary licence. To the point and brutal always, and permanently erasing creative use of English for me.

F is right. He alludes to the fact that historically all Empires eventually fail - Roman, Byzantine, Austrian,British, Ottoman, Russian and now, likely, European
Problem is that the ummah can't quite accept that so a battle is looming.
There have been battles before - Crusades, Vienna,Toures, Cromwell, American War of Independence, French Revolution - and so on (as I said I'm no historian). My main point though is that the cork is again about to pop from the bottle just like the volcano.

Like Fjordman I believe that the cork will not stay fixed in the Euro bottle. Like him I think, and hope, that the failure of the Euro will bring down the European Union. Good thing too - freeing us all in Europe from the Politburo which is the unelected European Commission.
There could just be internal European wars but that is a risk worth taking. Will it change the European, sovereign state identities. Unlike Fjordman I think it may restore us to something approaching our earlier values. Not quite but close.

kloutlichter said...

While I agree that the 'white mans inner fire' must be relit ,I think Fjordmans analysis a bit to doom and gloom.Hopefully the european union will collapse and the problem of Islam settled (unfortunately), through some kind of civil war.But I feel the key to all this,and the biggest challenge, is that our reaction does not go too far to the other extreme.I certainly dont want any form of white supremacist future.All men of any colour or creed need to be treated with justice,a european justice that is enlightened and not xenophobic or insular.We white man should be a shining beacon to the world,not a bloody fist.

Zenster said...

kloutlichter: All men of any colour or creed need to be treated with justice, a European justice that is enlightened and not xenophobic or insular.

To be treated as such, people must hold those same values. It is becoming increasingly clear that extending basic human rights to Muslims is a fool's errand when Islam recognizes no such thing.

Human rights solely for those who will protect and defend them.

Only when justice is universal can human rights be universal.

Freyja's cats said...

Let the Germans be German!

music video: In Extremo Palästinalied

Freyja's cats said...

For those unfamiliar with the reference to the German medieval song, "Palästinalied," in the above YouTube video link, see the Wikipedia article on the Palästinalied.

kloutlichter said...

Zenster I agree with you wholeheartedly, but If a muslim agrees with european justice and basic human rights then that is fine by me.If he does not agree,then he needs to get the hell out of dodge.As Mannheimer says we should be intolerant of intolerence.This does not mean however that we tar all muslims with the same brush.It is up to us to lead and if they do not follow then they get left behind and should leave.
Saying that we should ban any more muslim immigration into europe.Only by being selfish to our needs and culture can we keep matters in our favour.

goethechosemercy said...

Zenster I agree with you wholeheartedly, but If a muslim agrees with european justice and basic human rights then that is fine by me.
end quote.

But imagine the kind of rational work a Muslim would have to do with himself, his beliefs, this thoughts to get to that point. He would have to subject his religion and culture to a critique they have never withstood before. He will have to invalidate foolishness his community values deeply. He will have to abandon things that many members of his family cling to.
Part of the reason I am interested in the counter-jihad is the understanding I hold that there is a vast gulf between the development of the West and the non-development of Islam. And this gulf is, ultimately, what isolates and turns Muslims toward violence within the West.

Zenster said...

kloutlichter: … I agree with you wholeheartedly, but If a muslim agrees with European justice and basic human rights then that is fine by me.

As Old Bill would say, therein lies the rub.

By the most widely accepted definitions within Islam, any Muslim who "agrees with European justice and [its accepted framework of] basic human rights" is a blasphemer or apostate who is worthy only of immediate DEATH.

There is no middle ground on this in Islam. European or democratically man-made laws can never be held in equal esteem to the shari'a as handed down by Allah. Democracy is an absolute insult to Islam and has no place in a shari'a ruled society.

In fact, some Islamic clerics even hold that prosperity is bad for Islam:

What Al-Ayyeri sees now is a "clean battlefield" in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels "secularist democracy." This threat is "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy's "seductive capacities." This form of "unbelief" persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the "unalterable laws" promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time.

The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad ." If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.
[emphasis added]

Given that democracy − and even prosperity − is inimical to Islam, how are you able to propose the possiblity that a "muslim agrees with European justice and basic human rights".

kloutlichter, I am not so much attempting to demolish your position as asking you to please be keenly aware of specific doctrinal features of Islam that, literally, prohibit what you suggest.

Taking the foregoing into account, do you still maintain that it is even possible for a Muslim to agree "with European justice and basic human rights"?

I think you will see that goethechosemercy addresses this exact same issue with respect to how a Muslim would effectively have to engage in conduct that is utterly alien to and explicitly forbidden (i.e., haram) within Islam.

Anonymous said...

I'm inclined to agree with Zenster, but I'd like to make sure Zen. and Kloutlichter are really in disagreement. K. wrote,

".I certainly dont want any form of white supremacist future.All men of any colour or creed need to be treated with justice,a european justice that is enlightened and not xenophobic or insular.We white man should be a shining beacon to the world,not a bloody fist."

Certainly, K., you'd agree that before white men can be a "shining beacon to the world", there must first in fact be white men. Immigration, Muslim or not, must end now simply so that the European peoples continue to exist.

That doesn't mean becoming Nazis, as you seem to fear. Europe did very well defending its borders before Hitler and boys came along. Indeed, ever since his gang tore Christian morality from the European spirit, European man has been far crueler, more selfish, degraded, malicious, rebellious and more of every other kind of wickedness foretold in Romans 1.

Richard said...

You are right, a major war is coming, and soon. You are also right that the lower classes in the West are the ones fighting for the survival of their nations and cultures. I don't know what form of government most of Europe will have once the fighting is over. And given the indifference of our leaders right now I am of the belief that a Dark Age is going to follow the war, I don't know for how long but it will be a nasty time. The elites of all nations are going to be very surprised by what happens and will struggle to get back on top.

I think some form of Western Civilization will survive, but it will be limited. Just as some form of freedom will survive, but it will be limited.

Tanstaafl said...


I certainly dont want any form of white supremacist future.

You sound like you're on the same page as the elite oligarchs Baron Bodissey is writing about. "White supremacist" is their term of abuse for those of us who reject their genocidal program to open the gates and replace us with non-Europeans. If it were suicide, or just history happening, there wouldn't be any need to demonize "White supremacists".

Aquila said...

From the article:

The elite oligarchs have deliberately eliminated alternative opinions from their lofty eyries, and they suppress the expression of public dissent whenever possible.

Any replacement system will need to ensure sure that it does not give any advantage to the same set of sociopaths who manage to easily ‘white ant’ their way into positions of power under the present systems.

The corrupt seek power. The absolutely corrupt seek absolute power. (Yes. I disagree with Acton).


If we are lucky, out of the ashes will emerge a new generation of European civilization, with a different mythology and concept of morality.

What is the use of fighting the existing system if any replacement system proposed to defend civilization is nothing more than the same old false democracy?
It is time to abandon the description of western polities as “democracies” and “representative” forms of government when they are neither.

Those terms are far too positive and misleading. They endow the current regimes of Western Europe, North America, Australasia and a few other countries, an air of legitimacy which they do not deserve to any degree.

They are all elective oligarchies.
They should always be described and thought of as such. It helps wonderfully to clarify one’s thinking about them.

The time is long overdue when something like a jury system with representatives chosen by lot should be introduced for constituencies to ensure that laws and actions of a government are actually performed in accordance with the will of the people.

Obviously travesties like proposed laws 1000 pages long would need to be prohibited under such a constitution and such juries would only need to serve for a few days.

A random selection of perhaps a dozen such juries could then select one man and one woman to serve for a month with the absolute power to fire any politician or government employee who acts against the laws, fails to uphold the law, or abuses his or her power.

Something like the Areopagus (Guardians of the Law) of ancient Greece under the constitution of Cleisthenes.

Zenster said...

Aquila: A random selection of perhaps a dozen such juries could then select one man and one woman to serve for a month with the absolute power to fire any politician or government employee who acts against the laws, fails to uphold the law, or abuses his or her power.

You have got to be kidding.

While I appreciate your opposition to career politicians, the foregoing allows for vindictive and agenda-based actions that go far beyond anything our current form of due process allows.

Methinks you place far too much confidence in that "dozen such juries [who] could then select one man and one woman to serve for a month with … absolute power". Egad!

Anonymous said...

Tanstaafl wrote,

"You sound like you're on the same page as the elite oligarchs Baron Bodissey is writing about."

Come on, that's too far. Of course he's not on the side of the elites. He just doesn't want to clear out one set of tyrants and make room for another. And the Nazis were tyrants whose ideology was incoherent and devoid of God, which in turn led them to do evil things.

Aquila said...


You didn't finish reading the sentence: fire any politician or government employee who acts against the laws, fails to uphold the law, or abuses his or her power.

Apart from that, if you believe that people are really so stupid that we can only function with 'experts' in complete charge of us all, then there is no point in trying to change the existing elective oligarchial system.

A committee formed of ten people chosen at random is far less dumb than you appear to think. The current jury system used by the courts almost everywhere has been corrupted beyond repair by the endless 'challenges' issued by lawyers to dismiss potential jurors they don't approve of, for whatever reason.

Zenster said...

Aquila: Apart from that, if you believe that people are really so stupid that we can only function with 'experts' in complete charge of us all, then there is no point in trying to change the existing elective oligarchial system.

Please refrain from assuming that I have such a dim view of the average citizen's intelligence. That said, I'm still obliged to recall George Carlin's admonishment:

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

I'm willing to entertain whatever benefits your system might have over our current one. However, it seems to have nearly the same drawbacks as what we already have.

It's quite possible that the Internet may yet provide a more equitable solution.

Prospero said...

@ Richard

Limited freedom, by definition is not freedom. Better to fail fighting to maintain liberty than to live within the "limits" we can presuppose from the Caliphate.

Nilk said...

Re Zenster's comment about prosperity being inimical to islam, he is correct.

A couple of years ago I went to a Hizb ut Tahrir khilafah conference with a mate. We lasted until lunch time on the first day, and couldn't go back it was that off-putting.

It was very educational, and we got some interesting handouts, but it was the question and answer session that was most informative.

The lecturer was quite adamant that it is the duty of all muslims to work towards changing the country they live in to an islamic state under sharia. No ifs, ands or buts.

One fellow asked about living in Australia and how he had a nice life; good job, home and was comfortable. Wasn't that okay?

The answer was definitely not. It doesn't matter how good your life is, it's kuffar, and haram. You MUST be working towards an islamic world.

Preferably under HuT, I guess.

Like the communists and so many others have tried to break the back of the church, until the hold of the mullahs is loosened, then it's a difficult battle we face.

Hesperado said...

Baron Bodissey's view -- and Fjordman's even more remorselessly jaded assessment -- strikes me as predicated on exaggerations, both quantitative and qualitative, of the size, influence, monolithic nature and malevolence of the Elites.

It's a complex issue, but for now I can bring up two probabilities that tend to indicate the situation is more subtly problematic (and less apocalyptish):

1) Millions of Westerners are part of the PC MC complex, but are they themselves "Elites"?

Many Westerners who fall in the categorical net of the label "Elites" (probably most of them in terms of numbers, though perhaps not in terms of sociopolitical power) are not some unified class of fiendish aristocrats cut off from the masses of "ordinary people". In fact, the socioeconomic and cultural nature of Western elites would indicate considerably more stratification and variety than the view Boddissey and Fjordman (and most in the anti-Islam movement) seem to have. Perhaps even to the point where the label breaks down in usefulness.

For example, while we may comfortably label those famous TV news anchormen Tom Brokaw or Brian Williams as elites, what do we say of the hundreds of thousands (indeed millions) of lesser men and women working in various capacities throughout the complex field of mainstream media -- from the newspaper editor of the leading (but humbly small in the larger scheme of things) newspaper in Duluth, Minnesota; to the head of "Human Resources" at a large and profitable, but not globalistically mammoth in a Wheeling-and-Dealing-in-Dubai sense company; to the, for that matter, news anchorman or woman not of the #3, #2 or #1 leading American television networks, but simply for the local station in Buffalo, New York (or heck, even New York City); to the Vice-President of the American Library Association; to the Associate Treasurer for the National Council of Churches; etc.

Just my extremely cursory list provides a glimpse into the numbers and diversity of people who at best may be said to occupy a twilight area of "elitism". And while we may say, for example, that the President of the National Council of Churches is an Elite (and probably goes to cocktail parties attended or even hosted by Charlie Rose, et al.), can we be so sure about the Associate Treasurer, and further down the rung? I.e., are we to categorize all the people (above the level of janitors and men Friday, of course) who work all up and down the hierarchy of that institution, and of all the other mainstream media and sociopolitical and business institutions throughout the West, as "elites"?

2) This leads the Elistician -- who as such is devoted to his model -- to then posit that all those millions of people who work in all those various capacities throughout the West in the Mainstream are just stupid "sheeple", or are somehow rendered powerless by the diabolic powers of the few Elites at the top to make their true desires known and felt; or etc.

3) More broadly, within the envisioned context of this kind of internecine division of near Manichean proportions between the Elites (however many they are -- and if conceded to be a tiny minority, then that much more diabolically powerful to exert their will) and the millions and millions of ordinary people, there is the assumption that ordinary people are on "our side" on the Islam issue.

[continued next post]

Hesperado said...

(Correction: for "Elistician" read ""Elitician")

Anonymous said...

Just a question, but what PROOF would give anyone here other than "a dim view of the AVERAGE citizen's intelligence" - especially keeping in mind that leftist governments of Western countries are actively lowering the AVERAGE citizen's Western civilizational intelligence by steadily importing vast numbers of legal and illegal immigrants with neither average indigenous IQ nor education nor legal job experience nor life experience of a working government (rather the opposite with the bulk of immigrants coming from corrupt governments ruled by drug cartels or seventh century Muslim tribal models using Sharia Law).

Am I to trust rulings about the validity of current and future American laws to an unschooled gang of Mexican and/or Muslim immigrants? That sounds like a sped-up version of the current leftist plan which is to exploit democracy through the wholesale replacement of the current Western population with more compliant and easily bought foreign voters.

Indeed, as Stalin said (and Obama ballot stuffers proved in the last Democratic primaries), "It's not who votes, it's who counts the votes." A system where a rotating citizen jury possessed significant veto power would be ripe to be manipulated by the currently powerful to maintain their power into perpetuity via fraud or threat.

Hesperado said...

[continued from previous post]

While perhaps the Elitician doesn't assume that all ordinary people are on our side, one gets the impression that they think the vast majority are. And it would fit the logic: for, if you are not "elite" and you are ordinary, then how could you not be on our side?

Well, that's where the Elitician has recourse to one or more of the explanatory factors noted above in #2 -- either the ordinary people who seem not to be on our side must be ipso facto "liberals"; or they are sheep being duped and led by the nose by the dastardly Elites; or they are being tyrannically oppressed (even if in a cryptic manner, conspiracy-theory-wise); and so on.

In fact, rather than strain to hold up all the counter-pressures and plug up all the leaks of this Elitistics model, perhaps we should take a moment and consider the other possibility: That in fact probably more than half of all ordinary people throughout the West sincerely -- albeit more or less -- believe in PC MC. And when I say "probably more than half", I am being awfully generous. I'd say the number is much higher, and that the number of people (ordinary or otherwise) who are on "our side" are still a relatively small minority -- perhaps 10% tops.

And we would surmise that so many people believe in PC MC because a massive paradigm shift in worldview has occurred over the last 50-odd years throughout the West (with roots going back to previous decades, and centuries, of course).

(Note: figures such as the 70% who are against the Ground Zero Mosque do not necessarily indicate they are on our side. Much more precise and substantive polls and surveys are necessary to clarify their stands. Rather than rest on polls like that, I regret to note the ostensibly preponderant negative evidence: the fact that 500,000 did not gather on Sept. 11 this year for the rally in NYC; the fact that during the Tea Party rally on DC and the later Glenn Beck rally, the issue of Islam was non-existent. And many more such examples.)

The Hesperado

Anonymous said...

I agree with Hesperado. Philosophically, it is difficult to distinguish between a leftist elite and an ordinary American citizen on the issue of PC MC society. Through an effective public education campaign, the left has accomplished a general brainwashing of society that enables Islam to enter the West largely unopposed by innocent and unprepared indigenous citizens of all colors.

Most "white" people that I know in the United States are still fully immersed in the PC MC culture, extremely worried to be labeled racist, and extremely quick to label nonconforming "whites" as racist. In addition, very few "whites" have any personal or practical experience with the true effects of Islam's entrance into Western society, BUT those "whites" are simultaneously 100% unwilling to discuss the European situation and therefore totally disbelieving of the extent of the Muslim problem. From "white" Americans, I hear, "It's too depressing. I want to be happy. Stop talking about it or emailing me articles about it." I often think that "there are none so blind as those who will not see."

As far as I can tell (myself being a "white" oppressor), "black" people in the United States are also fully immersed in the PC MC culture as defined that "black" people are permitted to blame "white" people for all past and present "black" problems with the never-ending demand that "white" people fund the solutions to all "black" problems. However, the point here is that, it seems to me, that black Americans also have NO clue about Islam. Those "black" Americans who know "black" American Muslims - or who actually are "black" American Muslims - fail to appreciate the true effects of Islam's entrance into Western society. I like to say that "black" American Muslims practice "Islam-lite" - which is the reason that the Saudis are building as many mosques as possible to teach "real" Islam - or fundamental Islam - to "black" Americans as well as reinforce "real" Islam and practice Sharia Law with recent Muslim immigrants.

Anonymous said...

I read a great essay that explained that American affirmative action was meant to address the specific wrongs of "black" American slavery, but affirmative action has morphed into the concept that current "white" people are guilty for all past, present and future wrongs of the entire world so ALL foreign immigrants may use affirmative action which was originally intended only for "black" Americans. Thus, foreign immigrants whose Arabian slaver ancestors owned and traded slaves (millions of whom were "white" slaves captured from mainland Europe and Britain - read the non-fiction book White Gold) receive affirmative action based on their being foreigners or people of color (rather than "white" people).

Far from the West acting as a "white" supremacist society, "white" people have ceded permission to all people of color to casually label and vilify their "white" ancestors, themselves, and their children as being "racist" based solely on their skin color rather than their individual actions.

The flip side is that "black" people and people of color are heroes based solely on their skin color. Look at the "black" jury that cleared an obviously guilty "black" O.J. Simpson of the murder of his "white" ex-wife Nicole. O.J. later claimed in his "fictional" book about the murder that his killing Nicole must have shown how much he loved her. Do you see how the "black" person is the hero even when the "white" person is the true victim?

Now remember the current escalating situations in Africa where "blacks" are brutally torturing and murdering "whites" for their farms. In these often unreported situations, the murdering "blacks" consider themselves to be heroes for murdering "white" people.

How is standing against "white" people being tortured and murdered - simply because of their "white" skin color - anywhere in the world by people of color - how is that defense of "white" people defined as "white" supremacism?!

The simple answer is societally indoctrinated "white guilt" about the fact that "white" people have assets that "blacks" and other people of color want to possess.

Col. B. Bunny said...

kloutlichter, in my opinion it's not enough to merely stop further inflow. Every vestige of Islam in the West must be removed. Leaving Muslims already in the West alone is a mistake. Anyone who calls himself a Muslim has indicated thereby fidelity to values that are fundamentally inconsistent with participation in Western societies. (Some Westerners also have inconsistent beliefs but that's another story.)

Zenster makes clear that a Muslim cannot make a principled, truthful adjustment to or accommodation with the West. Thus, Muslims already present cannot make an honest adjustment. Far from making an honest attempt at adjustment they all combine to make or support outrageous demands of the host country.

Should one who abjures Islam be permitted to remain? I really can't see why. What does it say about someone that he was a Muslim until an unpleasant choice was forced on him? The apostasy would always be suspect. If they are openly apostate now, fine, but not if it comes later. A very, very limited exception to removal. Maybe not even that. With few exceptions they've been passive consumers or job holders here, contributing nothing to the anti-jihad movement. My gratitude is, shall we say, not great.

Nilk said...

@ Egghead: regarding your friends who only want to be happy, I have friends like that also. "It doesn't affect my family, so I don't care."

"I know it's not good, but we've got a great country and I just want to enjoy what we've got with my children."

friend:"You're too intense, and maybe you shouldn't talk about it to people you've just met."
me:"But she asked me about religion, I suggested that she'd get her ear chewed off and better not go there. She insisted."
friend:"Well, yes, but you can be a bit over the top."
me:"How can you not be? It's happening now, and all around us."
friend:"Yes, but not everyone can knows that."
me:"How will they know if I don't tell them?"

Or those who proclaim that everyone's religious beliefs are fine and then rail against fgm. They don't see any disconnect at all.

Cognitive Dissonance Reigns.

If 9/11 didn't wake them up, if Bali, London, Beslan (which seems to have fallen off the radar for some reason), Madrid and again Bali didn't wake them up, then what will?

The sword at the throat?

Zenster said...

Egghead: A system where a rotating citizen jury possessed significant veto power would be ripe to be manipulated by the currently powerful to maintain their power into perpetuity via fraud or threat.

Thank you, Egghead, you have summarized my objections quite admirably.

You also make another equally excellent point by asking:

Am I to trust rulings about the validity of current and future American laws to an unschooled gang of Mexican and/or Muslim immigrants? That sounds like a sped-up version of the current leftist plan which is to exploit democracy through the wholesale replacement of the current Western population with more compliant and easily bought foreign voters. [emphasis added]

Trial by a jury of one's peers is a cornerstone of Due Process. Leftists, through untrammeled immigration and Political Correctness are undermining the very foundations of what was once a functional legal system.

It is why I, only half in jest, inserted Carlin's cynical assessment of the average American's intelligence. We already have enough of a problem with ill informed, cherry-picked juries reaching populist or, literally, "beauty contest" style verdicts as it is.

Hesperado said...


"...but affirmative action has morphed into the concept that current "white" people are guilty for all past, present and future wrongs of the entire world..."

This description is somewhat in reverse. In fact, the policy of affirmative action was simply one of many symptoms of an already existing process in the Western paradigm shift from reasonable self-criticism to irrationally morbid shame and self-loathing. That shift, in terms of dominating the mainstream (which ipso facto includes ordinary people as much as "elites"), has occurred approximately over the last half century.

One can find incipient signs of PC MC in previous decades, and previous centuries.

I found examples of it in scholars who wrote in 1963 (not too surprising), 1942 (one begins to feel surprise), 1917 (that was my first experience of someone that far back who showed strong symptoms of the disease), and even 1849.

When did PC MC Begin? Fourth Case Study

In the meantime, I'd found indications of proto-PC MC in certain Enlightenment thinkers (which I should have realized before would be likely suspects). Then I thought I'd go back further, to the 16th century, and take a look at Montaigne. Again, I wasn't prepared for the virulence of PC MC in such a comparably ancient thinker:

Montaigne: Godfather of PC MC?

kloutlichter said...

Batholomews cross,I thank you for defending me and making it clear what my last comment meant.I try to look at things at a basic level and although I understand what is said here,my weakness is that my use of vocabulary is limited.This is what I understand:- I live and I die,I love and sometimes I hate.I have a family I will protect and I have all this and more in common with everyone else in this world. I am not superior because I am white,I recognise the good and the bad that my ancestors have done but none of it can be credited to or blamed on me.To the black man I say I am guilty of nothing.I am a white man who would prefer that his white culture survives and that my children continue to make it so. WHY? because it is the life that makes me happy.It is familiar and gives me a solid base,an anchor.
Other men of colour should be as happy as I am with their own culture, their colour.
If any race or creed want to end what I have I will defend myself and teach my children to do the same.It is a man's Ideas that make him what he is and that is why I am fervently against islam,his colour is a side issue.

If we take this discussion to a logical end ,then it seems to me what we are saying is that all muslims need to change ,leave or die.To accomplish this the majority of the people (the working classes)will do the dying while the new elite will give direction to the white race.If you are prepared to have blood on your hands then so be it,but I will continue to give each individual the due respect and dignity he or she deserves until they prove they no longer deserve it.
All muslims are not the same,they may be misled,naive,whatever.The argument is changing from being against fundamental Islam to being against all Muslims.How many of the people here will be prepared to pull the trigger,or flick the switch,or lock the mosque doors and chuck in a molotov.Or will we just leave all that to the people with lower IQ's than ourselves.

Anonymous said...

kloutlichter: You appear to be intellectually, morally, and spiritually trying to "have your cake and eat it, too."

You want to willfully pretend that practicing Muslims may be "misled, naive, whatever" so that you can pretend that you, your family, and your society will be safe from the ravages of "fundamental" Islam if you "give each individual (moderate Muslim) the due respect and dignity he or she deserves."

The idea that Islam and practicing Muslims may choose between being moderate or fundamental is fatally flawed and intellectually dishonest to the tenets of "real" doctrinal Islam as practiced by Muslims in Muslim countries and countries with large Muslim populations.

Once a non-Muslim completely understands "real" doctrinal Islam, a non-Muslim MUST wake to the fact that ALL practicing Muslims are self-declared mortal enemies of non-Muslims and their religions (including atheism). Doctrinally, practicing Muslims consider only practicing Muslims to be human - and thus consider ALL non-Muslims to be non-humans who must be violently murdered, enslaved, or converted. Any practicing Muslims who deviate from "real" Islamic doctrine are apostates who are defined by Islam as non-Muslims! Rinse and repeat.

Sadly for Western civilization, Western governments are enabling and encouraging immigrant Muslims from Islamic countries to bring the battle of all battles to Western citizens.

In the same way that Jews in World War II were confronted with the pure evil of state-supported Nazis, Western citizens are to be confronted with the pure evil of state-supported practicing Muslims.

Within in our lifetimes, Western citizens will live as dhimmis in their own countries - subject to conditions worse than Jews in World War II. At this point, I apologize to all Jews for World War II with the full realization that Jews are to face complete and utter annihilation yet again.

For practicing Muslims, your religion is the primary factor that defines each Muslim's relationship to you and the ummah (or worldwide nation of Muslims).

By the time that your accumulation of individual Muslims "prove that they no longer deserve [your respect]," it will be too late for you, your family, and your society to avoid your non-Muslim fate as doctrinally defined by Islam. If 9-11 (and subsequent events) have failed to alert you of the absolute mandate of Islam and ALL practicing Muslims to violently murder non-Muslims, then you need to take off your blindfold and take out your earplugs.

Anonymous said...

Do you think that World War II Jews faced annihilation because the Jews failed to respect the Nazis? Do you think that all Germans were Nazis? Did the fact that some Germans were not Nazis matter to the Jews in the end?

Today, ALL non-Muslims face annihilation because "real" Islam instructs ALL practicing Muslims to annihilate non-Muslims. Any Muslim who fails to practice or adhere to the tents of "real" Islam faces annihilation, too. The fact that some people who were born Muslim act as apostates (or non-Muslims) will be irrelevant to ALL of the non-Muslims annihilated by practicing Muslims.

Do you think that Hitler and the Nazis would have been stopped (or emboldened) by being given the "due respect" of world citizens? Moreover, did Hitler and the Nazis deserve the "due respect" of world citizens?

What makes you think that practicing Muslims will be stopped by your "due respect"? Based on the doctrinal tenets of "real" Islam, do practicing Muslims deserve your "due respect"?

Remember, practicing Muslims act as a criminal mob that accepts, supports, defends, and routinely participates in forced girlhood clitorectomies, child marriage, forced marriage, cousin marriage, wife beating, polygamy, gang rape, honor killings, charitable funding of violent terrorism, adoption of Sharia Law, and many other crimes under Western law....

In summary, practicing Muslims understand the Islamic mandate very well: conquer the whole world to be slaves of Allah via the implementation of Sharia Law.

Truly, it is YOU who are "misled, naive, whatever" about Islam. My hope is that YOU will continue to read and learn about Islam because non-Muslims are going to need all the help that we can get.

In the meantime, save your "due respect" for non-Muslims who currently live and suffer under Sharia Law....

Zenster said...

Egghead, quite clearly, you "get it". Thank you for taking the time and effort to make sure that kloutlichter has been given an equal chance at grasping these same issues.

To your immense credit, you have spent a few more hours parsing the verbiage of kloutlichter where I did not.

For that, you deserve more than a little thanks. It is so very important that each and every one of us continue to clarify and "proofread" every bit of argument and counter-argument that is put forth in the continuing debate about Islam and jihad.

The misdirection and misinformation of people such as Adam Keller make it imperative that those of us who remain committed to the counter-jihad continue to highlight Islam's glaring deficiencies and abject failings.

For that, I thank you.

kloutlichter said...

egghead and zenster thank you for your education.I feel like the blindfold that I threw away may come in handy one day as your cronies place it back over my eyes to shoot me! I clearly cannot compete with your higher intellects.I am only half way through the Koran(it is dreadful, repetitive and must be the most boring book ever) and I have only been reading on this subject on and off for 9yrs so I may have a long way to go before I reach your giddy heights.
Before the black flag of Islam ever fly's over this country ,It would be over my dead body.I realise the dangers the future holds from this monstrous religion,I just dont have the confidence to say that 'all' muslims must be dealt with the same way.
I just dont go along with this one size fits all arguement that seems to be arising.I am not as naive as you two may think I am.Before it gets to the mass deportations,the shootings and the burnings ,I would like to think we may try other 'options'.
We can be tough first before it gets to that.Stop immigration from muslim countries.Stop the benefit system that attracts them.Stop sharia.Provide the laws that hem them into to living as european citizens and punish and expel those that disobey our laws.Stop marriages from outside european borders.And if they dont like it then good riddance.Surely we should try these and other options before we get down to what you two seem to be saying is the only option.
Am I being too wishy washy,should I be more of a zealot? Am I not Heydrich enough for you? Is it a war of annihilation you want? What do you think the chinese and the Indians feel about all this?

You 'intellects', smack of the politburo and I wonder if you would limit yourselves to muslims,or would you start on half-castes,hindus and the like.
Im keeping myself fit so I can fight and protect my family as I maybe in my 60's before it really kicks off.I can use a rifle,can you two? Can I expect you both next to me in the trench.
Egghead I know alot about the jews ,Id like to think there is a long way to go before we have a Baba Yar for muslims.
I hope you found the time Zenster to listen to my verbiage.As I do so with yours. Most of which is very interesting,some of it however is a little patronising.

Hesperado said...

kloutlichter executes a conflation typical of those who still have PC MC in their system: He confuses any collective measures we would take against Muslims with genocide. Thus a typical remark by him:

Before it gets to the mass deportations,the shootings and the burnings...

Total deportation need not entail any "shootings" at all. Of course, it is not unlikely that, were the West ready to initiate such a policy, a certain proportion of Muslims in the West would refuse and/or respond with violence -- thus necessitating that we counter-respond in kind. However, there is no reason to suppose that our enforcement of the policy of total deportation would entail savage violence on our part, nor unreasonably and unethically disproportionate counter-violence to the violence Muslims might cause in their unwillingness to be escorted from the premises.

The PC MC psychology in the Western person, being hard-wired to think the worst of his own people and suspect them of being ever prone to start lynching, cleansing and genociding Brown People (as the PC MC, ironically, sees Muslims), thus executes that conflation. In so doing, he tends to erect an obstacle to the only measure adequate to the magnitude of the problem; indeed, the only measure which will, ultimately, ensure the least harm to Muslims -- for if we continue to do nothing about the historically unprecedented population explosion of Muslims within the West, or if we only engage in incoherent and half-assed measures that leave untouched millions upon millions of Muslims whom we have no reliable way to tell are not dangerous, the situation will over time devolve to a situation where the West will, out of sheer self-preservation (and likely after several horrific terror attacks on us have occurred far worse than 911), have to mow down Muslims left and right. The kloutlichters of the world, ironically, are doing their part to make such an undesirable and grim necessity more, rather than less, likely.

For a detailed analysis of the proposal of total deportation, see my essay:

An Iron Veil


The Hesperado

kloutlichter said...

hesperado you misunderstand me.I dont think the worst of my own people ,I think the worst of all people.However us whiteys are good at it,when push comes to the shove.
I will read your essay after Ive cooked the dinner.

kloutlichter said...

After reading your essay Hesperado ,I think it falls flat on certain points.
The first and greatest is the fact that most muslims are not white.How can you tell if a non-muslim is really that.Census guides?Birth records? People change,people lie.The only real answer then is too have a total deportation of all peoples of colour from the U.S and Europe.
The blacks born out of slavery, can go back to their homelands along with everyone else.The 'accidental'muslim inhabitant that is white would be harder to spot but I think we could handle that.
After that anyone who is PC MC and supports the dignity of the muslim,they can get the hell out as well.That may end up being you.Who can tell the difference?

It seems to me that your way or my 'options'are gonna lead to pretty much the same undesirable and grim necessity of all out war.If the western nations wait decades to come to any decision on this issue then it is far too late.
When you speak of 'our self defence' it makes me laugh.Your sitting in America and it is likely that any violence on a large scale will happen in europe first.All the muslims have to do is walk in from the caucasus and turkey.All non-military naval and air movement from the U.S.will likey be stopped.Do you think you will be able to hop on a boat or plane and give us a hand? Or will you be sending us a donation to help towards medical,food and military costs.That is if the U.S does not take an isolationist stance.

Lastly call me 'Wet' but anyone who says 'who gives a rat's ass about the '' dignity and essence'' of muslims anyway,' makes me worried that they would not give a rat's ass about anyone but themselves.I'll state again, I will defend my family and country from the evils of islam but I will try and retain as much dignity as I can towards any human being.If that is PC MC,or weak willed,or misguided then so be it.If I'm gonna blow someones brains out then it is because I have been afforded no other choice.Not because they are all the same!

Freyja's cats said...

I would suggest that the compelling Islamic texts are not the only problematic Abrahamic doctrine that is resulting in migration of Muslims to the West, and the insistence upon bringing the edifice of Islam with them.

You may wish to review Leviticus 19:33-34, which reads as follows:

When a stranger [ger] resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the Lord am your God (Lev. 19:33-34)

What we are seeing, is the Hebraic doctrine of "welcoming the stranger" being taken to the extreme and used as a weapon against the children of the indigenous tribes of Europe.

You may be interested in this essay, titled "The Acceptance of the Convert Based on Leviticus 19".

See also here and here.

It is the fundamentalist & extremist interpretation and the weaponizing of these two verses, that is subverting the survival of the tribes of Europe.

I will leave it to you good readers to consider which pools of genetic, ethnic and creedal Abrahamic progeny have chosen to ply these two verses in such a deadly manner.

Muslims and Islam are just taking advantage of the red carpet that has been rolled out to welcome them.

Effective counterjihad activism needs to apply radiation to the primary metastasizing tumor of Jewish addiction to mass immigration.

Mass Muslim immigration is but a very obvious symptom of the cancer. That part is what you attack with chemotherapy.

The genetic children of the indigenous tribes of Europe are only being played off between two Semitic subgroups -- Arabs and Jews -- and two Abrahamic religions -- Judaism and Islam.

The third Abrahamic religion, Christianity, is playing the role of the "useful idiot."

Gullible adherents of Christianity have swallowed the "welcoming the stranger" verses -- hook, line and sinker. These are the Catholics and Protestants currently addicted to aiding and abetting mass migrantism from Third World countries.

The guys with the fishing poles are the Jewish leadership & Jewish activists (secular or religious).

The Third World migrants are just the bait.

Hesperado said...


Thanks for your response.

Just on one point for now: concerning the first point on which you say my essay "fell flat", see my follow-up essay which dealt with many questions and concerns around that point, which a reader had asked me:

Questions about the "Iron Veil"

One thing that follow-up essay may not have made explicitly clear is that any collective measures taken against Muslims will unavoidably involve collateral damage (ranging from mere discomfort, to indignities, to incarceration, and possibly violence) to, not to put too fine a point on it, people who look like Muslims -- i.e., various ethnic types.

I have dealt at great length and detail on this aspect of the problem in several essays, which I will link below. Suffice it to say for now that I found it highly amusing that one detractor of my position chided me for being unable to tell the (extremely) subtle difference between a Cypriot and a Greek (when I had mistakenly referred to Cat Stevens as of Greek extraction), but then that same detractor turned around and belittled my proposal to granularly fine-tune our racial profiling in public venues in order to weed out Muslims. Bottom line: If a person can tell the extremely subtle difference between a Cypriot and a Greek, then surely he can tell the difference between a southern Italian and a Moroccan! The latter, of course, would be reasonably targeted in any collective policy, while the former would either not be targeted at all, or would belong to a category of much lower suspicion.

(As for the small minority of Moroccans who are not Muslims, surely we are smart enough to devise creative ways of establishing their bona fides -- after, of course, all other intelligence gathering and records analysis have been exhausted.)

The Ethnic Physiognomy of Muslims

The racial factor: Robert Spencer finally gets it


Muslim Profiling Revisited

Muslim Profiling Revisited Part 2

kloutlichter said...

Funnily enough in a hostel in Munich recently I mistook a greek cypriot for a turkish one.He didnt look that pleased.I cant blame him really.I will read your essays after christmas as I will be busy with the festivities.
Have a jolly crimbo as we say in blighty.May you find comfort in whomever or whatever you wish.

Hesperado said...

"...I mistook a greek cypriot for a turkish one."

Wow -- I was only talking about distinguishing the Cypriot from the Greek, which already seems nearly impossible to me; now you advert to an even finer distinction: the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot!

Anonymous said...

Zenster: Thanks! I am honored. I enjoy reading your comments on this site.

kloutlichter: To understand Islam and the Koran and Muslims in their full context, go to google and search on Statistical Islam published by the Center for the Study of Political Islam (cspipublishing).

Let's be realistic here: Before you get the first shot out of your rifle, you will already be totally subdued by Sharia Law effectively implemented by the overwhelming demographic force of young Muslim males. You and your rifle against an ongoing Muslim riot allowed and enabled by the government and its police force is laughable. If you doubt me, then you need to pay more attention to the way that the English Defense League is treated during its peaceful demonstrations.

In any case, an effective method to neutralize practicing Muslims is 1) to permanently close ALL formal and informal mosques (spontaneous street praying) including any like designations such as Muslim community centers or rabats, 2) to deport or jail ALL imams, 3) forbid ALL imams from visiting prisons, 4) forbid the practice of Islam in prisons, and 5) forbid the sale and possession of ALL Korans and ALL related Muslim literature and media.

I firmly believe that these steps would lead to significant Muslim riots which MUST be handled firmly with ALL participants identified and then deported - or jailed separately from other Muslims for significant periods of time.

kloutlichter said...

Points taken egghead,but was it that unrealistic for a serb,croat or bosnian muslim to think the same things before the partition of yugoslavia. example;-'1989. Serb sitting in sarejevo havin a wee glass of slivovic sun shining waving to his muslim neighbour across the street.1993 firing from behind his verandha at the muslim trying to kill him.Oh my god! where are the police.Oh ,over there,helping him!

My brother did two tours in Bosnia in the 90's and he said that sort example was very common.He also said that while the serbs were real bad ass's ,you could trust their word.If they said they would shoot,they shot.The muslims on the other hand you could not trust.He said he would drink with them and one said he looked upon non-muslims like a dog.You could pet them but just as easily shoot them.Once the drinking sesh was over and they got back in their armoured cars and the muslims would fire at them.
My point is that while I hope for the best I am very aware that law and order can break down if the right cicumstances arise.I would also suggest that the police are doing their job,that does not mean that they agree with what they are doing.I bet if they were honest very few would come down on the side of the islamist.Most are normal lads like my cousin,or a jewish lad I know.
Also most of the british army are normal everyday blokes.My brother in law came back from the first gulf war hating arabs.Before he went he wouldnt have passed any opinion.This is a common experience for many returning from the middle east.If the s**t hits the fan,I doubt very much alot of these men would fight or help the islamists.

Zenster said...

kloutlichter, I just wanted to say that you should please not feel to put upon. You seem to be fairly level-headed and that is always a good starting point.

The horrible part about dealing with Islam is the incredible level of deceit that permeates its entire structure. One typical result for any non-Muslim who is obliged to parse out Islamic thought processes is a rapid shift over to highly polarized thinking.

It is one of the only ways to "err on the side of caution" when confronted with such routine duplicity. Sadly, one simply cannot give Muslims the benefit of the doubt as that leads to a slippery slope of appeasement and concessions that end only when shari'a law has been installed to some degree or another.

Shari'a and modern civilization will never be compatible. The foregoing statement is a prime example of the inevitable polarization that happens when dealing with Islam.

Please keep participating in earnest as you have been and don't feel belittled in any way. All of us have a part to play in making sure that Islam does not prevail.

Hesperado said...

Zenster wrote:

Sadly, one simply cannot give Muslims the benefit of the doubt as that leads to a slippery slope of appeasement and concessions that end only when shari'a law has been installed to some degree or another.

Shari'a and modern civilization will never be compatible.

I agree, with the caveat that the primary reason why our inability to trust Muslims rationally leads us to suspect them all equally and take measures to deport them is not merely because they advocate a system of law that goes against our principles -- but also, crucially, because they are prepared to use violence in order to try to leverage a way toward the goal of conquest.

It is the prevention of terror attacks that is the primary reason we should oppose Muslims. If Muslims merely advocated a repellant legal system, but did not also advocate violence -- horrific, savage, grotesquely ghoulish violence -- as a means to realize it, there would be no problem with Muslims.

And since we cannot distinguish the dangerous Muslims -- who will use violence or aid and abet violence among their brothers -- from the putatively harmless Muslims (assuming they exist), we are bound by reason in the interest of protecting our societies to suspect, and treat, all Muslims as equally deadly.

The Hesperado

kloutlichter said...

Zenster thank you for your words of encouragement,but do not worry about me feeling belittled.I am a big boy with a good education that leads a practical lifestyle.I never do anything in earnest as the reason I like this site is that generally views are level-headed,and I like learning.Was it Socrates who said 'the wise man knows nothing'.I bare this in mind always.
As far as Islam is concerned while I learn,I listen to my gut instinct as well.I dont agree with, for example, the way men like Wilders,who I agree with on most points ,seem to have this glorification of Israel.Especially saying such things that it is thefoundation stone european culture.That is just not the whole truth,but is presented as such for political gain.
Through historical study I am coming to realise that history,while not being a total lie,is neither the total truth either.
The elites,the intellectual's and so on have represented history to the masses.Through all their talk however,I feel they miss some basic points.Your never to clever to dodge a bullet and never underestimate the underlying violence of the masses.
With this in mind I continue to study and research ,with what little time I have between raising a family.
Enjoy your holiday,dont think to much and make sure you appreciate the the small things.I am looking at the farmers fields on a white crisp cold day.Wonderful.