Culture, politics, science, philosophy.
General manifesto *****
The deep Crisis of the West
A Conversation about Race
30.04.2009. Craig Bodeker has created an excellent documentary about attitudes towards race and racism currently found in the USA. Some very thought provoking excerpts of his film A Conversation about Race are available from YouTube. Highly recommended.
Tops European Rape League
29.04.2009. Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe - twice as many as "runner up" the UK, a new study shows.
Researchers behind the EU study, which will be presented on Tuesday, conclude that rape appears to be a more common occurrence in Sweden than in continental European countries.
In Sweden, 46 incidents of rape are reported per 100,000 residents.
This figure is double as many as in the UK which reports 23 cases, and four times that of the other Nordic countries, Germany and France. The figure is up to 20 times the figure for certain countries in southern and eastern Europe.
The study, which is financed by the Brussels-based EU fund Daphne II, compared how the respective judicial systems managed rape cases across eleven EU countries. Sweden is shown in an unfavourable light, according to the study.
Continue reading in The Local. See also Fjordman's comments at GoV.
A disgrace to Western civilization
28.04.2009. Writes Edward Keenan in Eyeweekly.com:
The [Human Rights Commissions] system itself is offensive to basic principles of justice. Despite the grandiose label of “human rights” under which it is conducted, it pretty much takes a blowtorch to the “Fundamental,” “Legal” and “Democratic” rights guaranteed by and enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and makes a mockery of 400 years of legal protections built up through civil law.
One could go on and on about the absurd judgments this system renders, giving tens of thousands of dollars in awards to plaintiffs who are clearly more in need of psychological help than of justice, and in Shakedown, Levant does. He suggests the wholesale dismantling of the Commissions. And I see no reason to disagree with him. There is no right that cannot be adequately guaranteed by our traditional court system. The well-intentioned attempt to create a quick, hassle-free venue for ensuring victims of prohibited discrimination get justice has created a trail of outrageous injustice. And the very persistence of such a system undermines our entire justice system and makes a mockery of the commitment to human rights they claim to defend. We should dismantle the human-rights commission apparatus, as soon as possible.
See also my posting from August 2008: Punished first, acquitted later.
No-go zones for Dutch journalists
26.04.2009. A large majority of Dutch journalists say that they no longer work in certain neighbourhoods because they fear they will be targets for violence, shows a survey held on behalf of journalists' union NVJ. Continue reading in NIS News.
HonestThinking comments: And what do the Dutch multiculturalists think a continued development in this general direction is going to do for the Dutch democracy?
The new fascism
26.04.2009. Writes Dr Aidan Rankin in an article at the Cliff Edge Signalling Company web site:
When I hear the word 'fascist', I do not think of the assorted pub bores or the few full-blooded bigots who are the stereotypical activists of the 'far right'. Nor do I think of half-drunk, testosterone-driven skinheads in tight-fitting jeans or combat trousers, bawling out anti-immigrant slogans richly spiced with obscenity. Least of all do I think of the thousands of disgruntled Labour supporters, ordinary men and women in working class enclaves, who have given the British National Party its newfound electoral clout. None of these people are fascists, in any meaningful sense of the word. They are victims rather than aggressors - victims of failed liberal social experiments, heartless economic programmes and, above all perhaps, of betrayal by a Labour movement that was set up specifically to defend them.
The left, and many bien pensant liberals and Tories with them, would like us to visualise fascists as aggrieved, poorly educated working class whites - white males in particular, since they are a double negative for the Politically Correct. Such progressives (as they invariably call themselves) use accusations of racism and fascism as excuses to bully and oppress impoverished white communities and isolate them in racially based ghettos. For white liberals, anti-racism becomes a form of auto-racism, directed at members of their own race who are deemed to be socially inferior. It is, in other words, a new type of snobbery and social exclusion. Likewise, the true heirs to fascism are not skinheads, bigots, or BNP-voting former socialists. They are the BNP's sworn enemies, the 'anti-fascist' shock troops of the left, whose slogans of contrived defiance, melodramatic gesture politics and emotional blackmail reach far beyond the Marxist coteries where they originate.
At Burnley, where the BNP made its strongest local government gains this year, the paradox of anti-fascism was apparent in a demonstration by the Anti-Nazi League, images of which were widely disseminated in the press. Piously anti-racist and inclusive, the protesters were overwhelmingly white and middle-class. Proclaiming the virtues of tolerance, their eyes shone with the purity of hatred that is the prerogative of extremists the world over. In that almost archetypal left-wing demo, the chants and clenched fists of the scruffy young men, the screams and hot tears of the even scruffier women, the banners calling for political parties to be suppressed (in the name of tolerance, presumably) expressed something larger than a Lancastrian quirk. For anti-fascists base their campaigns on a sense of outrage that anyone, anywhere should dare to disagree with them. In their appeal to feeling over reason, force over argument, such activists resemble most those phantom Nazis they are claiming to 'fight'. This is why, in a stroke of post-modern irony, anti-fascism is the new fascism. [...]
Anti-fascism shares with its alleged opposite a belief in the cleansing or redemptive power of violence. They share as well an obsessive preoccupation with race. Indeed it could be said that organisations like Searchlight and the ANL do more than even the BNP to keep racial awareness alive. Both fascism and anti-fascism are uncompromisingly modernist movements, concerned with narrow categorisation and so unsuited to a post-modern age of complexity and permutation. Searchlight, for example, was horrified when some Hindu and Sikh community workers refused to be classified alongside Muslims as 'Asians'. Here were ethnic minorities daring to defy the pressure group definitions. In reality, the violence and nihilism of anti-fascist activists are almost laughably remote from the conservatism of most ethnic minority populations.
It is easy, and tempting, at times, to dismiss anti-fascism as a peripheral fringe interest, irrelevant to our lives and thoughts. However its crocodile-tear appeals are in some ways more effective than those of the more traditional far left. Anti-fascists claim to be opposing a political evil. In so doing, they evoke memories of that evil and the wrong done to millions of our fellow human beings. Many people of good will, therefore, fail to see that they are being manipulated. This is why ritual denunciations and balkanising 'group rights' are in danger of pervading public life. The subjectivist definition of a racist incident in the MacPherson Report - any incident that the victim or anyone else 'perceives' as racist - has all the totalitarian characteristics of anti-fascist anti-fascism, yet few dare to describe it as totalitarian for fear that they might be smeared as 'racist'. Likewise, the attempts of New Labour apparatchiks to unearth political 'information' about the Paddington rail crash survivors had all the furtive and perverse instincts of a Searchlight campaign. Such influences have touched conservative politics as well. In the interests of inclusiveness, the Tories tend increasingly towards reverse discrimination and group rights, forgetting that many black and Asian people want freedom from racial politics.
Anti-fascism, like its fascist precursor, is primarily anti-human and misanthropic. It despises its supposed constituents as much as its sworn enemies, and has a vested interest in promoting racial conflict. When we recognise that fascists and anti-fascists are as one, their rhetoric of hatred will lose its power.
Read the entire article (also available from Conservative Democratic Alliance - CDA).
HonestThinking comments: This is a great article containing many important points, and I am happy to recommend it to my readers. However, it appears that Aidan Rankin, like so many other critics of the currently prevailing ideology, considers issues having to do with race and human nature to be of little or no importance. If so, let me suggest that he reads up on some of the relevant literature. The following high quality books would be a good place to start:
Turning to the right?
23.04.2009. Writes Bruce Bawer in the Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):
When the New Left emerged in the 1960s, something else was born that would mark American elites for decades thereafter: the notion that social-democratic Western Europe was far superior to the capitalist United States. Pity the poor American professor whose every junket to a European academic conference was marred by his continental colleagues' sneering over cocktails about his nation's shame du jour—Vietnam, Watergate, Iraq—or about American racism, capital punishment or health care. For much of the American left, Western Europe was nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia.
This rosy view was never accurate, of course. Europe's socialized health care was blighted by outrageous (and sometimes deadly) waiting lists and rationing, to name just one example. To name another: Timbro, a Swedish think tank, found in 2004 that Sweden was poorer than all but five U.S. states and Denmark poorer than all but nine. But in recent years, something has happened to complicate the left's fanciful picture even further: Western European voters' widespread reaction against social democracy.
The shift has two principal, and related, causes. The more significant one is that over the past three decades, social-democratic Europe's political, cultural, academic and media elites have presided over, and vigorously defended, a vast wave of immigration from the Muslim world—the largest such influx in human history. According to Foreign Affairs, Muslims in Western Europe numbered between 15 million and 20 million in 2005. One source estimates that Britain's Muslim population rose from about 82,000 in 1961 to 553,000 in 1981 to two million in 2000—a demographic change roughly representative of Western Europe as a whole during that period. According to the London Times, the number of Muslims in the U.K. climbed by half a million between 2004 and 2008 alone—a rate of growth 10 times that of the rest of the country's population.
Yet instead of encouraging these immigrants to integrate and become part of their new societies, Western Europe's governments have allowed them to form self-segregating parallel societies run more or less according to Shariah. Many of the residents of these patriarchal enclaves subsist on government benefits, speak the language of their adopted country poorly or not at all, despise pluralistic democracy, look forward to Europe's incorporation into the House of Islam, and support—at least in spirit—terrorism against the West. A 2006 Sunday Telegraph poll, for example, showed that 40% of British Muslims wanted Shariah in Britain, 14% approved of attacks on Danish embassies in retribution for the famous Mohammed cartoons, 13% supported violence against those who insulted Islam, and 20% sympathized with the July 2005 London bombers.
Too often, such attitudes find their way into practice. Ubiquitous youth gangs, contemptuous of infidels, have made European cities increasingly dangerous for non-Muslims—especially women, Jews and gays. In 2001, 65% of rapes in Norway were committed by what the country's police call "non-Western" men—a category consisting overwhelmingly of Muslims, who make up just 2% of that country's population. In 2005, 82% of crimes in Copenhagen were committed by members of immigrant groups, the majority of them Muslims.
Non-Muslims aren't the only targets of Muslim violence. A mountain of evidence suggests that the rates of domestic abuse in these enclaves are astronomical. In Germany, reports Der Spiegel, "a disproportionately high percentage of women who flee to women's shelters are Muslim"; in 2006, 56% of the women at Norwegian shelters were of foreign origin; Deborah Scroggins wrote in The Nation in 2005 that "Muslims make up only 5.5 percent of the Dutch population, but they account for more than half the women in battered women's shelters." Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-Dutch advocate for democracy and women's rights, would no doubt say far more than half: When she was working with women in Dutch shelters, she writes, "there were hardly any white women" in them, "only women from Morocco, from Turkey, from Afghanistan—Muslim countries—alongside some Hindu women from Surinam." When she and filmmaker Theo van Gogh tried to highlight the mistreatment of women under Islam in the 2004 film "Submission: Part I," he was killed by a young Muslim extremist.
More and more Western Europeans, recognizing the threat to their safety and way of life, have turned their backs on the establishment, which has done little or nothing to address these problems, and begun voting for parties—some relatively new, and all considered right-wing—that have dared to speak up about them. One measure of the dimensions of this shift: Owing to the rise in gay-bashings by Muslim youths, Dutch gays—who 10 years ago constituted a reliable left-wing voting bloc—now support conservative parties by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.
The other major reason for the turn against the left is economic. Western Europeans have long paid sky-high taxes for a social safety net that seems increasingly not worth the price. These taxes have slowed economic growth. Timbro's Johnny Munkhammar noted in 2005 that Sweden, for instance, which in the first half of the 20th century had the world's second-highest growth rate, had since fallen to No. 14, owing to enormous tax hikes.
Government revenues in Western Europe go largely to support the unemployed, thus discouraging work. Over the last decade or so, the overall unemployment rate in the EU 15—that is, Western Europe—has hovered at about 2.5 to 3 points higher than in the United States. In France and Germany, it has ascended into the double digits (and that was before the global financial crisis that began in 2008). Western Europe's rate of long-term unemployment has consistently been several times higher than America's, denoting the presence of a sizable minority either permanently jobless or working off the books, often for family businesses, while collecting unemployment benefits.
These two factors—immigration and the economy—are intimately connected. For while some immigrant groups in Europe, such as Hindus and East Asians, enjoy relatively low unemployment rates and healthy incomes, the largest immigrant group, Muslims, has become such a burden that governments have made extensive cutbacks in public services in order to keep up with welfare payments—closing clinics and emergency rooms, reducing staff in hospitals, cutting police and military spending, eliminating course offerings at public universities, and so on. According to a report issued last year by the think tank Contribuables Associés, immigration reduces France's economic growth by two-thirds. In 2002, economist Lars Jansson estimated that immigration cost Swedish taxpayers about $27 billion annually and that fully 74% of immigrant-group members in Sweden lived off the taxpayers. And in 2006, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise warned that Norway's petroleum fund—which contains the massive profits from North Sea oil that have made the nation rich—could wind up drained to cover outlays to immigrants. (This in a country whose roads, as a report last year indicated, are in worse shape than Albania's.)
The past few decades in Europe have made three things crystal-clear. First, social-democratic welfare systems work best, to the extent they do work, in ethnically and culturally homogeneous (and preferably small) nations whose citizens, viewing one another as members of an extended family, are loath to exploit government provisions for the needy. Second, the best way to destroy such welfare systems is to take in large numbers of immigrants from poor, oppressive and corruption-ridden societies, whose rule of the road is to grab everything you can get your hands on. And third, the system will be wiped out even faster if many of those immigrants are fundamentalist Muslims who view bankrupting the West as a contribution to jihad. Add to all this the growing power of an unelected European Union bureaucracy that has encouraged Muslim immigration and taken steps to punish criticism of it—criminalizing "incitement of racism, xenophobia or hatred against a racial, ethnic or religious group" in 2007, for example—and you can start to understand why Western Europeans who prize their freedoms are resisting the so-called leadership of their see-no-evil elites.
The same kind of incendiary rhetoric that Dutch journalists used against Fortuyn can now be seen in American left-wing coverage of any nonsocialist European party or politician. Typical was Gary Younge's 2007 piece in The Nation: "In Europe, It's the Old Right That's Full of Hate." According to Younge, "the primary threat to democracy in Europe is not 'Islamofascism' . . . but plain old fascism. The kind whereby mostly white Europeans take to the streets to terrorize minorities." This was nonsense on a breathtaking scale: Though the rise of parties like the BNP is indeed distressing, the truth remains that for every act of anti-Muslim violence in Europe, there are—to make an exceedingly conservative guess—100 acts of Muslim-on-infidel violence.
Who will win the war for the soul of Western Europe? The Islamofascists and their multiculturalist appeasers, many of whom seem to believe that their job is not to defend democracy but to help make the transition to Shariah as smooth as possible? The nativist cryptofascists? Or Pim Fortuyn's freedom-loving heirs? Interestingly, while Western Europeans have been heading in one direction, Americans have chosen to go the other way, replacing a president more loathed by the European elite than any in history with a man whom the same elite has celebrated to an unprecedented degree, often depicting his election as a mystical act of atonement for all of America's past sins, real or imagined.
The final question, then, is whether the Western European left's condescension toward America, and the American left's habit of holding Western Europe up as a socialist paradise, can survive the combination of Europe's right turn and the elevation of Barack Obama. Stir in the international financial crisis, which will almost certainly cause a socioeconomic upheaval of untold dimensions in both hemispheres, and it seems reasonable to expect that the old pattern may be broken for good. Meaning that American professors will have a far less stressful time of it at European cocktail parties—at least until Shariah comes along and forbids cocktails entirely.
Read the entire article by Bawer in the Wall Street Journal.
Evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state
22.04.2009. Writes Hal G. P. Colebatch in The Australian:
BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.
There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.
Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution's principal tasks was "to alter people's actual psychology". Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people's psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.
The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years' prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the "global baggage of empire" was linked to soccer violence by "racist and xenophobic white males". He claimed the English "propensity for violence" was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were "potentially very aggressive".
In the past 10 years I have collected reports of many instances of draconian punishments, including the arrest and criminal prosecution of children, for thought-crimes and offences against political correctness. [...]
This campaign seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in a fudged and deniable manner.
Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together - and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day - they add up to a pretty clear picture.
To see some thought provoking examples of British thought police going bananas, read the entire article in The Australian.
HonestThinking comments: Unfortunately, we are likely to see similar trends in most or all Western countries, as citizens get more and more frustrated with the general developments of our failing political systems, and the elite employs ever more draconian measures to shut up their critics.
The Jews of our times?
22.04.2009. It is often claimed that Muslims are the Jews of our times. Robert Spencer has the following comment:
An obscene comparison. Six million Jews were murdered in Europe. No one is calling for any Muslim to be murdered, or anything close to that, and to frame the debate in those terms is simply an attempt to divert attention away from real concerns about Sharia supremacism. Jews had never proclaimed they were going to conquer Europe and subjugate non-Jews under the rule of Jewish law. Many, many Muslims have proclaimed that the Islamic conquest of Europe is imminent. To speak out against that, and in favor of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and the non-establishment of religion in society is not to call for anyone to be killed.
Inscribed on genes?
20.04.2009. Ashkenazi Jews have a higher rate of some deadly genetic diseases -- and of high IQs. Scientists Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending say that's no coincidence. Read the article in Los Angeles Times.
Hypocrisy and indoctrination in American academia
19.04.2009. Speech codes. Censorship. Enforced political conformity. Hostility to diversity of opinion. Sensitivity training. We usually associate such things with the worst excesses of fascism and communism, not with the American universities that nurtured the free speech movement. But American higher education bears a disturbing resemblance to the totalitarian societies that are anathema to our nation's ideal of liberty. Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary film, Indoctrinate U, reveals the breathtaking institutional intolerance you won't read about in the glossy marketing brochures of Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan, Yale, and hundreds of other American colleges and universities. See the 80 minutes or so film Indoctrinate U (YouTube), and also make sure you see the film's director Evan Coyne Maloney interviewed by Lou Dobbs on CNN.
HonestThinking comments: Islam is not our main enemy; dishonest thinking is.
Tale of the two buglers
19.04.2009. While I take issue with some of the things Takuan Seiyo keeps saying about Islam and Muslims, I strongly recommend his series From Meccania to Atlantis. I found the following paragraphs from his latest essay particularly thought provoking:
Islam is everything bad its critics say it is. But one who has visited extensively in Muslim countries – and I have – returns home from some of them wishing he’d been able to import some of their features. Consider this:
- Which Muslim country is sick enough to encourage immigration by Christians, let alone welfare-consuming Christians, subsidize Christian churches, cower before Christian dissidents who despise their host society and its religion?
- Which Muslim head of state or potentate is so gelded as to state that if enough of his state’s subjects want to institute Christian (or just Western) jurisprudence instead of the law of the land, he sees no reason to object?
- Which Muslim country is lunatic enough to adopt on a wide scale the prima facie madness of denying the most obvious truths about racial, gender and cultural differences – and spending trillions (in euros, dollars, anything) to build a sham palace of cards in public education, employment and immigration based on those mad presuppositions?
- Which Muslim society is stupid enough to fail to understand how profoundly it differs from the West and from the West’s “infidel?” Which is ravaged by the Western virus to such an extent it fails to understand that its identity, its soul, depends on a vigilant rejection of the West’s culture and values, while recognizing that its economic well being depends on playing a game of cooperation?
- Find a single Muslim head of state who goes out of his way to explain that Christianity is the religion of peace, and that Crusader really means someone who likes to cruise. [...]
- Take a walk on the beach in Qatar or Abu Dhabi at 2 AM, and observe how a crowd of families with little children picnics happily and safely under the open skies. Then go back to Marseille or Rotterdam, Coney Island or Santa Monica, bring your wife and kids and two sets of old parents for a 2 AM picnic on the beach, and see what happens.
This does not imply that Islam is the cure for the West’s ills. The West has its own nonpareil system of recognizing and acknowledging reality. It’s called empiricism. The West had its own immune mechanism, its own unequalled culture, its own historical laboratory where the tried turned true. And all these were better than what Islam offers.
But we have allowed our own ruling elites to destroy these mechanisms here, whereas the Muslims preserved theirs. Some measure of respect is called for, concomitant with recognizing how indispensable it is that the West shake off its entire Mad Legume top layer.
Seiyo's concluding paragraphs are great (emphasis added):
Leaving aside frothing supremacist wannabe Nazis, in the entire West there are at most five names of public resonance who speak up for the right and duty of the countries of the white peoples, with their own gene pool and a great and distinct history and culture anchored in Jerusalem–Athens-Rome, to remain as a cradle of that gene pool and culture. This is “racist” territory, far more dangerous to those who tread there than mere “Islamophobia.”
And yet, doom is inevitable unless Western political leaders arise who are reasonable, humane, respectful to other races and cultures, but have the courage to state that if the 60+ million Muslim colonizers of the West were Hindus from Karnataka or (hypothetical) Ultra-Orthodox Hassidic Jews, or Africans, their admission into the West still would have been a disastrous mistake and a demographic crime.
As the Sci-Fi writer Philip Dick quipped, Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Either we shall learn to deal with Reality, or we will be gone away. Reality will remain.
Abdullah Al-Nafisi calls for murder of millions of Americans
15.04.2009. On Al-Jazeera TV, 2 February, Kuwaiti professor Abdullah Al-Nafisi said the following:
Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the US, are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there. What a horrifying idea. 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings, and so on. One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this “confetti” all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real “celebration.”
The WMD is a problem. The Americans are afraid that the WMDs might fall into the hands of “terrorist” organizations, like Al-Qaeda and others. There is good reason for the Americans’ fears, because Al-Qaeda used to have in the Herat region… It had laboratories in north Afghanistan. They have scientists, chemists, and nuclear physicists. They are nothing like they are portrayed by these mercenary journalists – backward Bedouins living in caves. No, no. By no means. This kind of talk can fool only naïve people. People who follow such things know that Al-Qaeda has laboratories, just like Hizbullah. Hizbullah has laboratories in South Lebanon, in which it produces weapons and sells them. Hizbullah has laboratories in South Lebanon, from which it sells weapons to Romania and Hungary.
If they call someone a terrorist, say: “He’s a friend of mine.” Why? Because these “terrorists” are the world’s most God-fearing people. They are the most honorable people in the world, the best people in the world. I have personally met Mullah Omar. I had the honor of meeting with Mullah Omar. This is a man who does not belong to this era. He always refused to meet with Western delegations. He would say to them: “Go to Kabul, I am in Qandahar.” “Truly, the polytheists are impure” – if you know what I mean. “Go meet the foreign minister to talk politics. I am staying here.” This is the kind of people who are suitable for dealing with the West. As for ‘Ariqat, Dahlan, and their ilk – they do not benefit the nation in any way.
In the US, there are more than 300,000 white militia members, who are calling to attack the federal government in Washington, and to banish the Arabs, the Jews, and the negroes [sic] from the US. These are racist people. They are called “rednecks.” The Ku Klux Klan. They are racists. … These militias even think about bombing nuclear plants within the US. May Allah grant them success, even though we are not white, or even close to it, right? They have plans to bomb the nuclear plant at Lake Michigan. This plant is very important. It supplies electricity to all of North Africa [sic]. May Allah grant success to one of these militia leaders, who is thinking about bombing this plant. I believe that we should devote part of our prayers to him. We should pray that Allah grants him success, so he can complete this mission, and we will be able to visit him and congratulate him, Allah willing.
Allah states in the Koran that the hostility between us and [the Jews] is eternal. So whoever talks about dialogue – cut off his tongue! What dialogue are they talking about?! There is no room for dialogue. Allah said that our hostility towards the Jews is eternal, and then along comes someone and talks about brotherhood and so on… This contradicts the Koran. Anyone who contradicts the Koran is an infidel. Accusing people of heresy? Yes, I’m all for it. Yes, I support accusing people of heresy.
We should also defend the resistance, and not remain silent in the face of this organized campaign against the resistance in the press of the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf, and other Arab newspapers. There are voices expressing doubts about the leaders of the resistance. We must confront these [journalists], and prevent them from continuing this, even if it means calling them over the phone, and saying to them: “Do not repeat these despicable things in your columns or your articles, or else we will take the following measures against you.” We must resort to pressure with these people. We must not remain silent. We must not leave them to their own devices, under the pretext of freedom of expression. This is a fifth column.
I, Abdallah Fahd Abd Al-’Aziz Al-Nafisi, am inciting you to confront, using any means possible, anyone who speaks out against the resistance. “Any means possible” – get it?
This speech is available from YouTube (the two links basically gives the same contents):
Here are some articles providing background on him:
Apparently Dr Al-Nafisi is by many considered to be moderate and somewhat liberal.
Sheik Taj Din al Halaly in Australia caught out
15.04.2009. Do not miss this pearl of a video from Channel 9 Sydney. One wonders why such a disgraceful event does not cause more of an outcry. Where are all the journalists whose job it is to disclose dishonesty wherever it is found among people in power? And why does not the entire Muslim community in Australia turn their back on this guy?
Policeman “harms image” of bus company
14.04.2009. A six-minute video from a surveillance camera, showing an attack on a young white man in a Parisian bus, during the night of December 6-7, 2008, has aroused a tsunami of reactions throughout the French-language Internet. At François Desouche there are almost 2000 comments to the video, not to mention other sites.
The reaction was so overwhelming that censorship of the video by both Daily Motion and YouTube was easily foreseeable. FDS decided, therefore, to use a Russian version on RuTube. Click here to view the video.
The reason for the explosion of reactions, most of them expressing outrage at what happened on the bus, is that this is a racist attack by dark-skinned individuals (whose faces are visible) on a white man. Since the French State vigorously opposes racism "in all its forms", it remains to be seen if this crime is ever designated as a "hate" crime against a white man.
Some were shocked by the video because the faces were visible – normally this is not permitted. Hence the censorship of the video. Continue reading at the Brussels Journal. See also Stockholm Syndrome Goes Paris: Violent Bus Ride – The Victim Speaks.
An alternative view
04.04.2009. This article, which The Salisbury Review published in 1984, cost Ray Honeyford his job as a head teacher. For speaking the truth, he was subjected to a long, bitter campaign, including death threats and other forms of persecution, orchestrated by an assortment of vehement idealogues. Twenty-two years on, the Review says that it "salutes Mr Honeyford's courage and intellectual integrity, which has been so clearly vindicated by recent events". With the magazine's permission, The Telegraph exclusively republishes Mr Honeyford's observations.
HonestThinking comments: This is yet another demonstration of what antiracism is all about, viz. denial of reality and the unabashed use of terror methods to prevent people from speaking the truth. Antiracism is a totalitarian and destructive ideology that will ruin any society that fails to uproot it in time. Tragically, this ideology has infiltrated large portions of the political spectrum in most Western countries, and we will all pay dearly for this. The price we have to pay will increase for each year that passes without an end being put to the lies and the moral hypocrisy.
Students push UCLA to expand terms of ethnic identification
02.04.2009. Now several UCLA student groups -- including Arabs, Iranians, Afghanis and Armenians -- have launched a campaign to add a Middle Eastern category, with various subgroups, to the University of California admissions application. They hope to emulate the Asian Pacific Coalition's "Count Me In" campaign, which a few years ago successfully lobbied for the inclusion of 23 ethnic categories on the UC application, including Hmong, Pakistani, Native Hawaiian and Samoan. The UCLA students said having their own ethnic designation has real implications for the Middle Eastern communities. The "white" label can hurt them with universities and companies that use the information to promote diversity, they say. Continue reading in Los Angeles Times.
HonestThinking comments: This is an interesting admission that being white, or being considered white, is a disadvantage in the USA.
Permalinks to older articles