1389 Blog - Counterjihad! » political correctness

The Islamization of American Children – Funded by You, the Taxpayer

1389 — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:34:36 +0000

You’ll probably not believe what you’ll hear…until she pulls out the documents:

Anti-Shariah conference at Madison church

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by YEAR2012INFO on Nov 14, 2011
The U.S. Constitution is under attack…
Please copy this video TODAY and send it to every person and Church in the USA and Canada.

More from Brigitte Gabriel, founder of Act! For America:

Brigitte Gabriel on Obama

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by megawolf7 on Jul 21, 2009
Brigitte Gabriel, author of the book, They Must Be Stopped, on the Bill Cunningham Show, June 7, 2009

Islamic infiltration of the universities (h/t: Eric Allen Bell):

MSA student supports rounding up Jews to Israel to kill them

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by Dendoi on May 16, 2010

Nazi-like MSA student states that she supports Hassan Nasrallah’s call to round up Jews to Israel so he won’t hunt them down worldwide. This video was put up by the David Horowitz Freedom Center [DHFC]. I just put it up here for educational purposes; so people can see a sample of how bad Islamic anti-Semitism is.

Carlos Mencia: Mystery Road Sign

1389 — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:09:29 +0000

Get More: Political Humor, Play Carlos Mencia Games

Profiteering Canadian Serial “Sue-er” Richard Warman Is Baaaaack!

1389 — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:46:52 +0000

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by SDAMatt2a on Dec 15, 2011

Serial litigant and Stormfront member Richard Warman launched a blizzard of lawsuits today, against The National Post and the backbone of the northern blogosphere – Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan, Kathy Shaidle and Free Dominion. He’d laid low for a few weeks, contenting himself with empty threats against McGill students, but he has now made his move. Ezra Levant lays out the legal challenge very clearly, Glenn Reynolds offers some advice, and Jay Currie adds an important point:

“Warman is betting all the marbles here. His credibility and the credibility of the CHRC are now in play. Warman was the CHRC’s creature and, I suspect the evidence will show, the CHRC became his creature as he casually crossed the line between investigator and complainant.”

Precisely. It’s not possible to take a stand against the Canadian Human Rights Commission without also talking a stand against Richard Warman. He has been the plaintiff on half the Section 13 cases in its entire history and on all the Section 13 cases since 2002. There are 30 million Canadians yet only one of them uses this law, over and over and over again, which tells you how otherwise irrelevant it is to keeping the Queen’s peace. Section 13 is, in effect, Warman’s Law and the CHRC is Warman’s personal inquisition and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is Warman’s very own kangaroo court. Whether or not the motivations were pure and pristine when this racket got started, at some point his pals at the CHRC and the “judges” of the CHRT should have realized that the Warmanization of Section 13 doesn’t pass the smell test: Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and when you see what’s done at the CHRC you understand it’s a cosy and self-perpetuating romance between a corrupt bureaucracy and its favoured son.

So taking on the CHRC means taking on Richard Warman. I believe my colleague Charlie Gillis will have a piece on Warman in this week’s Maclean’s, on sale tomorrow, so the spotlight isn’t going to be dimming anytime soon. In the meantime, I hope SteynOnline readers will support Ezra, Kate, Kathy and Mark and Connie at Free Dominion. They are private citizens like Richard Warman. Unlike him, they have not been enriched by tax-free awards of significant five-figure sums for entirely mythical “pain and suffering”. So please go on over to the various websites and make a donation, as my pal Michelle Malkin did earlier today. In Kathy’s case, you might also consider buying a copy of her book Acoustic Ladyland: it’s in a good cause, but you’ll get the better end of the bargain because it’s a great read.

- Mark Steyn

Ezra Levant with Marc Lemire: freedom of speech

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by SDAMatt2a on Dec 15, 2011

Marc Lemire, the target of Canada’s speech mandarins for 8 years, joins Ezra Levent to discuss, amongst other things, the activities of federal employee Richard Warman.

Then Ezra is joined by Chris Schafer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Much as I want to see Section 13 and the CHRC go down in flames, I strongly advise against strengthening any “hate propaganda” or “hate speech” provisions in the criminal code. That could result in prison sentences, rather than merely civil fines and sanctions, imposed on counterjihad activists and anyone else who violates the standards of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Also see:

The next video shows that the efforts to censor any honest discussion of immigration, multiculturalism, and the threat of Islam are not paying off. Note the silly reference to Muslims as an “ethnic group.”

Canadians take a dim view of islam: poll

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by SDAMatt2a on Dec 15, 2011

G** dammit Babs Hall! The peasants are expressing their opinion, AND IT’S THE WRONG ONE! Get in there and imprison them until they hold correct views.

Why We Blog – And How You Can Help

This is one reason why we cover so much Canadian material on the US-based 1389 Blog. One of the missions of our blog, from the get-go, was to fight for free speech for the Counterjihad. Any Canadian counterjihadists who want to make themselves heard should feel free to contact us. All we need is your knowledge and expertise. You need not use your real name!

Multicultural Madness, Parts 1, 2 and 3

Gramfan — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 01:29:36 +0000

From ACT For Australia

Multicultural Madness Part 1, Defining Culture

Sometime between the early Nineteen Seventies and the early Nineteen Nineties, every “Western” nation around the world (and this did not include wealthy “non Western” countries such as Japan) decided to implement a previously unheard of doctrine known as multiculturalism.

This policy had no groundswell of public support, and in most cases considerable opposition (anti-immigrationist Le Pen was polling 10% in France at the time). Clearly this was no coincidence.

In the interests of keeping this as brief as possible this is not a comprehensive examination of all of the flaws and likely consequences of multiculturalism but only a few of the most basic ones.

Almost all of the problems and contradictions which have arisen from this policy can be traced back to a single misconception on which the whole charade is based, namely the refusal of the supporters of this doctrine to adequately define the concept of culture itself. After all, how can you possibly debate the subject of “multiculturalism if you cannot correctly define what culture actually is?

If you have ever been to a “cultural” festival or celebration, you would most likely have found it full of exotic spicy foods, ethnic people doing lively, interesting dances and wearing unusual and brightly colored clothing etc. When we hear the term “culture,” these days, this is what immediately springs to most people’s minds. If this were all that was meant by the term “culture,” then it is quite possible (although given human nature, not necessarily certain) that a multicultural human society could exist in peace and harmony (and with great Thai restaurants open till late.)

The flaw in this line of reasoning comes into stark relief however, when we understand and articulate the deeper meaning of the word “Culture”.

This meaning is far less visible and will never be on display at any “cultural” festival, but is in fact far more important at a more fundamental level. The word “culture,” in its deepest sense, refers to the set of values which are used by a society to determine its ethics. In simpler terms, it is those things which a society, as a whole, considers to be right or wrong.

As a simple example, Hindus consider it to be very wrong to kill a cow whereas; most Westerners are happy to enjoy a nice rump steak. Therefore India may have a law outlawing the killing of cows, whilst the UK has no such law.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity or race.

Pakistanis who were Hindu before being conquered by Islam will now happily eat beef. If you or I had grown up in a Hindu family in India then we would probably also consider killing a cow to be morally wrong. This is the basis of any culture, a set of shared beliefs in what constitutes right and wrong which are shared by one group but not another. These values are passed on from one generation to the next by parents and/or religious institutions and schools.

This is what is meant by the term “different cultures”, i.e. they are not the same.

Each culture has a different concept of what constitutes right and what constitutes wrong. Although there is often some overlap there are no universal golden rules. I will just repeat that for emphasis

“There is no universal definition of what is right and what is wrong”.

We in the West tend to rather arrogantly assume that the principles of the Ten Commandments not to kill, steal, cheat, lie etc. exist in every culture but this is in fact, not true. In the past (and probably even today in remote areas) there have been warrior societies where killing was considered a rite of passage for all males.

The Vikings were somewhat famous for glorifying rape, pillage and plunder and there are numerous examples of societies which considered particular Western (Judeo/Christian based) “Sins” to be virtues.

The fact that today, few cultures deviate too far from Western values is due to the enormous power that Western nations have enjoyed in the last few centuries relative to the rest of the world. Nations which were not actually invaded by Western nations were still pressured by threats of military force, trade embargoes, diplomatic pressure or a combination of all three.

Before this pressure was brought to bear, widows were being burned alive in India, cannibalism was commonplace in New Guinea and Slavery was rife all over the Islamic world (as it had been in parts of the Western world before abolition).

Going back to our original example, we cannot say that all Westerners will agree with killing cows to eat or that no Hindus will ever have a sneaky spare rib. What it does mean is that the majority of Hindu’s would consider eating beef is “Wrong” even if they were to indulge in it. Conversely, until recent times, most “Westerners” would not see eating beef as a wrong or “Sinful” act.

Politically correct doctrine deals with this fact by completely ignoring it. It insists that because some people do not always do what their culture believes to be the “right” thing, that any attempt at stereotyping people is not just wrong, but pointless and grossly unfair.

Now it’s true that stereotyping cannot tell us with 100% accuracy how a person will behave, and in some circumstances can in fact have no basis in fact. It is also true however that in a statistical sense, we can make predictions with a reasonable degree of accuracy about how individuals from different cultures will behave.

For instance, I’m sure that if we look up the figures we would find that Indians consumes far less beef per capita than Texans or Israelis consume far less pork than Danes. In other words, most people consider these cultural norms as important and make an effort to adhere to these rules, even if they are not set down in law

Now this is all fine and dandy when Indians are living in India and English people are living in England but when people of different cultures start living in one country, we run into a number of problems. I don’t intend to examine them all right now but there are a couple of fundamental flaws which have, amazingly, never had any discussion of which I am aware and this is where the point of this article lies.

The doctrine of “multiculturalism” as opposed to “multi ethnicity,” is that groups of people with different cultures will live in one society and retain their culture, rather than trying to assimilate into the culture of the host (invariably “Western”) nation. The first problem with this lies in the fact that the laws which a society makes, and agrees to be governed by, are simply an extension of the culture of that society.

This is obviously true of a democracy, but even holds true in a dictatorship to a point since even a dictator needs to retain a degree of support to hold power. If he goes too far against what the culture of the time considers to be right, then he will face hostility and possibly revolt from his subjects. This was why Henry the Eighth went to so much trouble to try to obtain an annulment for his marriages rather than simply declaring himself divorced.

So what happens when two separate cultures live under a single set of laws? It’s hard enough to make laws that suit everyone when you have a homogenous “monoculture”. Unfortunately when you have a nation with more than one culture it becomes impossible. How can you keep the Hindus happy if you allow the killing of cows and yet how can you ban it without upsetting the westerners?

So what are the options in this situation?

Override the Hindus and upset the Westerners.
Override the Westerners and upset the Hindus.
Persuade the Hindus to accept the culture of their new place of residence.
Make two or more sets of laws for people depending on their particular culture.
Separate the two groups and put a border between them with separate rules for each.

Now the first two options are really only one, the majority overrides the minority in a democracy, although whilst there is a huge majority of one particular culture the smaller one has to “fit in” or “assimilate” into the host culture. In other words, the culture of the group with the most political power will be enforced and members of the “weaker” culture just have to grin and bear it (hopefully).

Option three is the doctrine of assimilation which used to hold sway in most Western countries and still does in the rest of the world. The reasoning behind it is that if someone wishes to be a part of your society, then they should be willing to make an effort to adopt the culture which has shaped that society. If they do not wish to do so then they should not have come in the first place (assuming that they were not coerced to do so)

The doctrine of “multiculturalism” however views this as wrong. It insists that migrants into a nation should not be compelled to abandon their original culture, but should instead be encouraged to retain it (and any costs for doing so should be borne by citizens of the host country)

The inevitable consequence of this approach is that the law of the land will need to be altered in some way to accommodate the culture of the new migrants. This could either be a whole new set of laws, or a series of exemptions based upon the cultural preferences of different citizens.

This second option is the route which the UK has embraced with all sorts of special exemptions, particularly for Muslims who now have Sharia courts all over the UK. The problem with this “solution” is that it violates two of the most important principles which are the bedrock of our entire society, namely the rule of law, i.e. one law for all, and the principle of equality which goes with it.

Before the doctrine of Multiculturalism came along, Western Governments were compelled to treat each of their citizens equally. Nowadays, the way judges apply the law to you depends to varying extent on such things as what color skin you have, where you were born, even what culture or ethnicity you would like to belong to.

It is difficult enough to persuade people to follow the law at the best of times but without the rule of law, how can a society gain respect for its laws. When people look around and see others being allowed to break laws by which they are bound they will naturally lose respect for the whole legal process and society degenerates into a kind of tribal free for all.

This seems to be the way that the UK is heading with areas in London and other cities being declared as being under Islamic (Sharia) Law. In effect, we are defaulting to option four, reverting to separate mini nations with their own borders and laws, but isn’t that where we started from?

All we will have achieved will be the “Balkanization” of what were once powerful, prosperous and peaceful societies. It is hard to say for sure but you would have to wonder if this isn’t the ultimate goal of those who are behind the whole “multicultural” experiment.

The amazing thing is that the people who are paid to (and expected to) question and debate policies such as these have all been intimidated into silence or sycophantic agreement by the threat of being branded as racists (and then subsequently losing their jobs and being vilified for the rest of their days). In order for this to happen, an even more important principle had to be breached, namely freedom of speech, which we will look at in more detail in Part Two.

Multicultural Madness Part 2

Ant caps and other principles

Traditional Australian homes are built almost entirely of wood and consequently need to be protected against termites (white ants). The usual way is to build the house high up on posts and to put a thin steel ant cap on top of the post. Since white ants cannot live in the light and cannot bore through steel, this keeps them out of the house. Now it is not uncommon for home handymen to build a wall around the underside of the house, in order to create an extra room underneath. Unfortunately, many of them just don’t understand the danger posed by termites. Once the wall has been built, termites are able to bore straight up inside the wall and into the house where they eat it from the inside out.

For a long time this goes completely unnoticed and people enjoy the new living space they have created, Eventually of course little cracks and creaks and groans begin to appear. If these are ignored for long enough the home owner realizes his mistake when he falls through the floor boards by which time the house is probably only fit for demolition.

If you think about a society as being like a giant house, then the principles of a society are like the ant caps. They were put in place when the society was built and then sat there, largely forgotten, quietly getting on with the job of protecting the society. Then one day, some bright spark with no understanding of their function decides that they are just an inconvenient impediment to progress and improvement. Next thing you know, your principles have been compromised and your society is being eaten from within by every type of corruption you can imagine.

In part one, I wrote about how we had breached the principles of equality and the rule of law in order to accommodate the new doctrine of multiculturalism but before this was even possible, a far more important principle had to be violated, the principle of free speech.

Before I get into how this happened, I’d like to explain the importance of free speech because, shockingly, this is not something that is taught in schools and is consequently ridiculously underappreciated.

When the founding fathers sat down to write the Constitution of the newly formed United States, foremost in their minds was the protection of religious and other minorities. These were people who had fled persecution in Europe of the worst possible kind. This was not the persecution which minorities today complain of, such as not getting government assistance to build their places of worship, or having to submit to body searches at airports like everyone else. This persecution was more like being tied to a stake whilst an angry mob lit a bonfire underneath you and then danced on the ashes once you were burned to a crisp.

With this in mind, you might have expected the founders to have banned criticism of religious minorities but instead they did the opposite. The very first amendment of the US constitution demands the right for any and all citizens to say pretty much whatever they dam well please.

Of course there are a few important exceptions to this. It is illegal to incite people to violence or to damage someone’s reputation with a lie but other than this, free speech is totally protected. The reason the founding fathers chose to do this (and all Western nations more or less followed) was that they understood that the right to defend one’s self through reasoned argument is the greatest protection anyone can have.

When a person or group loses this right, they become powerless and are at the mercy of others. Can you imagine being in court, accused of a crime but not having a defence lawyer or being allowed to say anything in your defense? If the prosecution tells all sorts of lies or half truths about you then you will have no way to defend yourself. These are the situations which people without freedom of speech can, and often do, find themselves in.

In this situation, the only option is to try to live without offending those in power, which amounts to a form of semi-slavery. Free speech is the greatest protection anyone can have against this, and any other form of tyranny and is the basis of all other freedoms. When dictators wrest power the first thing they do is to ban the right of people to criticize them. This is why any attempt at removing free speech should be treated as an attack on the freedom of the entire society.

It is important to understand that free speech is not the right to tell people what they want to hear, it is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

No one in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was ever imprisoned for saying what a great guy Saddam was, despite the fact that free speech was not a right for Iraqis.

In fact, there were lots of things which Iraqis were allowed to talk about in Saddam’s Iraq. They were allowed to talk about the weather or what a bad job the mechanic had done on their car etc. In fact, when you think about it, they were able to say almost as much as a person in a “Free” country could.

This is the point about free speech, it is not the ability to say “most” things, it is the ability to say absolutely anything (outside of the exceptions noted above) without fear of retribution.

If you give up that right and hand the power to limit free speech in any way to your ruling class, then you have removed any obstacle to their quest for absolute power and the question becomes not “if” but “when” they will use it. Sooner or later the temptation to use their power to criminalize criticism of themselves will be too great and society begins a slide towards dictatorship and totalitarianism.

Free speech is therefore an all or nothing concept. You either have it all, or you don’t have it at all. You see the “problem” with free speech, is that people will invariably say things which you don’t like. Some people will say that the holocaust never happened or that heroin and slavery should be legalized, some will say that they don’t like Germans or that French people all smell of garlic. Other examples may be that all Scotsmen are mean or black people are all thieves. Unfortunately, if you want to have free speech, this is what comes with it.

Votaire realized the importance of this when he declared, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

Whatever the opinion, no matter how much you want to stop people from denying the holocaust or advocating rights for child molesters, you cannot do this without destroying freedom of speech.

Like ant caps, the protection is all or nothing.

Once a single ant cap is breached, termites can get in and you might as well remove all of the rest of the caps for what good they will do you. Likewise, once you make a single free speech exception, the foundation of freedom in your society has been breached and you can expect to see a gradual erosion of your freedom over time. It is like making a single small hole in the ant caps of your house and expecting that you will be 99% protected against termites.

The reason for this is simple. As soon as you hand the power to limit free speech to a ruler, be they despotic or democratic, they will use that power to silence opposition to their rule. They may not do this overnight, but it is in the nature of all rulers to try to consolidate their power by any means possible and the denial of free speech is the easiest way to take control of a society and gradually impose your will upon it. Therefore, sooner or later it will become illegal to criticize government policies and laws and you will then be living in a totalitarian state.

What you must realize is that if you don’t like an idea then you have the right to stand up and give good reasons why these ideas stink. If these ideas are indeed lousy, then it should be easy to rubbish them, if you can’t, then maybe the idea isn’t as bad as you first thought. Remember, once in a while, someone will come along with an idea that seems awful, like for instance, “hey, maybe the world isn’t flat” or “maybe it’s the earth that goes around the sun and not the other way around,” which, on examination turns out to be not such a bad idea after all.

This is not however the main reason for protecting free speech, important as it is.

The main reason is, and will always remain the protection of the ordinary people in a society, like an ant cap, remove it at your peril. When you hear people clamoring for the removal of free speech for a particular cause, these people are probably being unwittingly manipulated by individuals or groups whose aim is not to protect you from child molesters or holocaust deniers, but to remove the protection which your parents and grandparents fought so hard to wrap around you and your children. When a group tries to remove your right to criticize them, you need to be afraid, be very afraid.

Multicultural Madness Part 3

Before the advent of multiculturalism there existed in the United Kingdom a system for the making of new laws and the changing of old ones. I am using the UK as an example although most other Western democracies have gone through similar changes.

When a new law was proposed by the Government, it would be debated in the Parliament.

The Members of Parliament conducting the debate each represented a constituency of roughly equal size. Each and every person in the UK was therefore represented by a member of the parliament in which every UK law was passed (until 1972 when the UK joined the EEC and gave up part of its sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels). Therefore, at this time any UK citizen had the right to see his MP to voice concerns about any laws which affected them.

Whilst no political system is perfect the Westminster System is widely regarded as one of the best political systems ever and is the basis for most other successful systems around the world

Although free speech was protected at this time, there were (as previously mentioned) some sensible exceptions concerning defamation and incitement to violence, etc.

The founders of the parliamentary system understood the importance of free speech in determining the best outcomes and protections and made the parliamentary debates exempt from any and all restrictions on free speech. With the ever present threat of losing power at the next election, MP’s had to take voters’ wishes into consideration to some degree and citizens were free to voice any concerns they had.

The advent of multiculturalism marked a dramatic shift from this situation. The argument of the pro-multiculturalists was that if anyone challenged multiculturalism it would stir up the bubbling, latent racism which (apparently) exists just below the surface of all “white” societies.

Anyone attempting to question any part of this doctrine was immediately branded a racist of the worst order (akin to a Nazi or KKK member). No study or analysis which showed any negative side to multiculturalism was allowed, as it may have stirred up this racism and consequently all dissent was silenced. Whilst the Government and media went along with this, the really scary part is how the schools and particularly the universities embraced this whole new way of doing things.

So now, instead of an idea being freely debated to see whether it had merit, as it had been for centuries in the UK, an idea was put forward by the Government and the people were forced to accept this idea without being allowed to question it.

Whether you are for or against multiculturalism, this turn of events should send shivers down your spine.

This is not “progress” this is a reversion to how things were done in pre-democratic times and how they are done today in repressive and totalitarian regimes. This step itself marked a turning point in our culture, not towards a more enlightened, freer and more open and honest society. It was instead a step backwards towards a more repressive, totalitarian, authoritarian regime.

At the same time as this change was happening to Western Governments, something similar was happening in our education establishments. Western universities are founded on the principle that each and every idea is up for question. This is known as “Critical Thinking” and has been the mainstay of Western scientific and sociological advancement pretty well since the reformation many centuries ago.

Ideas and theories are proposed by people and are then subject to (often furious) debate. People on both sides of an argument try to prove or disprove theories using whatever facts and observations they can muster to determine as best they can, what is correct and what is not. Whilst this may not always produce perfect outcomes it is still the best method for determining the truth that humans have ever devised.

Under the new doctrine however, whether an idea was correct or otherwise was decided by the political powers that be, with no dissent allowed. This doctrine became known, appropriately as “Political Correctness” and broke a centuries old tradition of academic freedom.

I don’t want to get into a serious debate about the reasons for this sudden abandonment of centuries old bedrock principles by universities at this stage but I will just note that during the same period, Western universities have been the recipients of massive amounts of cash from oil rich Gulf States (particularly Saudi Arabia).

These are nations which have never been known to be supportive of Western values of freedom of speech, expression and conscience etc. It is also worth noting that they donated so generously to Western education institutions despite having some of the lowest rates of literacy and education in the world.

So today, across the Western World, ideas are introduced into universities which nobody is allowed to question. These ideas then become the basis of new laws which nobody is allowed to question and if these laws lead to disastrous consequences, guess what… nobody is allowed to question them.

Around the world, Islamic groups, often through control of UN bodies have been sponsoring “Hate Speech Laws” which have effectively criminalized criticism of Islam. In practice these laws criminalize speech which the state deems to be “hateful”.

The state of Victoria passed such laws sometime around 2004 and immediately used them to prosecute a Christian pastor named Daniel Scott who was warning people of the dangers of Political Islam.

Daniel was convicted of hate speech and amazingly the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld this conviction despite the fact that no one could prove that anything which Pastor Scott had spoken, was untrue. Fortunately for Daniel he had both the means and the intelligence to pursue his case to the Australian Supreme Court who overturned the ruling. In a stinging rebuke of the Victorian decision they found that (lo and behold!) truth is a valid defense in an Australian Court.

This case highlights how close we all are to losing our precious freedoms and waking up to find ourselves living in fear of the whims of our political masters and whoever may be influencing them (in this case Political Islam) Some may think this is a tradeoff worth making in order to protect the vulnerable ethnic minorities in our society from the power of the thuggish white majority. I would like to point out however, that Daniel Scott is a slightly built, dark skinned, Pakistani professor who fled totalitarian oppression in his home country. That he had to face it here should be a source of shame for all Australians.

Is it any wonder then, that societies around the Western world are degenerating?

Sweden, which was once known as one of the most peaceful and law abiding countries in the world, is now the rape capital of Europe. Formerly peaceful and homogenous France now has over seven hundred no go zones for non Muslims where the government has no control and no ability to enforce French Law. London and several other English cities have areas which are being declared under Sharia Law by determined and well funded Islamic groups.

Finally however, some people are beginning to wake up to the fact that their once cherished freedom has been taken away and see the way that their futures are headed.

The Dutch Government in particular is beginning to clamp down on the once untouchable doctrine of Multiculturalism. The British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor have both recently declared that Multiculturalism has been a failure. Had the citizens of these countries not had their rights to free speech denied, they might have come to this conclusion decades earlier.

Act for Australia believes that the Australian people have the right to freedom.

This freedom was paid for by the blood of past generations. Whilst we can never repay those who fought and died for those freedoms we believe we have an obligation to ensure that our next generation has them too. We ask that Australians from all social, political, ethnic and religious backgrounds join with us to use every peaceful method to protect our principles and cherished way of life.

We believe your children will thank you for it.

by Harry R.

Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West

1389 — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:19:18 +0000

Podcasts

Bosch Fawstin did a follow-up on this article on the podcast “Don’t Let it Go….Unheard”. The segment starts at 31 minutes in and lasts for about a half hour.
He will also appear on The Jamie Glazov Show Tuesday, Dec. 6 at 8-9pm Pacific time. Try to listen in live.

From FrontPage Magazine:

By Bosch Fawstin December 2, 2011 @ 12:38 am

My name is Bosch and I’m a recovering Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.

The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.

In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.

In the name of distinguishing the enemy from Muslims who mean us no harm, far too many Western commentators have avoided using the name “Islam” for the enemy’s ideology, and instead have decided to create their very own terms for the threat we’re facing, terms that are alien to the enemy. Terms such as:

Islamic Fundamentalism.

Islamic Extremism.

Totalitarian Islam.

Islamofascism.

Islamonazism.

Political Islam.

Bin Ladenism.

Radical Islam.

Militant Islam.

Islamism.

Jihadism.

We didn’t use terms such as “Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism” in the past. “Militant Islam”, Political Islam”, etc., are redundant terms. Our pretending otherwise has proven disastrous. Thousands of American lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed because of policies predicated on the myth that “Islam means peace.” We didn’t try to reform Shinto or Nazism during World War II; the major changes in those cultures took place only after we thoroughly de-militarized them.

And it’s no accident that Western analysts of Islam who are most informed about Islam are also most critical of it, while those least informed are least critical. But then there are those who, in their study of Islam, have become so enamored with their subject that, instead of sticking to what Islam is, they often write about what it isn’t, what they hope it might be. They seem preoccupied with doing their part to save Islam from those who have allegedly corrupted it.

The Muslim world is where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice. Islam – not any alleged deviant form of it – means misogyny, censorship, anti-Semitism, homophobia, wife-beatings, beheadings, honor killings, pedophilia/“child marriages”, murdering infidels, etc. This is evil, and Islam sanctions every bit of it, but we’ve been told that we must respect “one of the world’s great religions” because it’s a religion. Following 9/11, the only thing George W. Bush knew about Islam was that it was a religion, and that apparently was a good enough reason for him to exonerate it as he did. And his advisor on Islam, David Forte, told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear, that “Nothing this evil could come from religion.” But 9/11 did come from a religion. Whatever else 9/11 was, it was an act of faith.

And Bush saying “Islam is peace” shortly after 9/11 gave the enemy a gift they couldn’t have foreseen. Here was the one man who was charged to defend America from their attack and here he was defending the very ideology that motivated the attackers. Honesty is the best policy in general, and when it comes to war, it’s a moral imperative to find out the truth, to tell the truth and to act on the truth, no matter what sacred cow is killed in the process. And so a big part of why nearly 3,000 victims of jihad on 9/11 haven’t been avenged is because of respect for religion, even for a religion that calls for our destruction.

Muslims who really care about Islam are part of an organized effort to spread Islam, and I sometimes refer to this collective effort by Muslims as “Organized Islam.” No matter the means involved, Muslims working towards a more Islamic world want the same thing the jihadists want. This organized effort includes Mosques, Muslim organizations, Muslim individuals writing books, blog posts, etc. And they all invariably engage in anti-Western, Anti-Israeli propaganda, at the very least.

I often hear that we should be working with the Muslim world. Working towards what? As Ayn Rand writes, “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” Any time we spend “working” with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction, consciously or not.

While it’s true that jihadists don’t represent most Muslims, they do represent Islam. But then why don’t most Muslims engage in jihad? Like in any culture, heroes are a small minority, and that goes for Islamic culture as well. The jihadists are Islam’s heroes; they are the ones most dedicated to following Allah’s commands and they’re celebrated in the Muslim world for it. They are also the only ones to whom Islam guarantees paradise. And their rarity was made even clearer when we learned that only the pilots of 9/11 knew it was a suicide mission. Our enemy knows that it’s tough to get even hardcore Muslims to sacrifice their lives for Islam, but they don’t want us to know that. Just as they don’t want us to know that behind their boast that they love death is the fact that they hate life.

And while Muslims who blow themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims are a small minority, Muslims who would explicitly condemn them are an even smaller minority. And while I think that Muslims are mere sheep to their Jihadist wolves, there are also too many Muslim cheerleaders for jihad. How many Muslims celebrated 9/11? Far too many. Even in my own lax Muslim upbringing in America, there was an omnipresent anti-Semitism and misogyny. Some members of my family admired Adolph Hitler, who I refer to as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel.” Regarding misogyny, the birth of a girl became a day of mourning for Muslim women in my family; they understood the suffering this girl would endure under Islam, even in America.

Though we say we’ve been at war for over ten years, we haven’t even begun to fight the war the way we should be fighting it. And those calling for a change within Islam during this war would be surprised at how much Islam can be changed through an honest war on our behalf. You can’t make a violent religion like Islam non-violent by argument, only by greater retaliatory force against state sponsors of jihad terrorism.

The future of Islam and the well-being of Muslims is said to be of importance to us. Post – 9/11, the defense of our culture, our values, our very lives has been optional, but our defense of Islam has been absolute. It began with Bush’s “Islam is peace” and it continues with Obama, who said in his Submission Speech in Egypt in 2009, in front of members of The Muslim Brotherhood, “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” If only he felt the same about America.

We can’t be both for Islam and for ourselves. This enemy is fully on their own side and fully against us and they’ve made themselves believe that they’re the good guys and that we’re the bad guys, and our actions have done nothing but turn their hatred of us into an ever-deepening contempt. Before we see the enemy for what it is, we need to see ourselves for what we are. Only then can we, with full moral conviction, make them pay for what they’ve done and move us towards victory.

Our problem is not “Islamophobia”, but Islamophilia. It is this uncritical, uninformed, absolute defense of Islam by Western elites after 9/11 that I refer to as Islamgate. It’s a scandal for the ages that few involved would ever admit to being part of.

I care about the truth. I care about Western Civilization. I care about myself, my loved ones and my friends. I care about Iife. And that’s why I don’t care about Islam.

Our altruistic concern for the future and well being of the Muslim world has come at the expense of American lives and treasure. We’ve placed the well being of “The Muslim World” above our own self-defense. We’ve placed today’s Big Lie, “Islam means peace”, above the truth we need to act on. We’ve placed the lives of Muslim civilians above the lives of our soldiers, placing them in absolutely unnecessary danger in order to protect innocent (or even guilty) civilians. Our Rules of Engagement might as well be renamed the Golden Rules of Engagement, as our soldiers have been forced to treat the enemy the way we’d like to be treated. And the enemy takes full advantage of that, as they do of all of the policies our morally vain politicians have concocted. We need to shift the focus onto our own well-being at the enemy’s expense for a change.

We’ve tried everything since 9/11 except real war. War is the answer to Jihad.

So who cares about Islam? Muslims, Jihadists, Islamophiles, Leftists who naturally side with anti-American ideologies, guilt-ridden fellow travelers who think America is usually in the wrong, and religionists who believe any religion is better than none. But since Leftists and Islamophiles usually know very little about Islam, who truly cares about Islam? Those who are at war with us.

In the end, I care about Islam and the Muslim world as much as the Muslim world cares about America and the West. This is war. We can’t be on both sides. I’m not rooting for Islam or the Muslim world.

I’m rooting for us.

Bosch Fawstin is an Eisner Award nominated cartoonist currently working on a graphic novel, The Infidel, of which the first chapter is now available as a digital comic. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a companion to The Infidel, and the 1st print appearance of Pigman.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Australia: New clamp on “Muslim haters”

Gramfan — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 04:30:08 +0000

Oddly enough there is nothing similar going on here to counter the BDS demonstrations at the Max Brenner Chocolate stores, nor is much being done about the attacks on Hindu cab drivers!

It is always the same group of people who get special treatment, and the more special treatment they get the more people are going to get irritated!

Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences!

MUSLIMS are being urged to report hate crimes under a special disaster plan to deal with the fallout from terrorist attacks.

Under the Muslim Emergency Management Plan, backed by the state and federal governments, Victorians will be given advice on how to react to anti-Muslim incidents, even if they are considered minor.

Muslim victims of abuse are encouraged to save evidence, take photos and report any incident to police and their local mosque or Islamic organisation.

And in another initiative, Victoria Police is introducing new strategy to deal with violence and threats motivated by prejudice.

It comes amid growing concern over inter-racial tensions in Melbourne’s suburbs and against the backdrop of fears of further terrorist attacks that could strain relations further.

Police are being asked to develop databases on crime motivated by race or religion, so that offenders can be prosecuted.

The “prejudice-motivated crime strategy” focuses on crimes linked to race, religion, sex, age, disability or homelessness.

Muslims told the Herald Sun they faced increasing abuse on the streets because of their religion.

“A lot of women get yelled at and told ‘Go home’, or ‘There’s no place for you here’, especially women wearing the burqa,” a Muslim source said.

“It happens in shopping centres, at the park or just when you are walking along in the street.”

Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria director Ross Barnett said the new police initiative was needed.

He said judges had the power to take into account hate-related issues in sentencing, but police were not equipped to provide the evidence.

“The elements of the strategy include training for officers, capacity to start collecting data so they’ve got a sense of what is happening, how often it happens, and what the extent of it is,” he said.

The Muslim Emergency Management Plan, financed by the state and federal governments, was devised by the Islamic Council of Victoria with support from the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Office of Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship.

Islamic Council general manager Nail Aykan said there was no doubt Muslims would suffer a backlash in the event of a terrorist attack.

“Hate crimes can originate from a multitude of matters but in the case of, God forbid, a terrorist attack, of course, you end up with repercussions,” Mr Aykan said.

State Multicultural and Citizenship Minister Nick Kotsiras said the emergency plan arose from a deal struck by the former Bracks and Howard governments.

By John Masanauskas

masanauskasj@heraldsun.com.au

With thanks to The Herald Sun

Cross-posted at Act For Australia

Monash University – Aiding and Abetting the Jihad Downunder

Gramfan — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:19:43 +0000

MONASH University prides itself on its “multicultural learning environment” and yet it produces a handbook for one certain class of students, and not for others.

How is it that this ‘institution of higher learning’ has to bend over backwards to one “ethnic” group to this extent?

“International students would be better served with a handbook explaining Australian culture and values.”

And I say Amen to that!

Muslim Handbook is Divisive

Salaam Monash is the title of the glossy 50-page “handbook for Muslim students”.

“At Monash we understand that Muslim students have specific social, religious and cultural needs,” writes Professor Stephanie Fahey, deputy vice-chancellor, in a foreword to the handbook.

The booklet lists Islamic banking and financial institutions, Muslim publications, women’s groups and schools. It also lists Muslim medical and dental practitioners, which splits up doctors into male and female groups.

There is also a halal food guide and a list of halal grocers and butchers.

Much of the information seems useful and, having had a young Muslim house guest recently, I know just how tricky it can be to find halal food.

But there is no similar handbook for other religious or ethnic groups, not for Buddhists, Taoists, Germans, Greeks, Sikhs, Mormons or vegans.

Why encourage one group of people to maintain an identity separate from other Australians?

Most unwise, however, is that the handbook lists without comment some of Australia’s most radical prayer halls.

Among them is cleric Sheikh Mohammed Omran’s Islamic Call Society in Brunswick, where young Muslim men have been radicalised. A number of men arrested in Operation Pendennis, over a foiled 2005 Melbourne terror plot, had frequented the mosque, according to a New York Police Department study, which identified it as an “extremist incubator”.

Similarly, the handbook points students in the direction of Coburg’s ISNA mosque, associated with preacher Abu Hamza, who was videotaped telling men they could “beat their wives to shape them up” but only as a last resort. In the lecture entitled “The Keys to a Successful Marriage”, he said: “You smack them, you beat them. You are not allowed to bruise them.”

The handbook has angered people on campus.

“Monash University should not be endorsing (an) ideology which prescribes that Muslims must not eat our food, wear our clothes, share our services or even use our ‘infidel’ money,” said four insiders who wrote to me. “International students would be better served with a handbook explaining Australian culture and values.”

Monash is not alone. La Trobe has its own Muslim student guide and last year opened a $927,000 prayer room.

In 2006 RMIT produced a Muslim handbook “In the name of Allah the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful”. Two years later 1000 Muslim students protested against sharing new prayer rooms with Christians and Jews.

Muslim students from overseas are a lucrative part of the fee-paying student body and keeping them happy is important.

But the message should be about mutual respect and hospitality — not segregation and exclusion.

Andrew Bolt: Removing Israel in Multicultural Victoria

Approving of every culture bar one:

A Melbourne Israeli Dancing group was dropped from participating in a Victorian dance festival after refusing organisers’ moves to drop all references to Israel.

The Machol Israeli Dancing Club was scheduled to appear at Multicultural Folk Dance Festival of High Country in the Victorian country town of Mansfield earlier this month.

The festival was organised under the auspices of the Victorian Multicultural Commission… When the participants’ names were released, Esther Blumenthal-Skop of Machol was surprised to learn that the name of the Machol Israeli Dancing Club had been truncated to Machol Group and all references to Israel had been removed with the club being described as a Jewish dance group…

In her submission to (the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission), Blumenthal-Skop said she asked for an explanation and was told that the organiser would not be held responsible for consequences if the words “Israel” or “Israeli” were used to describe the group…

Chairman of VEOHRC John Searle told J-Wire: “The matter is now in the hands of the Victorian Muliticultural Commission and we await their findings.”

What “consequences” are there for people indentifying with the word “Israeli” or allowing others to do so? A pogrom? Some broken windows? What exactly? How much do we need to fear what strikes me as the fashionable new anti-Semitism?

(Thanks to reader Ian.)

The “N” in ESPN Now Stands for Nazi

CzechRebel — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:32:22 +0000

Fox News: Hank Williams, Jr Rates 2012 GOP Field

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hank also compares Obama, Biden, and Boehner to the Three Stooges, and rightly so.

By CzechRebel

Remember when freedom of speech was considered an important right? We all know the history of how our right to free speech has been declining. During the run-up to US involvement in World War I, Congress passed a law seriously restricting that right in open violation of the First Amendment. The US Supreme Court declared that flagrantly unconstitutional law to be constitutional after all. Well, it has been downhill for free speech ever since. Of course, the protection in the First Amendment to the US Constitution is against government actions that infringe on free speech. Even so, freedom of political expression should be respected whenever possible, especially by mainstream media outlets that enjoy the protection of the US government.

Just now, the sports network ESPN (“N” being for “Nazi”) has shown the ultimate disrespect for the right to express one’s political opinion. Witness the appearance of Hank Williams, Jr. on Fox and Friends, in the video above. Mr. Williams said some important things that need to be said. Well, to ESPN (and maybe to NFL) it was reason enough to pull his voice from last night’s Monday Night Football game where his voice has sung “All My Rowdy Friends Are Here On Monday Night” for some twenty-three years now. (See: ESPN pulls Hank Williams Jr. after he compares Obama to Hitler.)

To me and some others at 1389 Blog, these points are pretty obvious:

Obama is indeed the moral equivalent of Hitler. He wants the Israelis to go back to their pre-1967 borders. That is antisemitism. Pushing Israel back to the pre-1967 borders is equivalent to reopening the death camps. This would render Israel defenseless and its Jewish inhabitants would soon be overrun and massacred, roughly 7.7 million people. Jews all over the world would lose the protection afforded them by the existence of the State of Israel. So, how can we fault Williams for saying what he said?
The “official religion” of the blood-soaked twentieth century was Get-Both-Sides-Together-and-Have-Them-Compromise. That sure didn’t work out very well! When Obama . . . I mean Hitler (it is an easy mistake, sorry) said, “All I want is Czechoslovakia,” the Western world believed him. Way too many compromises have resulted in disaster. If compromise were such a great thing, why doesn’t the medical community just compromise with cancer? The Tea Party and Obama have NOTHING to compromise about! Obama wants to tax and spend America into the Third World status, and his every action since taking office proves it. The Tea Party was formed to stop him. For the Republican leadership to say, “Wow, the Tea Party just gave us a majority in the House, and hope in the Senate; now let’s sell out to Obama” is simply insane. We don’t think that Mr. Williams is so out of line.
Oh dear, Mr. Williams doesn’t really like any of the Republican candidates this year, but feels that Herman Cain makes the most sense. Well, we don’t see a Ronald Reagan in the field this time, either. Some candidates make more sense than others. We also have noticed that Herman Cain makes more sense than most. We have tried lawyers, generals, and even a Ph.D and an MBA in the Oval Office. Maybe it is time to try a mathematician. At least Mr. Cain might have some concept of all the money we are spending!

So, would you fire a guy after twenty-three years of good service for that?

If you would like to tell ESPN how you feel, the contact data is:

Phone (US):
1-888-549-ESPN (1-888-549-3776)

Postal mail:
ESPN Viewer Response
ESPN Plaza
Bristol, CT 06010

Email via their website:
http://espn.go.com/espn/contact

Hank’s All Star Band, ESPN Monday Night Football

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by habanaave on May 17, 2008

ESPN Monday Night Football television spot with Hank Williams Jr., Brian Setzer, Richie Sambora, Gretchen Wilson, Cindy Blackman, John Ondrasik, Bootsy Collins, and Drake Bell. Produced by Habana Avenue (www.Habanaavenue.com)

Also see:

PJM: Are You Ready For Some Argumentum Ad Hitlerum?

Bad News for Free Speech in Australia: Andrew Bolt Loses “Racial Vilification” Case

Gramfan — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:00:42 +0000

Disgraceful verdict today Downunder.

Others have said far worse. Bolt was stating facts. One of the plaintiffs said much worse about another Aboriginal woman:

More offensive than ‘sex with a horse’: Larissa Behrendt’s Twitter slur against Bess Price

My fears of a totalitarian government are getting more and more real.

The Australian: Andrew Bolt loses racial vilification court case

HERALD Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has lost an action brought in the Federal Court in which the columnist was accused of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act.

Bolt was found to have contravened Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Nine aboriginal applicants brought a class-action against Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times claiming Bolt wrote they sought professional advantage from the colour of their skin.

There were cheers and applause in the court when Justice Mordecai Bromberg read out his verdict.

He ordered no settlement on the parties, who will negotiate between them what measures Bolt and the Herald Sun will take.

In the judgment, the Justice said he was satisfied that the fair skin Aborigines were “offended, assaulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles”.

The Justice ruled that Bolt could not use fair comment or public interest to defence those particular articles.

At issue was Bolt’s assertion that the nine applicants had chosen to identify themselves as “Aboriginal” and consequently win grants, prizes and career advancement, despite their apparently fair skin and mixed heritage.

The nine applicants were led by activist Pat Eatock and included artist Bindi Cole, NSW Australian of the Year Larissa Behrendt, author Anita Heiss and former ATSIC chief Geoff Clark.

Four articles published by the Herald Sun columnist in the newspaper and his blog were “a head-on assault on a group of highly successful and high-achieving” Aborigines, Ron Merkel QC told the court during proceedings in late March and early April.

The nine people sought an apology from the Herald & Weekly Times and an order against republishing, but no compensation.

In an occasionally explosive case, Bolt’s writings about Aboriginal identity were painted as being akin to a “eugenics approach” and similar to writings that led to the Holocaust.

Bolt subsequently protested the slurs in court as “an unforgivable travesty.”

In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt’s writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals.

Andrew Bolt says on his blog:

I am very grateful to all the readers who have offered me support and sympathy. I’m afraid I cannot respond or comment further for now. But I can’t tell how moved I am. And how sad, but not just for myself.

UPDATE

I am sorry to the hundreds of people who’ve responded on this thread. I am extremely touched by your support, but the moderators obviously need to get guidance on what we dare publish. Such are the times.

More here.

The Blogmocracy Team Covers the Political Scene

1389 — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:29:53 +0000

Gotta check out 2.0: The Blogmocracy!

New Low: 17% say US Government Has Consent of the Governed By Iron Fist

Tell me something: when a majority of the people feel the government doesn’t have the consent of the governed, how can you possibly say that it does? We are there, Guys and Dolls.
Obama Confuses Jews with janitors By Speranza

Can you imagine if George W. Bush said this?
93,000 Copts have left Egypt since March according to NGO report By Speranza

How’s that Arab Spring working out for you now? Christianity is dying in the Middle East except in the Jewish State.
Obama Still Has Delusions of Godhood by Iron Fist

So continuing to support Obama is just like keeping faith with God. Wow. That makes the Greek columns and Lightworker BS look like self-effacing humor by comparison. Of course none of those “men of faith”, including several preachers, took Obama to task for his Luciferian-scale ego trip. Why would they? They agree with him.
Obamacare Finally Is Going to the Supreme Court By coldwarrior

The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’sz health reform law is constitutional.
Separation Of Church And State Was Meant As A Means Of Practicality, Not Political Correctness Run Amok. By Flyovercountry

The teachers of my elementary school you see, were attempting to inflict diversity training upon the small children. The result of the inflicted diversity training was almost always a fist fight after school, and precious little actual cultural understanding. The important thing I guess is that the teacher really felt good about herself, and that is what really counts to the political left in our country.

Information Warfare: “Islamophobia”: An invention of the Muslim Brotherhood

1389 — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:18:40 +0000

By ACT for America

“Islamophobia”: An invention of the Muslim Brotherhood”

The Information Warfare we are exposing.
Ever wonder where the term “Islamophobia” came from?

According to a recent column in FrontPageMagazine, it was invented by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. Following is a stunning excerpt (highlights added) from that FrontPageMagazine column:

The neologism “Islamophobia” did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), which is based in Northern Virginia…

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. “This loathsome term,” he writes, “is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics”…

Muhammad describes the strategy behind the word’s invention:

In an effort to silence critics of political Islam, advocates needed to come up with terminology that would enable them to portray themselves as victims. Muhammad said he was present when his then-allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term “Islamophobia.”

Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term “homophobia” to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw “Islamophobia” as a way to “beat up their critics.”

Consider how much influence the Muslim Brotherhood has regarding how America deals with the threat of radical Islam. Look at the power of this word. How the media exploits it. How politicians fear it.

This is a stellar example of the Muslim Brotherhood “information warfare” that has been at work in America for years. And this is why our new resource “Unmasking the Enemy Among Us: Information Warfare and the Muslim Brotherhood” is so IMPORTANT.

More here:

Front Page Magazine: Smear, Inc.: Silencing the Critics of Islamic Supremacism

How Will it End?

Zenster — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:19:37 +0000

Author’s note: This is the third of a three part essay dealing with Islamic terrorism and what can be expected regarding Islam’s ultimate fate. These articles are written in memoriam of the 9-11 atrocity’s tenth anniversary and are dedicated to the 3,000 innocent Americans who were murdered on that fateful day.

How will it end?

Short answer ― The Muslim holocaust.

There is a proverb whose thread is found both in Aesop and the Bible. It reads:

“The clay pot should keep its distance from the iron kettle.”

Instead of keeping its distance, Islam has cozened its way into Western civilization and, parading under false colors as an alleged religion, it flies a counterfeit Liberal standard of interfaith Multiculturalism. Besotted with its own temporary successes and newfound “purity” ― through a recent reformation leaving it even more violent, intolerant, misogynistic and puritanical ― Islam is in the process of infiltrating Western civilization to an unprecedented degree. However, in this respect, it is the non-industrial Islamic clay pot that is getting too close to the militarily advanced Western iron kettle.

A Talmudic variation of this fable provides a different perspective: “If a pot falls upon a stone, woe to the pot; if a stone falls upon a pot, woe to the pot; either way, woe to the pot” (Esther Rabbah, 7:10). For Islam’s clay pot, violence is the stone. As Islam continues to embrace terrorism it is eagerly drawn to that stone with a dangerous degree of impetus. In its love of death and martyrdom, Islam puts the stone in precipitous motion, which just as often falls upon the heads of Muslims themselves.

In either case ― much as with so-called Islamic martyrdom ― Islam imprudently brings itself into proximity with danger and eventually this will prove its own undoing. Suffused with delusions of adequacy, Muslims think nothing of constantly antagonizing Western powers who long ago perfected industrialized warfare to an extent that Islam can only dream of, despite its supremacist fantasies.

Like a candle that sputters and flares, Islam casts outsized shadows which too many in the West mistake for genuine military potency. The exact opposite is true and it is only by using the asymmetrical warfare of terrorism that Islam holds any sway. It is a schoolyard bully writ large and every bit as cowardly. The brittleness of Islamic doctrine is too often confused with strength and its fanaticism taken for authority.

In a recent Berlin speech, Swiss Member of Parliament, Oskar Freysinger, noted that, “Islam is only as strong as we are weak.” One glimpse of how Islam remains almost entirely reliant upon Political Correctness to drive its Western agenda reveals that this parasitic entity’s success wholly depends upon the frailty of a civilization debilitated by Multiculturalism and self-doubt. This is underscored both by the physical compulsion and violence that lies beneath so much of Islamic doctrine and the fact that no nation in history has ever voluntarily adopted Islam without an application of force being involved.

Politician Barrack Obama epitomizes the danger that Liberals pose to Islam. Not only do they appease and cower before Islamic bullying but Liberalism also infantilizes Muslim men through the soft racism of lowered expectations. Thus enabled by such hollow victories, Islam is capable of duping itself into believing its own propaganda; a perilous mistake at the best of times and often fatal in a time of conflict.

Little do Liberals understand how they will be among the first who go to the wall should Islam prevail. Nor, in their haste to disarm the world, do they understand that such military ineptitude on their part will see them left with few responses other than nuclear Armageddon when confronted by WMD terrorist strikes. Through appeasement and facilitation, Liberals are Islam’s most dangerous “friends”.

This same Politically Correct doctrine has seen ineffectual campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost the multinational coalition on the order of two trillion dollars, with America shouldering a lopsided $1.36 trillion share of the burden. That is the cost of keeping in check just two of some fifty Muslim majority countries. Subduing the other four dozen Islamic nations represents at least another staggering $96 trillion dollars of expenditure and countless more military casualties. No single nation or combination of international economies can possibly afford this sort of expenditure.

This inordinate cost of conventional war needed to obtain even a modicum of peace is, perhaps, the grimmest thing about Islam’s future. As the mask slips and “radical” or “fundamentalist” Islam are revealed to be mainstream and fully compatible with regularly accepted Islamic doctrine, Total War ― something Muslims continue to boast of declaring against the West ― looms evermore probable. However, the economic factors alone point directly away from conventional war.

Truth be told, in the absence of that $96 trillion dollars, there is only unconventional warfare left as a survival option. Nuclear weapons represent the sole existing and cost-effective way of managing hostilities with some 1.6 billion people. Like a proverbial trout in the milk pail, this one simple fact is difficult to ignore. Basic economics dooms perpetually hostile Islam to utter annihilation.

Any expectation of Islam pacifying, moderating or reforming itself must be dismissed out of hand. Islam has already undergone a recent reformation from which it emerged as an even more intolerant, more violent, more puritanical and more misogynistic creed. Those Muslims who do seek any pacification or sincere moderation of Islam’s violent doctrine are usually put to death by more devout believers.

Lending some much needed perspective to this nettlesome debacle is a quick estimate of the death toll that reasonably could be expected if Islam somehow managed to take over the world. Here are several, admittedly, rough estimates of what to anticipate from the establishment of a global caliphate.

1.) Extermination of all Jews:
Some 13.5 million people, world-wide would most likely die at the hands of their Muslim oppressors.

2.) Execution of all homosexuals:
We will use what some call a “wildly exaggerated figure” for the sake of including the bisexual and transgender community plus other sexual deviants who would all be put to death under shari’a. Therefore, some 10% of the world’s population or 600 million people would fall into this category.

The remaining factors that follow are much more difficult to quantify.

3.) Armed resistance to Muslim encroachment:
It’s safe to say that nearly everyone in the counterjihad movement would perish fighting a Muslim attempt to overrun America or Europe. Worldwide, the numbers would most likely exceed that of the Jews. We’ll place it at a meager 100 million.

4.) Women denied access to medical care:
This is a huge number because, under Islamic law, women would only be able to be seen by female doctors—an exceedingly small fraction of this world’s medical practitioners. We’ll use the figure for global female cancer mortality rates as an example of how reduced early intervention would escalate avoidable deaths, especially among women. That figure amounts to more than 3 million per year.

5.) Liquidation of political prisoners:
Toss in another 10 million dead. Remember, Islam has many enemies, be they perceived or real.

6.) Execution of those who refuse to convert:
We shall use the world’s population of Catholics as a figure representing those who would adamantly refuse to convert or cooperate and be put to death instead. While the number would likely be much higher, this figure approaches over 1 billion.

We now have a total of 1.726 billion people who would die within the first year or so of Islam establishing its global caliphate. This figure is larger than the world’s Muslim population. Millions more would die each year due to Islam’s heavy-handed shari’a law and its excessive demand for capital punishment. Women would keep dying in droves due to the unavailability of female doctors. Emerging homosexuals would be killed as with many other deviants; be they political, religious or otherwise.

Concealed in all this is a small yet meaningful number of so-called “honor killings” that typically involve young Muslim girls or wives who ― through premarital sexual activity or inappropriate dalliances ― have disgraced their families and are put to death for it, typically by their own family members. In a global caliphate, over one million of these murders per year would not be an unexpected figure. Do not think for one moment that Western women would magically be immune from this stricture. Imams and Islamic mutaween (“morals police”) would cheerfully put to death any youthful or adult offenders regardless of their race or belief.

Hidden even deeper in these figures is a calculation which will probably fail to evoke much sympathy amongst knowledgeable Westerners; yet, humanity demands that it be recognized. Should the global Islamic caliphate arrive, there also would be countless more Muslim deaths, just as there are today throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East); except for now these executions would proceed briskly, unfettered by any condemnation from the world community that they, at least marginally, receive today. Rape victims being given lashes or stoned to death and other appalling injustices would flourish.

However crude the above projections are, they do not even account for a world suddenly stripped of many modern technologies considered haram (“forbidden”) by Islam. A sharp drop in agricultural productivity, reduction in medical services ― as noted above ― along with the elimination of food supplies derived from haram animals, such as pigs (including rennet, gelatin, whey and alcohol), would see mass starvations and medically preventable deaths soar upwards. These are just a bare few examples of the unknown death toll that would accompany an Islamic caliphate. Unimaginable as it may seem, imposition of global shari’a could result in the death of up to half this world’s population.

None of this deals with the tremendous loss of Western and world heritage in the form of buildings, monuments, paintings, sculptures, books and priceless documents that would be heaped upon bonfires or pulverized into rubble. The Magna Carta, America’s Constitution plus innumerable other ephemera would go up in smoke. Notre Dame’s fabulous Rose Window would follow the Bamiyan Buddhas into oblivion. They would be just the start of unparalleled and inconceivable vandalism on a global scale.

Rarely, if ever ― even among counterjihad fora ― is there any mention of either the massive death toll or the loss of heritage that would accompany global shari’a law. There remains, especially in the larger public, an almost intentional ignorance of these two devastating potentials. Eventually, in the face of so much stark evidence, it becomes difficult to deny that there exists the will not to believe.

This will not to believe carries its own loathsome price tag. Recent events in Norway show that long before Muslims manage to demographically displace native Europeans there will begin a serious backlash against the Multiculturalists who have imposed this lethal burden upon the West. It is rather doubtful that American and European culture will go quietly into the Politically Correct Islamic night.

Ironically, as Muslims continue to financially drain the West ― through exorbitant military campaigns, increased security measures, petroleum sales and abuse of social benefits in host countries ― they only increase the eventual appeal of cost effective measures that will be required to subdue Islam. There will also come a time when Western nations begin to recoil at the prospect of sending any more soldiers to die for the sake of letting Muslims erect yet another shari’a government and terrorist production facility.

Complicating all of this is how the concept of military deterrence is essentially nonfunctional as regards Islam. A culture that glorifies and worships death is more than difficult to deter. For every bit that the West shrinks from waging Total War, the necessity of posing an existential threat to Islam only increases. When it comes to the ineffectuality of deterrence, no better example exists that of modern day Iran. The ramifications of Ahmadinejad’s tutelage under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pose some serious issues. Recall Khomeini’s words during his 1980 speech in Qom, the Shi’ite spiritual hub:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land [Iran] go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

When Ahmadinejad threatens to “wipe Israel off the map” it is with the implicit knowledge that Iran, as a country, may perish as a result. In effect, he is turning his entire nation into a gigantic suicide bomber. Neither is this the end of it. Iran’s reckless pursuit of genocide against the Jews could precipitate the Muslim holocaust all by itself. Little known to most people is Israel’s Samson Option. If true, the Jewish state has quietly informed its Arab neighbors that a single WMD strike against Israel will result in the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) being incinerated in nuclear plasma. Hundreds of fusion warheads along with newly acquired Dolphin class submarines and cruise missiles back this up.

There is cold comfort in this for Israel but it also has quite worrisome implications for the West. At a recent pan-Arab conference Saudi Arabia’s king essentially told Ahmadinejad to “sit down and shut up” with his genocidal ravings before the entire MME is annihilated. Should he take this admonishment to heart, then the question is beggared as to who else might be targeted for an Iranian nuclear strike.

It bears mentioning how simple statistics indicate that, beyond a certain as yet undetermined number of Islamic nuclear warheads, there emerges a non-zero probability that one or more of them will fall into terrorist hands. Keeping that in mind, America ― better known to Iranians as “The Great Satan” ― suddenly materializes as a grim alternative target to Israel. What’s more, the Obama administration’s abject appeasement of Islam can only have strengthened Muslim perceptions that the United States lacks sufficient political will to respond in kind should it experience a nuclear terrorist attack.

As noted earlier, Obama and most of his cabinet have little to no military experience. With their being so unlettered in war fighting doctrine, could it not be possible that these appeasers might abruptly discover ― after repeated military budget cuts ― that massive nuclear retaliation was their sole playing card? Again, pro-disarmament Liberals rate as the most dangerous kind of “friends” that Islam could have.

Repulsive in the extreme is how truly avoidable this looming Muslim holocaust really is. A far less costly program of “wetwork” style targeted assassinations directed at the top echelons of Islam’s clerical, political, scholastic and financial aristocracy could see global jihad quickly screech to a grinding halt. Information hoarding is a way of life in the MME and even more so with terrorist leaders. Break enough strands in their networks and they will no longer function. A useful side effect of such a program would be to create numerous power vacuums that would draw violent contenders like moths to a candle’s flame. Subsequent infighting might even match the original fallout with equally fruitful results.

As noted in Part II of this essay, Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it. Belmont Club’s Richard Fernandez (Wretchard), was one of the first to note this in his 2003 magnum opus, “The Three Conjectures”:

The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column. They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

It is more than safe to say that an industrially and militarily unlettered Islam is not going to take over the world using such a feeble tool as terrorism. As was also noted in Part II, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast and that pace far outstrips any ability of theirs to perfect the mass production of intricate nuclear weapons nor muster fighting forces of even marginal proficiency. Chronic overreach is a hallmark of Islam and its habit of poking at the Western nuclear dragon with its terrorist pointed wooden stick bodes especially unwell for Muslims everywhere.

Fernandez goes on to observe:

Long before 3,000 New Yorkers died on September 11, Iraq and Iran killed 500,000 Muslims between them. The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Remember that for eight long years, Iran and Iraq fought to a bloody stalemate using chemical weapons and even ten year-old boys as human minesweepers. Less conservative estimates cite up to a million Muslim fatalities with both nations sending the flower of their youth into an insatiable meat grinder. Now, consider how America rolled up Iraq’s sidewalks in two weeks. This is the “reality gap” confronting Islam and its delusory vision of world domination. No such thing will ever happen.

Given that the global caliphate is forever out of reach, whither Islam? What of its obsessive quest for global supremacy? Handily, Israel provides us with a micro synopsis of the macro global problem. Imagine a tiny nation like Costa Rica routinely beating America’s military posterior like a cheap dime store drum. That is the equivalent of Israel defeating the combined military might of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Please remember that, in Arab culture, humiliation is worse than death. Abandoning conventional warfare in favor of terrorism, the Arab nations intentionally selected a strategy of low-intensity conflict whose upper limit would not trigger direct intervention by the global community.

Thus was tiny Israel left alone to defend itself against continuous terrorist attacks the like of which no other nation on earth save, perhaps, India has had to endure. What of the much vaunted peace negotiations; the Oslo “Road Map” and so forth? What about the “land for peace” concessions that Israel has so often made in the pursuit of a negotiated settlement?

Few people understand that any sort of “negotiated peace” with Israel would serve to unravel the entire Islamic Arab consciousness. Reaching even the least sort of peace agreement would be a frank admission that jihad had failed. Furthermore, any recognition of a Jewish state would contravene the genocidal doctrine that is a cornerstone of Islam. Acceptance of Israel’s continued existence contradicts Islamic canon on so many levels that any such thing is unimaginable.

Piled on top of this is Israel’s continuous string of military victories against often overwhelming Arab forces. How then to explain that away without an indisputable annihilation of Israel tucked under their Islamic belt? Deprived of any concrete proof that Islam actually can prevail against the eternally hated Jew, please do not begin to imagine that there will be any near term cessation of hostilities, if ever.

Thus we are presented with the micro model of global terrorism. Withdrawal, surrender, in fact, peace of any sort with Islam is simply out of the question. In reality, Islam offers nothing that remotely resembles an actual “peace treaty”. Instead, there is only hudna, a temporarily cessation of hostilities that is specifically designed to permit Muslims the rearming needed to then break that “truce” at their convenience. Whither Israel … whither the global community where Islam is concerned.

So long as the West does not pose an existential threat to Islam’s continued presence on earth, there will be no accommodation of any sort. This is the bottom line. That degree of political will is sorely lacking in the West and, even if it existed, there is little likelihood that anyone involved would appreciate how any such pact with the unbelievers would be broken at the first instant of advantage for Islam.

Islam has always demanded to be paid in its own bloody coin. Violence is the only tender it recognizes and all other currency is scorned as a coward’s coinage. Hudna, taqiyya and kitman all assure that there is no hope of an honorably negotiated peace. Islam wants no such thing. Global domination is its imperative and any re-scripting of those priorities is simply out of the question.

Hardest of all to remember is that this has been Islam’s central doctrine from the very beginning of its existence. The West’s opposition or threat to Muslims has no bearing on why Islam wages its barbarous terrorism against us. The hammer of violence remains Islam’s only tool and we are all nails in its sight. Islam has already determined how it will end. It is merely a matter of survival for the West and to let Islam’s chips fall where they may. Muslims will forever be cannon fodder for Islam’s eternal jihad. Until they realize this and rebel for once and all time against their warlord masters nothing will ever change.

Remember … as always; Islam wouldn’t have it any other way.

That is how it will end.

Part I: “When Will it End?”

Part II: “Why Will it End?”

Mark Steyn on Free Speech in the West – September 2011

Gramfan — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:36:24 +0000

Using rights to gag free speech

TO be honest, I didn’t really think much about “freedom of speech” until I found myself the subject of three “hate speech” complaints in Canada in 2007.

I mean I was philosophically in favour of it, and I’d been consistently opposed to the Dominion’s ghastly “human rights” commissions and their equivalents elsewhere my entire adult life, and from time to time when an especially choice example of politically correct enforcement came up I’d whack it around for a column or two.

But I don’t think I really understood how advanced the Left’s assault on this core Western liberty actually was.

In 2008, shortly before my writing was put on trial for “flagrant Islamophobia” in British Columbia, several National Review readers e-mailed from the US to query what the big deal was. C’mon, lighten up, what could some “human rights” pseudo-court do? And I replied that the statutory penalty under the British Columbia “Human Rights” Code was that Maclean’s, Canada’s biggest-selling news weekly, and by extension any other publication, would be forbidden henceforth to publish anything by me about Islam, Europe, terrorism, demography, welfare, multiculturalism, and various related subjects.

And that this prohibition would last forever, and was deemed to have the force of a supreme-court decision. I would in effect be rendered unpublishable in the land of my birth. In theory, if a job opened up for dance critic or gardening correspondent, I could apply for it, although if the Royal Winnipeg Ballet decided to offer Jihad: The Ballet for its Christmas season I’d probably have to recuse myself.

And what I found odd about this was that very few other people found it odd at all.

Indeed, the Canadian establishment seems to think it entirely natural that the Canadian state should be in the business of lifetime publication bans, just as the Dutch establishment thinks it entirely natural that the Dutch state should put elected leaders of parliamentary opposition parties on trial for their political platforms, and the French establishment thinks it appropriate for the French state to put novelists on trial for sentiments expressed by fictional characters.

Across almost all the Western world apart from America, the state grows ever more comfortable with micro-regulating public discourse-and, in fact, not-so-public discourse: Lars Hedegaard, head of the Danish Free Press Society, has been tried, been acquitted, had his acquittal overruled, and been convicted of “racism” for some remarks about Islam’s treatment of women made (so he thought) in private but taped and released to the world.

The Rev. Stephen Boissoin was convicted of the heinous crime of writing a homophobic letter to his local newspaper and was sentenced by Lori Andreachuk, Alberta’s “human rights” commissar, to a lifetime prohibition on uttering anything “disparaging” about homosexuality ever again in sermons, in newspapers, on radio-or in private emails. Note that legal concept: not “illegal” or “hateful,” but merely “disparaging.”

Dale McAlpine, a practicing (wait for it) Christian, was handing out leaflets in the English town of Workington and chit-chatting with shoppers when he was arrested on a “public order” charge by Constable Adams, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community-outreach officer. Mr. McAlpine had been overheard by the officer to observe that homosexuality is a sin. “I’m gay,” said Constable Adams. Well, it’s still a sin, Mr McAlpine said. So Constable Adams arrested him for causing distress to Constable Adams.

In fairness, I should add that Mr McAlpine was also arrested for causing distress to members of the public more generally, and not just to the aggrieved gay copper. No member of the public actually complained, but, as Constable Adams pointed out, Mr McAlpine was talking “in a loud voice” that might theoretically have been “overheard by others.” And we can’t have that, can we? So he was fingerprinted, DNA-sampled, and tossed in the cells for seven hours.

In such a climate, time-honored national characteristics are easily extinguished.

A generation ago, even Britain’s polytechnic Trots and Marxists were sufficiently residually English to feel the industrial-scale snitching by family and friends that went on in Communist Eastern Europe was not quite cricket, old boy.

Now England is Little Stasi-on-Avon, a land where, even if you’re well out of earshot of the gay-outreach officer, an infelicitous remark in the presence of a co-worker or even co-playmate is more than sufficient….

Read it all in The Australian

Rumsfeld’s Biggest Regret: Bush Administration Too Politically Correct to Name the Enemy: Radical Islam

1389 — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:45:16 +0000

Gee, ya think?

Gates of Vienna: Tongue-Tied

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld discusses America’s failure to name the enemy:

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video.

I would go much further than this.

The concept of “radical” versus “moderate” Islam is bogus.

From MEMRI:

Turkish PM Erdogan: The Term “Moderate Islam” Is Ugly And Offensive; There Is No Moderate Islam; Islam Is Islam

Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007

Here’s the problem:

“We don’t want to be seen as against a religion.”

But what if our opponents’ “religion” requires them to be against us? What if their ideology requires them to be in a permanent state of war against us “unbelievers”?

Islam is not a religion in the sense that our Founders understood a religion to be. Islam is an expansionist, enemy, totalitarian political ideology that seeks to annihilate everything outside of itself. Islam no more deserves the protection of the US Constitution than Nazism or Stalinism did.

This political correctness, this refusal to name our enemy and to defeat it both on the battlefield and in the marketplace of ideas, will eventually destroy us and everything that we stand for.

It is time to stop calling Islam a religion, and start calling it an ideology.

September 11, 2001 – Ten Years On

1389 — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:02:13 +0000

Please visit these links:

Blogmocracy: September 11, 2001
Gates of Vienna: The Other September 11th
In 1683; h/t The Osprey.
Mark Steyn: From “Let’s Roll” to “Let’s Roll Over”
Noisy Room: Father of Flight 93 Hero Todd Beamer Reflects on Son Storming Cockpit, Shouting ‘Let’s Roll’
Bruce Bawer: 9-11 and the Pastness of the Past
Bawer explains how the legacy and memory of 9-11-01 has been spun and misused.
Winds of Jihad: Ten Years Later: Stand for freedom and against the deception and lies being used to subdue us!
Winds of Jihad: Never Forget 9-11
Hillel Stavis: How Harvard Remembered 9-11
Corruption comes to Harvard via Alwaleed Bin Talal’s Islamic Studies Program.
Barry Rubin: Ten Years After September 11: Who’s Really Winning the War On Terrorism?
First of all, ‘terrorism’ is not the name of a foe, but a tactic.
See-Dubya: Ten years on at the 9-11 7-11
This particular 7-11 has a dark reputation…

Eonia i mnimi, Memory eternal

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by donjose1949 on May 1, 2009

Memory eternal, Eonia i mnimi, the Phaeacian chorus, Stelio Scordilis, dir. Sts Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Cathedral in Honolulu – Hawaii. The 9/11 Memorial concert, September 8, 2002.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by johnvfc on Mar 30, 2010

Extract from Christian Orthodox Memorial Service for the departed Mnimosino – Eulogitaria

Viktor Wichniakov and the orthodox Choir – Eternal memory

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by MusashiTzu on Sep 20, 2008

Never heard a more uplifting piece of choir music!