Friday, May 30, 2008


Stop Iran
This message comes from an Iranian ex-Muslim and lover of freedom in London. Another free thinker and man of integrity is to be executed in Iran in the coming days.

It is with great regret that I inform all freedom loving people of the world that the Mullahs' terrorist regime is about to execute one of Iran's finest thinkers, a true patriot, scholar and historian. Dr. Foroud Fouladvand is a dedicated monarchist, a Ferdousi expert as well as expert on the history of Iran and Islam.

A confirmed report sent to the office of Dr. Fouladvand in London from inside Iran suggests that Dr. Fouladvand and two of his compatriots are going to be executed on Saturday, May 31, 2008 or possibly even sooner.

The two men to be executed alongside Dr. Fouladvand are Mr. Nazem Schmidtt, an Iranian/American citizen, aka Simorgh, and Mr. Alexander Valizadeh, an Iranian/ German citizen, aka Koroush Lor. Dr. Fouladvand, a British citizen, was known throughout the Iranian community for his open criticism of Islam and the Mullah's tyranny.

An expert on Islam, Fouladvand openly challenged the Qur'an in his daily television broadcasts for listeners both inside and outside Iran. His Television discussions were offensive to the Mullahs. On March 10, 2006, in a preplanned action, about 65 of his supporters refused to leave a Lufthansa plane in protest of the European Union's policy of appeasement of the Mullahs' regime.

Dr. Fouladvand was led to believe by an agent of the Mullahs' regime posing as a monarchist activist from within Iran that there were many Iranian patriots inside Iran who believed in him, and that a meeting with them would be fruitful in organizing and uniting people inside Iran to oppose the Mullahs. On October 13, 2006, Dr. Fouladvand and a number of his friends, including the above-named men, left London for the Turkish/Iranian border. The last news of Dr. Fouladvand's whereabouts was on January 17, 2007, when he was expected to meet the supposedly Iranian activists in the Kurdish province of Hakkary in Iraq, which is close to the Iranian border.

In January 2007, the agents of the Mullahs' secret police arrested and smuggled these three men into Iran, where they were imprisoned and were subjected to torture.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, May 29, 2008


AN EXHIBITION DEDICATED to the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, known in her later years for a fiercely anti-Islamic stance, has gone on display at Nobel Peace Center exhibition hall in Norway's capital city of Oslo.

The exhibition includes an article by Fallaci titled "Islam as an Enemy," while movies screened within the exhibition hall portray Islam as a dangerous religion. The exhibition, in which the Quran is defined by Fallaci as "the most dangerous book ever written," drew immediate reaction from Muslim visitors.

Nobel Peace Center Director Bente Erichsen spoke to the Cihan news agency and explained that the exhibition had been held within the scope of freedom of expression. Erichsen said they welcome everybody's ideas and added: "We have hosted the ideas of many people, whether we liked their ideas or not, in our exhibition hall. This is the realization of our perception of freedom of expression."

Fallaci generated great controversy in the Islamic world when she wrote an article about Islam in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Erichsen noted freedom of expression was letting people say whatever they want to say and added, "We need to give this opportunity to Italian journalist Fallaci, too, even if we do not like her ideas."

Fallaci died on Sept. 15, 2006 at the age of 77. The Italian journalist was famed for her interviews and war reports but became notorious in later life for her Islamophobia. At the time of her death she faced trial in her native Italy on charges of vilifying Islam.

What a crock! To be put on trial for outing an enemy force in one's own native land. When Saudi Arabia arrests a hooded goon in their sandbox for villifying, oh, I don't know, how about Christianity, how about Judaism, how about Buddhism? And this fellow Erichsen is a coward and a phoney. Free speech, watch your step!

Labels: , , ,

Monday, May 26, 2008


"Some cultures do not compromise. Take the example of Islam. Islam is now culture, now religion, now political system and now race. It can be anything, depending on the situation. However, Islam cannot change. You cannot water it down, reform it or modernize it. The Qu'ran is emphatic that Islam is perfect (Q: 5:3). No Muslim will tolerate reforming his religion that was perfected by God. Consequently, the only culture that will have to give in to the point of extinction will be the Western culture."

Ali Sina

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, May 24, 2008


Here is a riveting talk in Europe given by Serge Trifkovic at the Antijihad Conference in Vienna on May 10-11, taken from Gates of Vienna.

The Bellicose Augur is running this speech because Serge understands that the real enemy is the dhimmi amongst us, amongst us as traitors. The speech was given on Vienna, May 10, 2008.

"Europe today is a powder keg," Otto von Bismarck remarked , "and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal."

I am not going to waste your time tonight with yet another treatise on why Islam is not the Religion of Peace, Tolerance, Compassion, etc, etc. We are beyond that. Had America agonized, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, whether Shinto was actually OK but only Bushido was bad, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere would be going strong to this day. Among reasonable people, unblinkered by the dicta of political correctitude, the real score on Muhammad and his followers is well known. It has been known for centuries. That score, however, no matter how calmly stated and comprehensively supported, invariably elicits the howls of "Islamophobia" from the neoliberal elite class.


In the way of an introduction, let us therefore look at the formal, legally tested definition of that word, the latest addition to the arsenal of postmodern "phobias." It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based here in Vienna. ("Orwellian" is a worn-out adjective, but it simply has to be used in connection with this particular institution.) The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of "Islamophobia" all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and "Other."
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Discriminatory practices and Muslims' exclusion from mainstream society are advocated.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. As it happens...

1. That Islam is static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an internal, orthodox critique of jihad, sharia, jizya, etc. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, "Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action." A century later his diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are "distorting" Islam; the would-be reformers are.
2. That Islam is separate from our Western, Christian, European culture and civilization, and "other" than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if Europe eventually succumbs to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.
3. Whether Islam is "inferior to the West" is a matter of opinion, of course. That Islam cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative, and attractive human society is not. Whether Islam is "barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist" is at least debatable; but that many of its tangible fruits are so, is all too painfully visible.
4. Islam is seen by so many as "violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism" not because of some irrational "phobia" in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because (a) of the clear mandate of its scripture; (b) of the record of its 14 centuries of historical practice; and above all (c) of the timeless example of its founder.
5. "Islam is seen as a political ideology," and it should be seen as one, because its key trait is a political program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready and eager to spill blood. This makes Islam closer to Bolshevism and to National Socialism than to any other religion. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by "the Other," i.e. non-Muslim societies and cultures, is implacable hostility and violence, or violent intent.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand; they should be understood. Its chief "criticism" of the West-and of every other non-Islamic culture or tradition-is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.
7. A priori hostility towards Islam should not be "used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims." Quite the contrary, an education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting - not because it is an intolerant "religion," but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the values of the West.
8. And finally, while anti-Muslim hostility is not a priori "natural or normal," the desire of non-Muslims to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is "natural and normal"; but the elite class is actively trying to neutralize it.

As the demand for Sharia-based communal self-rule is made with increasing frequency in the banlieus of Paris and the grim West Midlands council estates, Europe's elite class is ready to throw in the towel. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner—a Christian Democrat—sees the demand as perfectly legitimate and argues that sharia could be introduced "by democratic means." Muslims have a right to follow the commands of their religion, even if that included some "dissenting rules of behavior": "Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say 'this isn't allowed'! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy…"


Such inanities are light years away from Winston Churchill's warning, over a century ago, that "no stronger retrograde force exists in the world" than Islam:

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Even Churchill's prescience could not envisage the possibility that the invader would find his fellow-travellers at No. 10, Downing Street, at the European Union headquarters in Brussels, and in dozens of chancelleries and palaces across the Old Continent. Their joint efforts are helping change the face of Europe. The cumulative effect is not in doubt: by 2050, Muslims will account for over one-third of "Old Europe's" young residents. Millions of them already live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host country, toward which they have a disdainful and hostile attitude.

The elite class responds to such hostility with calls for ever-greater inclusiveness. Giuseppe Pisanu, Berlusconi's former minister of the interior, responsible for controlling the country's borders, thus declared five years ago that the high fatality rate of North African illegals on the high seas en route to Sicily was "a dreadful tragedy that weighs on the conscience of Europe." His view was paradigmatic of the utopian liberal mind-set. If "Europe" should feel shame and guilt that people who have no right to come to its shores are risking their lives while trying to do so illegally, then only the establishment of a free passenger-ferry service between Tripoli and Palermo—with no passport or customs formalities required upon arrival, and a free shuttle to Rome or Milan—would offer some relief to that burdened conscience. And Sr. Pisanu is supposedly a man of the "Right"!

The tangible results of the leaders' moral decrepitude are devastating. A century ago, Sr. Pisanu and his class shared social commonalities that could be observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, Biaritz or Paris, depending on the season. Englishmen, Russians, and Austrians shared the same outlook and sense of propriety, they all spoke French, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their national traditions, the permanent vessels in which Weltanschauung could be translated into Kultur. Today's "United Europe," by contrast, does not create social and civilizational commonalities except on the basis of wholesale denial of old mores, disdain for inherited values, and an overt rejection of "traditional" culture. It creates the dreary sameness of "antidiscriminationism" and "tolerance."

Such weakness breeds contempt and haughty arrogance on the other side. Take Tariq Ramadan, who calmly insists that Muslims in the West should conduct themselves as though they were already living in a Muslim-majority society and were exempt on that account from having to make concessions to the faith of the host-society. Muslims in Europe should feel entitled to live on their own terms, Ramadan says, while, "under the terms of Western liberal tolerance," society as a whole should be "obliged to respect that choice."

If such "respect" continues to be extended by the elite class, by the end of this century there will be no "Europeans" as members of ethnic groups that share the same language, culture, history, and ancestors, and inhabit lands associated with their names. The shrinking native populations will be indoctrinated into believing-or else simply forced into accepting-that the demographic shift in favor of unassimilable and hostile aliens is actually a blessing that enriches their culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies. The "liberal tolerance" and the accompanying "societal obligation" that Tariq Ramadan invokes thus become the tools of Western suicide. "No other race subscribes to these moral principles," Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, "because they are weapons of self-annihilation." The weapons need to be discarded, and the upholders of those deadly "principles" removed from all positions of power and influence, if Europe is to survive.


It is in the inability and unwillingness of the neoliberal elite class to confront the grave threat to our civilization that Western Europe and North America most tellingly certify that they share the same cultural chromosomes. In 1938 Hilaire Belloc wondered, "Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world which will shake the dominion of Europeans-still nominally Christian-and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?"

Seven decades later, the same traits of decrepitude are present in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States, including both the primary cause, which is the loss of religious faith, and several secondary ones. Topping the list is elite hostility to all forms of solidarity of the majority population based on shared historical memories, ancestors, and common culture; the consequences are predictable:

* the loss of a sense of place and history among Europeans and North Americans;
* rapid demographic decline, especially in Europe, unparalleled in history;
* rampant Third World (and in Europe, overwhelmingly Muslim) immigration;
* collapse of private and public manners, morals, and traditional commonalities;
* imposition of "diversity," "multiculturalism," "sensitivity"; and
* demonization and criminalization of any opposition to any of the above.

The end-result is the Westerners' loss of the sense of propriety over their lands. Before 1914, both the West and the Muslim world could define themselves against each other in a cultural sense. The neoliberal elite insists on casting aside any idea of a specifically "Western" geographic and cultural space that should be protected from those who do not belong to it and have no rightful claim to it. The elite insists that our countries belong to the whole world.

We face an elite consensus that de facto open immigration, multiculturalism, and the existence of a large Muslim diaspora within the Western world are to be treated as a fixed and immutable fact that must not be scrutinized. That consensus, I contend, is ideological in nature, flawed in logic, dogmatic in application, and disastrous in its results. It needs to be tested against evidence, and not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.

In addition, a depraved mass culture and multiculturalist indoctrination in state schools and the mainstream media have already largely neutralized the sense of historical and cultural continuity among young West Europeans and North Americans. By contrast, the blend of soft porn and consumerism that targets every denizen of the Western world has not had the same effect on the Muslim diaspora in the West. The roll-call of Western-born and educated young Muslims supportive of terrorism confirms that failure.

The loss of a sense of place and history experienced by millions of Westerners follows the emergence of two sides of the same coin: a neoliberal post-national hyper-state in Europe and the neoconservative "benevolent global hegemony" in the U.S. epitomized by the demand for an ever-growing NATO. These two mindsets, seemingly at odds, are but two aspects of the same emerging globalized universe, two sides of the same coin. The neoliberals advocate multilateralism in the form of an emerging "international community" framed by the United Nations and adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with the EU acting as an interim medium for transferring sovereign prerogatives to a supra-national body; the neocons prefer to be the only cop in town. Both share the same distaste for traditional, naturally evolving societies and cultures.

The revolutionary character of the multiculturalist project is revealed in the endless mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality, the formula now elevated to the status of the post-modern Philosopher's Stone, the force that moves the linear historical process forward, towards the grand Gleichschaltung of nations, races, and cultures that will mark the end of history. Race, Gender and Sexuality have replaced the Proletariat as both the oppressed underclass (hence the cult of the non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual victimhood), and as the historically preordained agent of revolutionary change.

Classical Marxist political economy found the dynamics of revolution in the inevitable conflict between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat that has nothing to sell but its labor and nothing to lose but its chains. Latter-day Marxist revolutionaries go beyond dialectical materialism, however, by introducing a wholly metaphysical concept of victimhood and an array of associated special-rights claims that have worked such wonders for Islam all over the Western world. Majority populations of "old" Europe and America, in this insane but all-pervasive paradigm, are guilty of "oppression" by their very existence, and therefore must not protest the migratory deluge, let alone try to oppose it: that is "racism.".

The fruits are with us already. Gibbon could have had today's Antwerp or Malmo in mind, or Marseilles, or Huddersfield, when he wrote of Rome in decline, its masses morphing "into a vile and wretched populace." On present form, within a century the native Western majorities will melt away: "child-free" is a legitimate yuppie lifestyle term, on par with "fat-free" and "drug-free." But whereas the threat of extinction of an exotic tribal group in Borneo or Amazonia—let alone a species of spotted owl or sperm whale - would cause alarm and prompt activism among neoliberal elites, it is deemed inherently racist to mention the fact that Europeans and their trans-Atlantic cousins are, literally, endangered species.

There will be no grand synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization, between the West and Islam. Even the ultra-tolerant Dutch are beginning to see the light, pace Geert Wilders, but they are hamstrung by guilt-ridden self-haters and appeasers, whose hold on the political power, the media, and the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, and obscene. If Europe is to survive they need to be unmasked for what they are: traitors to their nations and their culture. They must be replaced by people ready and willing to subject the issues of immigration and identity to the test of democracy, unhindered by administrative or judicial fiat.

If the coming war against jihad is to be won, the first task is to start talking frankly about the identity and character of the enemy and the nature of the threat. The obligation to do so is dictated by morality no less than by the need for self-preservation. "If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles," says Sun Tzu. Well, we know the enemy. We know his core beliefs, his role models, his track-record, his mindset, his modus operandi, and his intentions. We also know his weaknesses, which are many, above all his inability to develop a prosperous economy or a functional, harmonious society.

The main problem is with ourselves; or, to be precise, with those among us who have the power to make policy and shape opinions, and who will reject and condemn our diagnosis. Having absorbed postmodernist relativism, certain only of uncertainty, devoid of any faith except the faith in their own infallibility, members of the Western neoliberal elite class treat the jihadist mindset as a problem that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself. The result is a plethora of proposed "cures" that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from terrorism as snake oil is likely to cure leukemia.

Abroad, we are told, we need to address political and economic grievances of the Muslim impoverished masses, we need to spread democracy and free markets in the Muslim world, we need to invest more in public diplomacy. At home we need more tolerance, greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the minorities that feel marginalized. The predictable failure of such cures leads to ever more pathological self-scrutiny and to ever more morbid self-doubt. This vicious circle must be broken.


The deadlock on the Somme in 1916, or at Verdun a year later, could not be broken with the ideas and modus operandi of Messrs. Haig, Foch, Cadrona or Hindenburg. It could have been unlocked, however, had Lidell-Hart, de Gaulle, or Guderian held the old guard's ranks and positions. Winning a war demands "knowing the enemy and knowing oneself," of course, but it also demands "thinking outside the box." This cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.

Let us therefore start our specific policy recommendations with the complex and emotionally charged issue of "human rights" versus national security.


Instead of seeking a ban on all Muslim immigration right away, which is not a realistic goal at this moment, Western anti-jihadist activists should campaign for changes in immigration legislation of their home countries to include clauses that would exclude Islamic activists before they come, and have them deported if they are already infiltrated into the country.

This demand needs to be made acceptable and attractive to a wide cross-section of the electorate regardless of political and ideological preferences. Therefore it should be focused on the Islamic activists' threat to the neoliberal values themselves:

* Discrimination against other religions (with special emphasis on the rising European phenomenon of Islamic anti-Semitism), outlooks (inc. atheism) and lifestyles;
* Discrimination and violence against women (esp. wives and "disobedient" daughters);
* Discrimination and violence against homosexuals;
* Threats of violence in any form and for whatever alleged "offense" or "insult" (e.g. drawing cartoons, making documentaries, writing books);
* Apology or justification for all of the above.

It is essential to focus on the despicable acts themselves, and then drawing the direct line to the commands of Islam's scripture and its founder, rather than doing it in reverse, as some well-meaning but politically less astute anti-jihadist activists do.

This definition of Islamic activism would be a major step in the direction of denying actual or potential jihadists a foothold in Europe and the rest of the West. In the U.S. the broad model is provided by the old 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, the McCarran-Walter Act), mandating the exclusion or deportation of any alien who engaged or had purpose to engage in activities prejudicial to the public interest or subversive to national security. "Ideological" grounds for deportation were on the US statute books until 1990, when they were repealed by Congress. After the Russian revolution foreign communists were singled out for deportation. One night alone in January of 1920, more than 2,500 "alien radicals" were seized in thirty-three cities across the country and deported to their countries of origin.


I submit to you that all Western countries need laws that will treat any naturalized citizen's or legally resident alien's known adherence to an Islamist world outlook as excludable - on political, rather than "religious" grounds. It is politically feasible to articulate the demand that citizenship of a democratic Western country should be denied to all Islamic activists.

In the United States a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath, "that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." A declaration of this kind, of not a solemn oath of allegiance, is expected from naturalized citizens in most European countries.

For a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts an "infidel," i.e. non-Muslim document or law as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of apostasy par excellence, punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the "secular" legal code with which it coexists; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah's authority on the basis of his revealed will - and for as long as they remain infidel, both Europe and America are illegitimate. So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith? Because he is practicing taqiyya, the art of elaborate lying that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of Jihad. (Or else because he is not devout enough and confused, but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point he will rediscover his roots.)


Those who preach or promote jihad and advocate the introduction of sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner that adherents of other totalitarian ideologies had been treated in the free world during the Cold War. It will be a long and hard struggle to open the eyes of legislators and legal regulators that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to Western values and institutions, but it can be done. Other necessary measures would then follow, but to that end anti-jihadists should start articulating and advocating them now:

1. Seek zero porosity of the borders. Preventing illegal immigration is a desirable objective per se; in the context of stopping terrorists it is mandatory. No anti-jihadist strategy is possible without complete physical control of borders. This is an issue on which a majority of the electorate of each and every Western country will agree - much to the chagrin of the liberal elites. Anti-jihadists should insist that all illegal immigration is a major security threat and that it can and should be subject to the letter of the law, and not to the suicidal dictates of the "human rights" lobby.
2. Demand mandatory cooperation of state agencies at all levels in identifying, registering and apprehending illegal immigrants and in assisting in their deportation - starting with those from nations and groups at risk for terrorism. It is a curious phenomenon in most Western countries that at various levels of state administration (e.g. welfare officers and social workers) and law enforcement (e.g. police forces in major cities) we encounter varying levels of tolerance, and even encouragement, of illegal immigrants' continued presence in the community. Again, this demand for simple compliance with the law by tax-funded public officers would be politically popular.
3. Discard the irrational ban on "profiling." Not all Muslims are terrorists, of course, but all transnational terrorist networks that threaten Western countries' national security and way of life are composed of Muslims. It is time to accept that "profiling" based on a person's appearance, origin, and apparent or suspected beliefs is an essential tool of trade of law enforcement and war on terrorism. Just ask the Israelis!
4. Subject the work of Islamic centers to legal limitations and security supervision. All over the Western world, Islamic centers have provided platforms for exhortations to the faithful to support causes and to engage in acts that are morally reprehensible, legally punishable, and detrimental to the host country's national security. They have provided shelter to the outlaws, and offered recruitment to the leaders.
5. Treat affiliation with Islamic activism as grounds for denial or revoking of any level of security clearance. Such affiliation is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government (e.g. immigration control, airport security). Presence of practicing Muslims in any of these institutions would present an inherent risk to its integrity and would undermine morale.

Acceptance of these proposals would represent a new start in devising long-term defense. The proposed measures recognize that we are in a war of ideas and religion, whether we want that or not and however much we hate the fact. They reflect the seriousness of the struggle. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep condition that the West is on its last legs. The success of its demographic onslaught on Europe enhances the image of "a candy store with the busted lock," and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for self-perpetuation is indeed in peril.


The above proposals are not only pragmatic, they are morally just. They will elicit the accusation of "discrimination" from the self-hating segments of the elite class, even though no such label is applicable. Targeting people for screening, supervision and exclusion on the basis of their genes would be discriminatory indeed, but doing so because of their beliefs, ideas, actions, and intentions is justified and necessary. Orthodox Islamic beliefs, ideas and intentions as such pose a threat to the European civilization, culture, and way of life.

The elite class rejects this diagnosis, of course, but among reasonable, well-informed citizens the debate must be conducted on terms liberated from the shackles of the elite class. Geert Wilders certainly shows the way. We should act accordingly, and never, ever be afraid of causing controversy. That means being subjected to the threat of legal proceedings by the neoliberal state—or to the threat of death, by those whom the neoliberal state continues to protect to the detriment of its own citizens.

Western leaders did not agonize over communism's "true" nature during the Berlin air lift in 1949, or in Korea in 1950, but acted effectively to contain it by whatever means necessary. Yes, back then we had a legion of Moscow's apologists, character witnesses, moles and fellow-travelers, assuring us that the Comrades want nothing but social justice at home and peaceful coexistence abroad. They held tenured chairs at prestigious universities and dominated all smart salons, from London and Paris to New York. They explained away and justified the inconsistencies and horrifyingly violent implications of the source texts of Marx and Lenin. They explained away and justified the appalling fruits: the bloodbath of the Revolution, the genocidal great famine, the show trials and purges, the killing of millions of innocents in the Gulag, the pact with Hitler, the works.

Today their spiritual heirs in politics, the academy and the media establishment act as Islam's apologists, character witnesses and fellow travelers. They flatly deny or else explain away, with identical scholastic sophistry and moral depravity, the dark and violent implications of the source texts, the Kuran and the Hadith, the deeply unnerving career of Muhammad, and centuries of conquests, wars, slaughters, subjugation, decline without fall, spiritual and material misery, and murderous fanaticism.


Some eighty years ago Julien Benda published his tirade against the intellectual corruption of his times, The treason of the intellectuals. For generations prior to the 20th century, Benda wrote, members of the Western intellectual elite ensured that "humanity did evil, but honored good." The "Treason" of the title occurred when they gave up promoting lasting civilizational values in favor of short-term political preferences. Benda wrote at a time when fascism, nazism and bolshevism dominated Europe's scene. Today the "treason" of the elite class takes a different form. It upholds the allegedly universal values of multiculturalism, inclusiveness and antidiscriminationism to the detriment of the particular value of our civilization and all its fruits. The propensity of the elite class to the betrayal of our culture remains the same, however.

The fact that normal people don't realize the magnitude of the problem works to the advantage of the people like Solana, Soros, Blair, Prodi, or Hillary Clinton. Their ideas, which but two generations ago would have been deemed eccentric or insane, now rule the Euro-American mainstream. Only a society inured to the concept of open borders can be unblinkingly told that Islam is good and tolerant, that "we" (the West) have been nasty and unkind to it over the centuries—remember the Crusades!—and that "terrorism" needs to be understood, and cured, by social therapy that is independent of Islam's teaching and practice.

At the root of the domestic malaise is the notion that countries do not belong to the people who have inhabited them for generations, but to whoever happens to be within their boundaries at any given moment in time—regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions. The resulting random melange of mutually disconnected multitudes is supposed to be a blessing that enriches an otherwise arid and monotonous society.

A further pernicious fallacy is the dictum that we should not feel a special bond for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but transfer our preferences on the whole world, "the Humanity," equally. Such notions have been internalized by the elite class in America and Western Europe to the point where they actively help Islamic terrorism. In America the process has been under way for decades. By 1999 then-Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott felt ready to declare that the United States may not exist "in its current form" in the 21st century, because the very concept of nationhood—here and throughout the world—will have been rendered obsolete.

A generation earlier such uttering from a senior government official would have caused a scandal. By the end of the 20th century such declarations bothered only the unsophisticates who persist in assuming that the purpose of what Dr. Talbott was doing at the Department of State was to ensure the survival, security and prosperity of the United States within the international system, rather than its eventual absorption by the system. But his was an exultant prophecy, not an impartial assessment. The ideological foundation for Talbott's beliefs was stated bluntly: "All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary." To the members of his class, all countries are but transient, virtual-reality entities. Owing emotional allegiance to any one of them is irrational, and risking one's life for its sake is absurd.

The refusal of theWestern elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history. It is rooted in the mindset that breeds the claim that "force is not an answer" to terrorism, that profiling is bad and open borders are good, that "true" Islam is peaceful and the West is wicked. The upholders of such claims belong to the culture that has lost its bond with nature, history, and the supporting community. In the meantime, thanks to them, the quiet onslaught continues unabated, across the Straits of Gibraltar, through JFK and O'Hare, Heathrow and Schiphol. Far from enhancing diversity, it threatens to impose a numbing sameness and eradicate the identity of target-populations, to demolish their special character and uniqueness.

That supporting community, the real nation, is still out there, in North America and Europe alike, working and paying taxes and grinning and bearing it. When it is told of Islam's "peace and tolerance," it grumbles about someone's stupidity or ineptitude, but it still does not suspect outright betrayal. The betrayers, meanwhile, promote an ideology of universal human values, of a common culture for the whole world. They may not even realize why they abet Islam. For all the outward differences, they share with the mullahs and sheikhs and imams the desire for a monistic One World. They both long for Talbot's Single Global Authority, post-national and seamlessly standardized, an Ummah under a fancy secular name.

Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands and nations more than any others, and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil. They are our enemies and jihad's indispensable objective allies.

The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, has every intention of continuing to "fight" the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.

It is up to the millions of normal Europeans and their American cousins to stop the madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity, and to make room for the post-human, monistic Utopia spearheaded by the jihadist fifth column.

This crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.

  • If you enjoyed Serge Trifkovic's speech, you will want to read his book, Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won—In Spite of Ourselves. The book expands on the material in his speech and presents a clear and straightforward account of the Islamic jihad that our intellectuals and media ignore at the peril of Western civilization. His common sense solutions can be implemented successfully, given the will to do so.

    Trifkovic, an editor at Chronicles Magazine, is an excellent writer, political analyst and strategist who needs to be more widely read, especially by our local and U.S. government representatives.

    Labels: , , , , , , , ,

  • Tuesday, May 20, 2008


    Jack be nimble. Jack be quick. Jack jumped over the candlestick, and just in time to celebrate. No dhimmitude for these Italians. Government officials of Oppenao, Italy, have refused to build a mosque and will instead a plaza in honor of author Oriana Fallaci, Italy's La Republicca reports.

    On May 17, bulldozers destroyed the little building that was used as a preach room and which was thought by Oppenao's muslims to become a mosque. The Oppenao mayor told journalists his citizens didn't want the mosque and they supported the idea of honoring Fallaci instead.

    Fallaci, author of the book The Force Of Reason is known for her fight to raise awareness against islam. She died of cancer in 2006.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Saturday, May 17, 2008


    The following information has been culled from a thorough if somewhat romanticized article written by Palermo native Vincenzo Salerno, and at first glance, contradicts a good portion of what I have learned about the nature of parasitical Muslim culture. But I'll leave that final assessment to the reader, because attached at the end of this article is a highly critical opinion of The Camp of Islam and its controversial history.

    PALERMO MAY NOT HAVE the polished look of Venice or Florence, but it is a beautiful stretch of Old Country charm, an open-air museum to the foreign cultures that have conquered Sicily over the centuries. A short breezy walk can lead one past Byzantine mosaics, Arab domes, Norman churches and Spanish sculptures. The most striking architectural hybrid must be the Church of San Giovanni degli Eremiti, a lush Roman Catholic sanctuary that was converted from a Muslim mosque after the 12th century departure of the Arabs. The church's Islamic roots can be clearly seen in its red domes and cubic structure. Another mixed, though ultimately Christian, visual feast is the city's main cathedral, an imposing 12th century testament to Gothic grandeur. This is an interesting detail in the study of Islam's influence on Sicily and what became the hidden hand, or mafioso culture on the island and in America, because often we only hear of beautiful churches that have been converted to mosques.

    The Muslims ruled Sicily for two centuries and a few decades but their influence was nothing short of monumental. Under their administration, the island's population doubled as dozens of towns were founded and cities repopulated. The Arabs changed Sicilian agriculture and cuisine. Their scientific and engineering achievements were remarkable. More significantly, they changed society itself. To this day, many Sicilian social attitudes reflect the profound influence—often in subtle ways—of the Arabs who ruled a thousand years ago but who (with the Greeks and others) are the ancestors of today's Sicilians.

    The Arabs, who in medieval times were sometimes called "Saracens" or "Moors," have been identified since antiquity (in Assyrian records dated to circa 850 BC), but until the Middle Ages they were not unified as a people. In the Early Middle Ages, it was Islam that united the Arabs and established the framework of Arab law. Initially, most Muslims were Arabs, and during the Arab rule of Sicily their Islamic faith was closely identified with them. (Even today, many principles believed to be tenets of Islam are, in fact, Arab practices unrelated to Muslim ethics.) The rapid growth of Arab culture could be said to parallel the dissemination of Islam.

    Except for some poetry, the first major work of literature published entirely in Arabic was the Koran (Quran), the holy book of Islam, and one may loosely define Arabs by the regions where Arabic was spoken in the Middle Ages and afterwards. Arabs were a Semitic people of the Middle East. The Berbers of northwest Africa and the Sahara were not Arabs, though many converted to Islam, adopted Arabic as their language and assimilated with Arab society. Though most parts of Sicily were conquered by Arabs, certain areas where settled by people who, strictly speaking, were Muslim Berbers. Like many Berbers, some Arabs were nomadic.

    With the emergence of the Byzantine Empire, groups of Arabs lived in bordering areas in the Arabian peninsula and parts of what are now Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt. Their language, Arabic, is a Semitic tongue of various dialects related to Hebrew and Ethiopic, written in script from right to left.

    Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) was born in Mecca around AD 570 and his religious and military community at Medina eventually grew to dominate the entire Arabian peninsula. Following Muhammad's death in 632, caliphs (civil and religious leaders) succeeded him. Three families from Muhammad's tribe ruled the expanding Arabian empire for the next few centuries, namely the Umayyads (661-750), the Abbasids (750-850) and the Alids (Fatimid dynasty in northern Africa from 909 to 1171). In practice, certain regions—including Sicily—were actually controlled by particular (if minor) families, or often under local emirs (there were several in Sicily when the Normans arrived in 1061).

    Initially, the Arabs aspired to little more than some productive land in coastal areas and around the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, but within decades of Mohammed's death their objectives grew greater. With the growth of their society supported by conversions to Islam, the wealth sought by Arabs was precisely that which the Koran (3:14) discouraged: "The passion for women, the desire for male children, the thirst for gold and silver, spirited horses, and the possession of cattle and land, in fact all the pleasures of life on earth." Sicily offered all of these things in abundance.

    By 650, the Arabs were making their way through Libya and Tunisia, and what remained of the once-prosperous city of Carthage was destroyed in 698. The Byzantines had already lost these areas, but they retained control of Sicily—despite numerous raids by Arab pirates—until 827. In that year, Euphemius, a Byzantine admiral and resident governor of Sicily who found himself at odds with the Emperor, offered the governorship of the island to Ziyadat Allah, the Aghlabid Emir of Al Qayrawan (in Tunisia) in exchange for his support. This fiasco resulted in the landing of over ten thousand Arab and Berber troops at Mazara in the western part of Sicily. Euphemius was soon killed and Sicily's Arab period had begun.

    Three Arab dynasties ruled Sicily—first the Aghlabids (a "minor" family based in Tunisia which had broken away from the Abbasids of Baghdad) and then, from 909, the Fatimids, who entrusted much of their authority to the Kalbids in 948. In that year, Hassan al-Kalbi became the first Emir of All Sicily. By 969, the Fatimid dynasty (descended from the Prophet's daughter, Fatima) were moving their geographic center of power to Cairo, leaving their Tunisian capitals (Madiyah and Al Quayrawan) and western territories to the care of what in Europe would be called "vassals."

    Islam spread quickly across the Mediterranean but in Sicily the Arabs' conquest was a slow one. Panormos, which was to become the seat of an emirate as Bal'harm (Palermo) in 948, fell in 832. Messina was taken in 843. Enna (the Arabs' Kasr' Yanni, also an emirate) was conquered in 858. With the violent fall of Syracuse in 878, the conquest was essentially complete, though Taormina and several other mountaintop communities held out for a few more years.

    Byzantine society, culture and government were closely identified with Christianity, and the law was based largely (though not entirely) on Judeo-Christian ideas, but it would have been mistaken to consider the Byzantine state a theocracy. Moreover, as Christianity already existed in many regions (such as Sicily) in the Byzantine Empire, there was not always a need to introduce (or impose) it. Islam, however, was a way of life that could not easily be separated from society itself, and it was a religion formerly unknown in Sicily. This obviously influenced Arab society in Sicily and elsewhere, though efforts were made to retain something of the established order. In the early ninth century, Islam itself could be said to be in its formative stages socially, with certain literary sources (collections of hadiths containing sunnahs or "laws") still being written.

    Arab administration, if not particularly enlightened, was not very harsh by medieval standards, but it was far from egalitarian. Sicily's Christians and Jews (Sicily was at least half Muslim by 1060) were highly taxed, and clergy could not recite from the Bible or Talmud within earshot of Muslims. Christian and Jewish women (who like Muslim ones were veiled in public) could not share the public baths with Muslim women—many of whom were ex-Christians converted to Islam to contract financially or socially advantageous marriages to Muslim men. Non-Muslims had to stand in the presence of Muslims. New churches and synagogues could not be built, nor Muslims converted to other faiths. A number of large churches, such as the cathedral of Palermo, were converted to mosques. (The Arabic inscription shown above is still visible on one of its columns.)

    A degree of religious tolerance prevailed; there were no forced conversions. Yet, a new social order was soon in place. Except for a few merchants and sailors, there had been very few Muslim Arabs in Sicily before 827, but Byzantine legal strictures imposed upon them, and upon the Jews living across the island, cannot be said to have been as rigid as those imposed upon non-Muslims by the Arabs after about 850. At first, however, many Sicilians probably welcomed the prospect of change because they had been overtaxed and over-governed by their Byzantine rulers.

    The Arabs introduced superior irrigation systems; some of their qanats (channels) still flow under Palermo. They established the Sicilian silk industry, and at the court of the Norman monarch Roger II great Arab thinkers like the geographer Abdullah al Idrisi were welcome. Agriculture became more varied and more efficient, with the widespread introduction of rice, sugar cane, cotton and oranges. This, in turn, influenced Sicilian cuisine. Many of the most popular Sicilian foods trace their origins to the Arab period.

    Dozens of towns were founded or resettled during the Saracen era, and souks (suks, or street markets) became more common than before. Bal'harm (Palermo) was repopulated and became one of the largest Arab cities after Baghdad and Cordoba (Cordova), and one of the most beautiful. Construction on Bal'harm's al-Khalesa district built near the sea was begun in 937 by Khalid Ibn Ishaq, who was then Governor of Sicily. Despite later estimates of a greater population, there were probably about two hundred thousand residents in and around this city by 1050, and it was the capital of Saracen Sicily. Bal'harm was the official residence of the Governors and Emirs of All Sicily, and al-Khalesa (now the Kalsa district) was its administrative center.

    As we've mentioned, in 948 the Fatimids granted a degree of autonomy to the Kalbid dynasty, whose last "governor" (effectively a hereditary emir), Hasan II (or Al-Samsan), ruled until 1053. By then, Kasyr Yanni (Enna), Trapani, Taormina and Syracuse were also self-declared, localized "emirates." (This word was sometimes used rather loosely to describe any hereditary ruler of a large locality; in law Sicily had been a unified emirate governed from Palermo since 948, but by the 1050s the others had challenged his authority over them.)

    Naturally, Arabic was widely spoken and it was a major influence on Sicilian, which emerged as a Romance (Latin) language during the subsequent (Norman) era. The Sicilian vernacular was in constant evolution, but until the arrival of the Arabs the most popular language in Sicily was a dialect of Greek. Under the Moors Sicily actually became a polyglot community; some localities were more Greek-speaking while others were predominantly Arabic-speaking. Mosques stood alongside churches and synagogues.

    Arab Sicily, by 948 governed from Bal'harm with little intervention from Qayrawan (Kairouan), was one of Europe's most prosperous regions—intellectually, artistically and economically. (At the same time, Moorish Spain was comparable to Sicily in these respects, but its prior society had been essentially Visigothic rather than Byzantine.) With the exception of occasional landings in Calabria, the Sicilian Arabs coexisted peacefully with the peoples of the Italian peninsula. These were Lombards (Longobard descendants) and Byzantines in Calabria, Basilicata and Apulia, where Bari was the largest city.

    Under the Byzantines' empire, Sicily enjoyed some contact with the East, but as part of a larger Arab empire having greater contact with China and India, Far Eastern developments such as paper (made from cotton or wood), the compass and Arabic numerals (actually Indian) arrived. So did Arab inventions, such as henna—though today's middle-class Sicilian obsession with artficial blondness is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Under the Arabs, Sicily and Spain found themselves highly developed compared to England and Continental northern Europe.

    Byzantium hadn't forgotten Sicily, and in 1040 George Maniakes, at the head of an army of Byzantine-Greeks, Normans, Vikings and Lombards, attempted an invasion of Sicily without success. By the 1050s, the Pope, and some Norman knights from this failed adventure, were casting a long glance toward Sicily with an eye to conquest. This desire was later fueled by dissension among the island's Arabs, leading to support by the Emir of Syracuse for the Normans against the emirates of Enna and Palermo. Most of these internal problems developed after the ruling Fatimids moved their capital from Tunisia to Egypt, where they established Cairo (near ancient Memphis).

    The Normans conquered Messina in 1061 and reached the gates of Palermo a decade later, removing from power the local emir, Yusuf Ibn Abdallah, but respecting Arab customs. Their conquest of Arab Sicily was slower than their conquest of Saxon England, which began in 1066 with the Battle of Hastings. Kasr Yanni was still ruled by its emir, Ibn Al-Hawas, who held out for years. His successor, Ibn Hamud, surrendered, and converted to Christianity, only in 1087. Initially, and for over a century, the Normans' Sicilian kingdom was the medieval epitome of multicultural tolerance.

    By 1200, this was beginning to change. While the Muslim-Arab influence continued well into the Norman era—particularly in art and architecture—it was not to endure. The Normans gradually "Latinized" Sicily, and this social process laid the groundwork for the introduction of Catholicism (as opposed to eastern Orthodoxy). Widespread conversion ensued, and by the 1280s there were few—if any—Muslims in Sicily. Yet, the mass immigration of north-African Arabs (and Berbers) was the greatest Sicilian immigration since that of the ancient Greeks, leaving today's Sicilians as Saracen as Hellenic.

    While Norman government and law in Sicily were essentially European, introducing institutions such as the feudal system, at first they were profoundly influenced by Arab (and even Islamic) practices. Many statutes were universal, but in the earliest Norman period each Sicilian—Muslim, Christian, Jew—was judged by the laws of his or her own faith.

    When did the various Sicilian localities cease to be Arab (or Byzantine Greek)? There was not an immediate change. Following the Norman conquest, complete Latinization, fostered largely by the Roman Church and its liturgy, took the better part of two centuries, and even then there remained pockets of Byzantine influence in northeastern Sicily's Nebrodi Mountains.

    Had the Normans not conquered Sicily, it might have evolved into an essentially Arab society not unlike that which survived in some parts of Spain into the later centuries of the Middle Ages, and the Sicilian vernacular language (as we know it) would have developed later. It is interesting to consider that general functional literacy among Sicilians was higher in 870 under the Arabs and Byzantines than it was in 1870 under the Italians (at about seventeen percent). In certain social respects, nineteenth-century Sicily still seemed very Arab, especially outside the largest cities, well into the early years of the twentieth century.

    And now for a critical look at the Islam of contemporary times by an online contributor:

    Islam is like a lobster pot. It's easy to get in but impossible to get out.

    This fact above all else needs to be shouted from the rooftops across the entire Infidel world. Christian, Jewish and other non-Muslim chaplains and psychologists/ counsellors who work in prisons in the West particularly need to be informed of this fact, so that they can warn the vulnerable why it is NOT WISE to listen to Muslim da'wa. Even the most hardened ghetto gangsta might surely think twice if told—if you became a Muslim, and then decided you wanted to leave, THEY WOULD KILL YOU, OR AT LEAST TRY VERY HARD TO DO SO.

    Islam is the only modern religion that explicitly prescribes and enforces death for the apostate—and for all critics and questioners, that is, 'blasphemers', as well, be they Muslim or non-Muslim.

    If our politicians and journalists and academics can be forced to wrap their minds around this one simple, amply demonstrable fact; if they can be made to realize it is general, common, standard Islamic practice; that even the most well-educated, 'moderate' Muslim families living IN THE WEST have been known to transform into murderous assassins upon discovering that a family member has converted out to another faith; then we might get people to realize that This Thing Called Islam Is Dangerous.

    Let's start pointing out, loud and clear, the unpleasant parallels between mainstream, historic Islam and—the Mafia, or the Thuggees, or the Triads. Not all members of a mafioso crime 'family' do the actual hands-on stuff—the robberies, kidnappings and mutilations, application of threats/ extortion, concrete bootings, briberies and shootouts; one might compare such 'silent participants' to the 'peaceful' Muslims. But everybody in 'the family' is loyal to 'the family'; everybody lives off the payola; everybody admires il capo; and nobody rats, or they die.

    —Dumble Dore's Army

    You be the judge.

    Labels: , , , ,


    FROM RELIGION OF PEACE.COM (Thanks to Mackie!)

    The Myth: Islam is a Religion of Peace
    Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, only fighting in self-defense when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.

    The Truth:
    Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire.

    After Muhammad’s death, his most faithful followers and even his own family turned on each other almost immediately. There were four Caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years. Three of the four were murdered. The third Caliph was murdered by the son of the first. The fourth Caliph was murdered by the fifth, who left a 100-year dynasty that was ended in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle.

    Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam grew.

    Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against the Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.

    Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death—pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.

    By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by the sword, from Spain to Syria, and across North Africa. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years, until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory).

    Today, there is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of religion as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Qur’an most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit.

    The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith. In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent passages to far more peaceful ones, the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path. The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Qur'anic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended.

    By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known.

    Under no circumstances, should we, the American People, permit or accept that this fate of creeping jihad into our country, although it is already here. Battles are already being fought, and yet, the administration continues to hamstring our military and name our enemy, while allowing unchecked immigration from Islamic countries to flood onto our shores.

    Some of our "leaders" need to be informed in no uncertain terms, by whatever means necessary, of the words of Samuel Adams, early American patriot:

    "If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

    —Samual Adams, 1776

    Labels: , , , , , , ,

    Friday, May 16, 2008


    COMBINE RELIGION, RACE, the Cold War, America's enemies, and a history of colonialism, and you've got a breeding ground for the most virulent strains of politically correct mythology, distortions, and cover-ups. If you've spent more time in front of the TV watching reruns, and still haven't got a clue about what's going on in the mother of all global hotspots, then you need to take a stroll through The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East by Martin Sieff. In his book you'll learn:

  • Why the Arab-Israeli conflict today isn't about borders—and never was
  • How the Arab states openly declared their determination to prevent a Jewish state from being born in 1947—20 years before the West Bank and Gaza were first occupied
  • Why Islamic fundamentalism isn't ancient - and why that only makes it more dangerous
  • How environmentalist extremists have kept us hooked on oil from the Middle East
  • Why Iran can't be reformed—but the Saudis can
  • How, for 30 years, the British supported parliamentary democracy throughout the Middle East - but it didn't work
  • How free democratic elections actually helped cause Iraq's civil war—and boosted the clout of America's greatest enemy in that country
  • Why importing too much democracy too fast was always a recipe for disaster—as the Carter administration found in Iran in the late 1970s
  • Why Britain's post-World War I Middle East policy was a comedy of errors and incompetence that soon escalated into tragedy
  • How Winston Churchill conceived the idea of Iraq as a separate country when he was Britain's colonial overlord—and why he came to regret his creation, formed at the urging of romantic British Arabophiles such as T.E. Lawrence
  • Déjà vu: how the Shiites of Iraq led a ferocious nationalist uprising against an English speaking superpower that wanted to bring Western-style democracy to their country—in 1920
  • How the Shah of Iran's dependence on the U.S. and his honeymoon with Israel in the 1950s and 1960s deluded both countries into believing that Iran was inherently moderate, anti-Arab and pro-Western—and why they couldn't have been more wrong
  • Why anti-American and anti-Israeli popular sentiment grew dramatically during the Shah's rule—preparing the way for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution
  • How Britain's hand-picked Muslim leader in Palestine later gave Hitler's Holocaust his enthusiastic support.
  • How Bosnian Muslims volunteered to guard the death trains that carried thousands of Balkan Jews to Auschwitz
  • How the Israelis helped block a Nazi takeover of Iraq before there was even an Israel
  • Where America went wrong in Iraq: how U.S. policymakers vastly underestimated the intransigent, unsophisticated and anti-Western nature of its competing communities
  • Why disbanding Saddam's old, much-feared army structure was another mistake
  • How Washington policymakers obsessed with crafting Iraqi democracy ignored the more-pressing issues of guaranteeing law and order and producing enough food, heating fuel, gasoline and other necessities
  • How, in an eerie foreshadowing of today's policies, President Carter was so obsessed with fostering democracy and human rights in Iran that he left the way open for Khomeini to seize power
  • How the Muslim nations of the Middle East took an irrevocable turn towards radical Islam not in the 10th Century or after the Fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in the 13th Century—only in 1979
  • Creating Osama: how the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan inspired successive U.S. administrations to fund Islamist mujahedin guerrillas
  • How Saudi Arabia's security forces defeated al-Qaeda in that nation—and why you never heard about it
  • How the Saudis also instituted a gradual but increasingly effective policy of state control to marginalize and discredit Islamist leaders
  • How the Saudis even secretly but strongly cooperated with Israel against their common foes of al-Qaeda, Islamic extremists and the new radical leadership of Iran
  • How ambitious comprehensive solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as the one envisaged at Camp David, are likely to be followed by a rapid return to bitter, bloody hostilities
  • The Arab dictators: why we'll miss them when they're gone...

    and more. Don't be a tool of the Left, or the Right. Get some facts that will start you on the journey for significant citizenship. Before it's too late.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,

  • Thursday, May 15, 2008


    A CHURCH IN BELGIUM is on the hot seat now, thanks to a photograph snapped two years ago by a blogger, a photograph of an interesting pulpit in the Church of Our Lady in Dendermonde, Belgium, that suddenly became the center of an uproar when a group Turkish Belgians "discovered" it online, and proceeded to follow the well-worn Islamic path of instant outrage.

    The Belgian press has reported that police are now guarding the church to prevent vandalism, but also placed blame for this controversy squarely on the original blogger who placed he photograph on his blog.

    Here's a run-down:

  • Church and pulpit built shortly after the Battle of Vienna
  • Church sits largely unnoticed for centuries, until
  • Tourist stumbles across "interesting" pulpit, takes picture of it, and posts picture to his blog
  • Picture on blog sits idly by, largely unnoticed for 2 years
  • Blogger receives hate mail for daring to post the picture, then posts and ridicules letter (once a blogger, always a...)
  • Photo and a long-winded condemnation are printed in the front page of a radical Turkish newspaper
  • Death threats ensue, leading to
  • Inanimate object protected by police, who
  • Lay the blame for all of this outrage at the foot of our poor tourist.

    While it's precious to observe the Belgian government taking steps to protect this historic church, it is genuinely disgusting to see Europe so hopelessly timid of actually confronting the root of the problem—a complete and utter inability to speak out and bring the long arm of the law against the destructive tendencies of the Religion of the Perpetually Offended.

    Labels: , , , ,

  • Wednesday, May 14, 2008


    "What's more, the Spanish Muslim Ibn Jubayr (1145-1217), who traversed the Mediterranean on his way to Mecca in the early 1180s, found that even Muslims preferred living in Crusader lands. He lamented that near Tyre he passed a series of farms where "the inhabitants were all Muslims, but they live in comfort with the Franj [Franks, or Crusaders]—may Allah preserve them from temptation! Their dwellings belong to them and all their property is unmolested. Now, doubt invests the heart of a great number of these men when they compare their lot to that of their brothers living in Muslim territory. Indeed, the latter suffer from the injustice of their coreligionists, while the Franj act with equity."

    DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT MUSLIMS today flock to non-Muslim lands because they are better run, they are safer, the lives of the citizens are more secure, the possibility of redress against authority greater, the access to the wonders of the modern world that are the product of a mental freedom, and an absence of inshallah-fatalism, that are the hallmarks of mind-forged-manacled Muslims, so that any Muslim in his right mind of course wishes to live in Great Britain, say, rather than in Pakistan, or in France rather than Algeria or Morocco, or in the Netherlands rather than in Morocco or Turkey (because Kemalism did not go far enough, and the remains of the pre-Kemalist Day, that is Islam, are all about, and indeed now being relentlessly revived), and so on.

    But these Muslim "refugees from Islam" do not recognize that what they find and like in the West is precisely owed to the fact of the West's non-Islamic history, and quite unlike previous refugees, such as those from the Nazis who worked to warn people about the Nazis, and refugees, from Russia or Eastern Europe or China, who worked to warn people in the West, where they found refuge, about the menace of Communism, about the threat from Soviet Union and Communist China, Muslims in the West come not to warn the West about Islam, but rather bring with them the very Islam that has caused their own countries to be so unpleasant or unlivable in the first place. They do not see this. They are "slaves to Allah" or rather slaves to Islam as a Total Belief-System, and while the morally and intellectually most advanced see this, and some of them become apostates, others are afraid, or tied down by filial piety, a desire to retain, as many feel they must, "cultural" or "family" ties, and do not wish to suffer the ostracism that they fear if they do indeed break openly with Islam.

    Only the very most advanced, and the bravest, dare to see Islam—its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, the very attitudes that they hear expressed openly in Muslim-only gatherings, where the hostility to Infidels is not hidden, and some of them hear this with horror, but many others hear and are prompted not to break with Islam, which often means breaking with their families, but choose to hide or disguise that anti-Infidel feeling that they know about, know all about, but decide to lie about in order to protect, out of embarrassment, out of fear that Muslims may lose their truly "protected status" in the lands of the Infidels (where so far they are allowed to essentially retain a loyalty to Islam, and therefore to the Shari'a and to a general worldview, that necessarily bespeaks permanent hostility to the Infidel nation-states, to the legal and political institutions of those nation-states, in which they now live and of which they have even been permitted, by those too ignorant to understand Islam, to obtain citizenship.

    —Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch

    Labels: , , ,

    Monday, May 12, 2008


    From the Washington Times, more evidence that a major showdown with the enemies of liberty and religious sanity—as articulated in the West—is in the making. There is nothing wrong with noting the reality on the ground, and preparing for the inevitable. A common sense defense and retaliation strategy does not make one a baby-killing hawk, any more than battening down the hatch and boarding up those windows in preparation against an identified hurricane barreling into one's path makes one a thrillseeker.

    Islam proves itself every day across this planet as nothing more than a totalitarian ideology which delights in its function as a thrill-kill machine, and somebody on this planet must take a stand against it. Unfortunately, all the US and Israel seem to be capable of doing is painting ourselves into a corner from which there is no escape,

    MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, the quick, brutal display of raw military power by Hezbollah in the past six days is a window into the grim future of Lebanon and the broader Middle East: a future in which Iran and Syria are ascendant and have lost much of their fear of the United States and Israel. It sends a message to President Bush, who arrives in Israel Wednesday to commemorate that nation's 60th birthday: that Tehran and Damascus can project power whenever they want in places like Lebanon, and the United States and it's allies can't do anything about it.

    At least 44 people were killed and another 128 wounded in the fighting—the worst outbreak of sectarian violence inside Lebanon since the 1975-1990 civil war. Although domestic Lebanese issues played a role in the violence, they are inseparable from the larger geopolitical issues. Ever since the Feb. 14, 2005, assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which eventually forced Damascus to remove its occupation troops, Syrian President Bashar Assad has wanted to reclaim power in Lebanon. So, on Friday, after several days of street clashes between pro-government forces and opposition forces, all-out warfare broke out between street gangs loyal to Hezbollah and gangs funded by Saudi Arabia and loyal to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, a Sunni Muslim. In less than seven hours of fighting, Hezbollah forces routed the pro-government side, occupied much of Western Beirut, and plastered walls with pictures of the Syrian dictator. Government security forces, equipped and trained by the United States but paralyzed by sectarian differences, stayed out of the fighting.

    Lebanese newspapers are filled with pictures of bound, blindfolded members of the defeated loyalist forces who were captured by the Hezbollah side and masked Hezbollah gunmen swaggering through Beirut, boasting how they had forced members of the losing side to beg for their lives. After capturing West Beirut, Hezbollah relinquished the area to the Lebanese Army—for now. Hezbollah (and by extension, its backers in Tehran and Damascus) have demonstrated that they and not the Lebanese government control Lebanon. Do not be surprised if very soon, an emboldened Hezbollah steps up its harassment of the United Nations peacekeepers in Southern Lebanon, laying the groundwork for another battle with Israel.

    Labels: , , , , , ,


    Mohammed Jafaar, Demonstration, acrylic on canvas, 30" X 24", 2006

    One wonders if the website I found this morning in a search for Iraqi work has incriminated these artists who have posted there. The colorful work of these painters is certainly exquisite, if mildly derivative of past Western art movements, but then, the same can be said for most of the contemporary painting populating Western galleries. We however, must not neglect to record our disgust with these code-bound jihadists of every stripe who have crawled out of the rubble of American intervention to murder and oppress their own people, but this is what we are fighting, people, if not over there, then soon in a neighborhood near you. The only strategy left to even the most rigid of peacemakers is the strategy of total victory.

    Because this is the jihadist strategy also.

    IRAQI SINGERS, ACTORS, AND ARTISTS are fleeing the country after dozens have been killed by Islamic radicals determined to eradicate all culture associated with the West. Cinemas, art galleries, theatres, and concert halls are being destroyed in grenade and mortar attacks in Basra and Baghdad.

    According to the Iraqi Artists' Association, at least 115 singers and 65 actors have been killed since the US-led invasion, as well as 60 painters. But the terror campaign has escalated in recent months as both Shia and Sunni extremists grow ever bolder in enforcing religious restrictions on the citizens of Iraq....

    In November Seif Yehia, 23, was beheaded for singing western songs at weddings, and painter Ibraheem Sadoon was shot dead as he drove through Baghdad. In February Sunni fighters killed Waleed Dahi, 27, a young actor, while he rehearsed for a play due to open at the Jordanian National Theatre this month.

    Those remaining are in hiding as they make preparations to get themselves and their families to safety.

    Haydar Labbeb, 35, a painter in Baghdad, said he had received five death threats and an attempt was made on his life as he drove his family home from a wedding. He is now trying to get to Amman in Jordan, where he hopes to continue painting.

    'My art is seen by extremists as too modern and offensive to Islamic beliefs,' he said. 'For them, every painting has to be based on Islamic culture. But I am a modern artist.

    Culture was encouraged during Saddam Hussein's regime, but no longer. Abu Nur, an Islamic Army spokesman, said: 'Acting, theatre and television encourage bad behaviour and irreligious attitudes. They promote customs that affect the morality of our traditional society.'

    Read it all.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Sunday, May 11, 2008


    Disputatious Israeli historian Benny Morris finally admits what so many on the Left (and the Right) continue to deny with his recent epiphany—that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about land, a bankrupt revisionist idea that drives all these so-called peace talks, but is indeed fueled by an Arab imperative called jihad, which at the end of the day calls for the total eradication of all Jews and other dirty kafirs, as taught by Mohammed in the seventh century. We would hope that Morris now begins to repair the damage he has caused in the past in failing to notice that Islam is the origin and the full explanation for the fixed hostility toward Israel. His article in Newsweek begins:

    I REMEMBER THE MOMENT when the Palestinian diaspora began to interest me, professionally. It was in Rashidiye Camp, outside Tyre, in June 1982, just after the Is­rael Defense Forces had scythed through on their way north to oust the Palestinian Liberation Organization from Lebanon. A journalist at the time, I picked my way through the devastated buildings. Most of the men had fled or been detained or killed by the Israelis, but I was struck by a group of old women hunched over a tabun, an outdoor oven, making pita bread far from their homeland. A few weeks later a stash of documents produced in 1948 by the Palmah—the strike force of the Haganah, the main Zionist underground in Palestine—was opened for me, revealing why and how many of these people had been displaced as Israel was born.

    My historical account of that event, published a few years later, was greeted with some acclaim by Palestinians and their sympathizers—and much shock by Is raelis, who had been brought up to believe, or to pretend to believe, that the Palestini ans had fled their homes four decades earli er because of orders or advice from their leaders. In certain places, at certain times, there had been such advice and orders, of course. But there had also been Israeli ex­pulsions, as well as the chaos of British withdrawal and economic hardship and anxiety about an uncharted future under Jewish rule. In most places it was the flail and fear of onrushing hostilities that had set some 700,000 Arabs on the roads.

    Myself and several other young Israeli historians were dubbed revisionists and commonly assumed to be doves. But what brought me to my conclusions about 1948 were the facts, not my political views. Contrary to current historiographic discourse I believe there is such a thing as the Truth—what, why and how things happened—and I've always sought it in my research. If I've since come to a much bleaker opinion about the possibility of reconciliation be tween Jews and Palestinians—many would now call me a hawk—it is also because of that research.

    During the 1990s, as the Oslo peace process gained momentum, I was cautious ly optimistic about the prospects for peace. But at the same time I was scouring the just opened archives of the Haganah and the IDF. Studying the roots of the Arab-Is raeli conflict—in particular the pronounce ments and positions of the Palestinian leadership from the 1920s on—left me chilled. Their rejection of any compromise, whether a partition of Palestine between its Jewish and Arab inhabitants or the cre ation of a binational state with political parity between the two communities, was deep-seated, consensual and consistent.

    Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian national movement during the 1930s and 1940s, insisted throughout on a single Muslim Arab state in all of Palestine. The Palestinian Arab "street" chanted "Idbah al-Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) both during the 1936-1939 revolt against the British and in 1947, when Arab militias launched a campaign to destroy the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine. Husseini led both campaigns.

    Read it all.

    Labels: , , , , ,

    Friday, May 09, 2008


    These sheiks are simply itching for a fight, and the Sh'ites may oblige them if we damned Yankees won't, but what's all this fuss about "i" before "e" except after "c" that we were taught as dirty kaffir kids?

    THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM'S internal documents show that the major oil producing nations of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) gives almost nothing to the food organization, even as skyrocketing oil prices and swollen oil revenues contribute to the very crisis that the U.N. claims could soon add 100 million more people to the world’s starving masses. The overwhelming bulk of the burden in feeding the world’s starving poor remains with the United States and a small group of other predominately Western nations, a situation that the WFP has done little so far to change, even as it has asked for another $775 million in donations to ease the crisis.

    Donor listings on WFP’s website show that this year, as in every year since 1999, the U.S. is far and away the biggest aid provider to WFP. Since 2001, U.S. donations to the food agency have averaged more than $1.16 billion annually—or more than five times as much as the next biggest donor, the European Commission. One might suppose that the same oil rich Muslim nations, led by Saudi Arabia, who continues to spend hundreds of millions every year constructing madrassas and erecting mosques in every corner of the globe to spread its virilent Wahabi doctrine must believe that man does not live by bread alone, but by Islam alone.

    This year, the U.S. had contributed $362.7 million to WFP just through May 4, according to the website. That figure does not include another $250 million above the planned yearly contribution that was promised by President George W. Bush in the wake of WFP’s April warning that a “silent tsunami” of rising food costs would add dramatically to the world population living in hunger. Nor does it include another $770 million in food aid that President Bush has asked Congress to provide as soon as possible.

    1. USA - $362,728,240
    2. Canada - 103,770,270
    3. United Nations - 84,446,788
    4. Japan - 69,653,009
    5. Sweden - 61,290,322
    6. Netherlands - 54,231,878
    7. Denmark - 50,479,875
    8. Italy - 41,544,151
    9. United Kingdom - 36,014,081
    10. European Commission - 32,451,039
    11. Switzerland - 29,132,661
    12. Germany - 28,456,272
    13. Private Donors - 23,084,971
    14. Finland - 18,736,010
    15. Australia - 13,868,115
    16. Spain - 13,716,100
    17. Russian Federation - 12,500,000
    18. Luxembourg - 11,338,301
    19. Ireland - 9,186,704
    20. France - 9,140,161
    21. Bangladesh - 5,787,465
    22. Norway - 5,404,288
    23. New Zealand - 4,894,327
    24. Austria - 3,414,417
    25. Greece - 3,213,770
    26. China - 2,500,000
    27. Republic of Korea - 1,951,010
    28. Iceland - 1,603,498
    29. Zambia - 1,250,000
    30. Mauritania - 1,237,445
    31. Congo - 800,000
    32. Burkina Faso - 603,768
    33. Peru - 316,652
    34. Egypt - 309, 096
    35. Turkey - 300,000
    36. South Africa - 213,841
    37. Brazil - 200,000
    38. Liechtenstein - 110,091
    39. Mozambique - 105,048
    40. India - 75,472
    41. Syria - 62,630
    42. Czech Republic - 56,818
    43. OPEC Fund - 50,000
    44. United Arab Emirates - 50,000
    45. Thailand - 47,755
    46. Slovenia - 47,319
    47. Estonia - 46,581
    48. Jordan - 42,118
    49. Pakistan - 37,127
    50. Faroe Islands - 30,425
    51. Israel - 30,000
    52. Guinea - 19,716
    53. Belgium - 14,793
    54. Vatican City - 10,000
    55. Bhutan - 5,014
    56. Malaysia - 4,213
    57. Panama - 1,000

    On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, with oil revenues last year of $164 billion, does not even appear on the website donor list for 2008. And while Canada, Australia, Western Europe and Japan have hastened to pony up an additional $260 million in aid since WFP’s latest appeal, the world organization told FOX News, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the international oil cartel, tossed in a grand total of $1.5 million in addition to the $50,000 it had previously donated.

    Click here for the PDF table for the years 2001-2007. By our calculations, using this table, the total 2007 contribution to the WFP by the Islamic nations (pop. 1.5bn and including some of the world's richest oil exporters) was around $34.3m, equal to that of the Republic of Ireland (pop. 4.3m). These oil-rich Muslim countries DO share generously with the world one thing in abundance: sharia oppression which is the mating call to violence.

    The OPEC total amounts to roughly one minute and 10 seconds worth of the organization’s estimated $674 billion in annual oil revenues in 2007—revenues that will be vastly exceeded in 2008 with the continuing spiral in world oil prices. The only other major oil exporter who made the WFP list of 2008 donors was the United Arab Emirates, which kicked in $50,000. UAE oil revenues in 2007 were $63 billion.

    By contrast, the poverty-stricken African republic of Burkina Faso is listed as donating more than $600,000, and Bangladesh, perennial home of many of the world’s hungriest people, is listed as donating nearly $5.8 million.

    This outrage highlights two of the big lies about Islam:

    1. All Muslims are Brothers together—all too often overlooked, but old-fashioned tribal racism, particularly Arab racism, is alive and well in the Muslim world. Arabs use the same word for "black" and "slave." Berber Muslims and South Asian Muslims are not considered equals with Arab Muslims. A fierce article on this subject by Jon Clay entitled "Islam: Universal religion or Arab tribalism?" can be found here.

    2. One of the noble pillars of Islam is zakat or charitable giving—the way this "tax" is administered, however, is a farce. The heavy burden is on poor farmers, but most of modern sources of wealth—oil revenue, banking, and corporate equity —are exempt from zakat because those enterprises didn't exist in Muhammad's time. Note how, selectively, the letter of the law or the spirit of the law is emphasized, depending on the situation.

    How convenient is thy liar's mind!

    A fascinating exposé of the absurdities of Islamic economics can be found in the book Islam and Mammon written by Timur Kuran.

    What this study leaves out is that Muslim countries disproportionately receive aid throughout the world. Even oil-drunk terror-producing nations like Saudi Arabia receives foreign aid in what must be the most ill-conceived policy blunder of Bush's eight years.

    It is by design that the oil-rich Muslim nations turn a blind eye to any human crisis around the world—even when other Muslims are involved. After all, in the mind of an Arab supremacist, it surely must be Allah's will that these other Muslims and kaffirs alike are impoverished or struck with tragedy while the Arabs themselves are growing richer by the gallon.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,


    There is a new book out that should form part of the canon of those who wish to combat the simplistic urges of the Marxist-Maoist movements in this country with inconvenient facts and common relationships that help sort out fictional fantasy from reality on the ground.

    The author of China House, Lawrence Klepinger, explains:

    The self-proclaimed desire of the Chinese government to “crush” the current Tibetan uprising is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The horrifying effect of 60 years of Chinese communist rule is just now beginning to unfold. From unlawful land acquisitions and unfathomable slave labor working conditions to forced abortion, outright murder, rape and pillage by communist officials themselves, the world is only now starting to open its collective eyes. When it finally wakes up it will be horrified at what it sees.

    As one reviewer, Dr. Michael D, Kruse, puts it: "China House is a straightforward, non-technical, popular attempt by an ex-resident of China to show us the dark side of the latest and possibly greatest of capitalism's glittering prizes. Using anecdotes, personal examples, conversations with Chinese people and, where available, documentary sources, the author makes a compelling argument for holding the "New China" at arm's length. He systematically exposes the government and business corruption, the failure of the health, education and (communist) agricultural and industrial systems, the "cosmetic" laws, the rape of the environment, the lying and cheating that seem endemic even in everyday business transactions, the suicide of children under unimaginable examination stress, the abuse of women and ethnic minorities, the lack of personal and political freedoms, in short, the utter betrayal of the people by the party and government that swore to protect them, and links all of these evils to blatant justifications in the wording of the Chinese Constitution itself.

    "However, China House is not a racist polemic against the Chinese. The author is scrupulous in his efforts to show that the greater underlying evil that spawns this welter of lesser demons is a familiar one and not at all as exotic as the oriental locations. It is the greed of multinational (but mostly Western) companies, in the guise of "globalization". The author lists dozens of Western companies (and he names names) that have their snouts deep in the troughs of cheap labour and enormous markets that make the "New China" so attractive to the foreign investor. He paints a broad canvas showing how Western multinationals collude with the "communist" authorities to exploit both the Chinese worker and the Chinese consumer. It is a disturbing portrait. It is the reason, he claims, that "all free democracies willingly divert their attention to the other side of the room. If China were to become democratic and free-enterprising at the same time, there would be no way that the USA, let alone other Western countries, could compete."

    Another reviewer named Klaus Kaltenthaler disagrees in some areas: "In this respect the book is a good eye opener and should be read by anyone getting ready to deal with China in any official way. However, many other publications should be consulted to afford the uninitiated student of China a more balanced view.

    "The author, coming to China with all the Western values we have have come to expect and even take for granted, shows great compassion with the Chinese people in the face of the official abuse by their own government.

    "However, I do not share the author's view that multinational corporations are in China to exploit the cheap labor market in order to produce ever cheaper products for the unsatiable Western world. Many companies have been trading with China for more than 100 years and are now investing in industrial production sites in China in order to serve the ever growing domestic market which otherwise could not be supplied with continuing imports. In the process of industrialization China not only acquires new and previously unobtainable expertise, but also obtains companies that are managed in a modern and worker friendly environment with individual incomes much higher than are achievable in a purely Chinese state-owned or even private company. Thus international cooperation and the exchange with other countries, training of employees abroad, et cetera, are possible. They can be the seeds for an admittedly slow, but steady improvement of the working conditions for all Chinese companies while at the same time benefiting the Chinese economy.

    "Given the mutations of China throughout the millenia and centuries, adjusting to the ever changing world around them to survive and gain advantage, I do not see the possibility of an imminent downfall of the Chinese communist party system, but a continuing change and adjustement whenever China sees advantages for their long term goal of proving their own superiority to the rest of the world."

    Nothing less is expected of, We the People, of the United States of America, writes Klepinger.

    I tend to agree. And despite the fact that an ashcan of experts argue that untold number of even more experts are required to understand an alarming situation, I agree that an informed public is vital to a fully-conscious American citizenry. Fantasy is for children and intellectual misfits. Cold reality among the bold sandbox bullies is far more harsh a consciousness, but right preferable especially in critical and crucial times when the lives of millions of families are at stake like so many marbles in what is shaping up to be yet another geo-political slugfest.

    Labels: , , , , , , ,