Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Iron Fist

Iron Fist

In Eurosatory 2006 IMI is unveiling its new Active Defense System (ADS) called - Iron Fist.

Until recently, the development of Iron Fist was shrouded in secrecy, as it was developed in parallel to a different Israeli developed ADS system - RAFAEL's Trophy, which entered full scale development in 2005.

However, due to rapid development pace and successful testing, IMI expects to deliver the first systems for IDF testing and qualifications by mid 2007. Unlike competing systems, IMI's Iron Fist can be installed on light vehicles, including trucks and even Humvees, offering effective protection from RPGs.

IMI conducted extensive testing against a full spectrum of threats, engaging various types of threats from stationary and moving armored personnel carriers. The system already demonstrated effective protection of light vehicles and heavy armored vehicles, from small rocket propelled grenades, anti-tank missiles and tank rounds equipped with shaped charge warheads as well as advanced kinetic threats (armor piercing tank rounds).

The system uses a fixed radar sensor, mounted on the protected platform, to detect potential threats, measure distance and trajectory, providing the fire control system with data for calculates engagement plans. When a threat is identified as imminent, an explosive projectile interceptor is launched toward it.

The interceptor, shaped similar to a small mortar bomb, is designed to defeat the threat even when flying in very close proximity. Unlike other systems, the Iron Fist uses only the blast effect to defeat the threat, crushing the soft components of a shaped charge or deflecting and destabilizing the missile or kinetic rod in their flight.

The interceptor is made of combustible envelope, fully consumed in the explosion. Without the risk of shrapnel, Iron Fist provides an effective, close-in protection for vehicles operating in dense, urban environment. The use of close proximity, rather than "hit to kill" mechanism avoids complex interception techniques and contributes to reduced cost.One of the main advantages of the Iron Fist is its integration into routine operations.

Its sensor provides essential input to situational awareness systems, based on ground radar surveillance, moving target detection, classification and tracking and motion detection. Furthermore, by loading other types of projectiles, such ass non lethal, anti-personnel, smoke or illumination, the system can be used in support of routine operation.Iron Fist is supported by Israel's MOD Defense Research & Development Directorate (DRDD).

The program is designed to protect medium and light vehicles, but based on its performance, has the potential to be fielded on heavy armor as well. In future configurations, the system has a growth potential to protect sensitive elements of fixed installations or patrol boats, protecting from RPG attacks, frequently encountered in counter insurgency operations.

From Defense Update.

Monday, May 29, 2006


Slayer- dead skin mask

Slayer- south of heaven

Slayer- angle of death

Slayer- reign in blood

No hope for Sharia law Now!

Jihadists coming home to roost

from www.Jihadwatch.org

In the book Onward Muslim Soldiers

The phenomenon of mujahedin traveling the world, going from jihad to jihad.

From the looks of this report by Kathryn Haahr for The Jamestown Foundation, the next battleground is Europe.

"Foreign fighters allegedly returning to Europe,"
from the International Relations and Security Network, with thanks to Ixnay:

Recent pronouncements by a Spanish judge who has led high-level inquiries into al-Qaida in Spain, Baltazar Garzon, and the head of France's domestic security service, Pierre de Bousquet, imply that Iraqi foreign fighters are already returning to Europe to re-establish or establish new networks to support terrorist operations in Europe (AFP, 9 May).

While Garzon's and Bousquet's official comments provide no concrete details about the number of European Islamists returning from Iraq nor their nationalities, it is apparent that there is terrorist activity.

With Iraq being the new center of gravity for jihad, Europe has become the de facto center of gravity for recruitment, weapons and financial activities, all critical to ensuring the continuation of jihad in Iraq and, increasingly, in Europe.

The return of jihadists from Iraq and Afghanistan would transform European states from logistical platforms (support infrastructure) to "battle front stations" (operational structures). After their experiences in Iraq, jihadists are probably returning infused with the intention to engage in jihad in their respective European countries and to make Europe the new front in the international jihad.

These jihadists will bring back ideological concepts and recruitment and fighting techniques that can assist their efforts in radicalizing and mobilizing segments of the Muslim populations in Spain, Italy and France. Of particular concern is training they may have received in fighting techniques (such as IED's and suicide bombings) and the use of chemicals for unconventional attacks.

Several jihadi personalities, including Abu Musab al-Suri, have legitimized the use of chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons as a tool in jihad.
great news form Aussieland
*Great! "Ethnic" law to be scrapped in Australia*
"No hope for Sharia now"
The Howard Government has widened its plan to remove legal recognition of Aboriginal customary law in criminal sentencing to include the cultural beliefs of all ethnic minorities. The extension of the plan beyond Aboriginal tribal law is understood to have been triggered by concerns that a law directed only at indigenous offenders could be in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock last night said no one convicted of a crime in Australia should be able to plead their cultural practices and beliefs as mitigating factors in their sentencing.
"We are not a nation of tribes," he said. "There should be one law for all Australians. Our expectation is that when people come and settle in Australia they are under an obligation to accept the law and the principles that go with it."
The Government's move came after Northern Territory Opposition Leader Jodeen Carney asked Mr Ruddock last week to check if planned restrictions on Aboriginal customary law being used as a mitigating factor when sentencing violent offenders would breach the Racial Discrimination Act. Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough this week said he would put a proposal to scrap consideration of cultural law in serious crimes to state and territory governments at a national summit.
He said customary law had been "used as a curtain that people are hiding behind". The minister's remarks followed a national outcry after a 55-year-old Aboriginal elder was sentenced to a month's jail for having anal sex with a 14-year-old girl promised to him as a wife.
Territory Chief Justice Brian Martin, who sentenced the man, admitted this week he had made a mistake by placing too much emphasis on the man's belief that under tribal law he had the right to teach the girl to obey him. Ms Carney urged the Government to change the Racial Discrimination Act if it considered restrictions on customary law would amount to a breach.
Mr Ruddock is understood to have sought legal advice on the possibility of changing the Racial Discrimination Act, but his preference is to extend the exclusion to all minority groups in the community.
The scheme drew qualified support yesterday from Islamic civil rights leader Waleed Kadous but was condemned as impractical by the legal profession.
"I don't think any member of the community should expect any special privileges because of their cultural background," said Mr Kadous, co-convenor of the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advisory Network.
"Speaking for the Muslim community, we understand we are not entitled to any special privileges in the courts - nor should we be," he said.
Judges should always have some discretion to consider a person's circumstances "but our cultural background should have no major impact on how we are sentenced", Mr Kadous said. However, Law Council of Australia president John North said the Government's plan was "totally impractical". "
An important part of the sentencing process, apart from retribution and revenge, is to look carefully at the subjective features of each individual before the court," Mr North said. "Those characteristics may involve cultural or what can be termed customary law matters, and this has long been held by the High Court to be a proper exercise in the use of sentencing discretion.
"To try and legislate across the board to remove this discretion would, in our view, prove impossible." Mr Ruddock said Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough would be urging the states to change their sentencing laws to fall into line with the Government's plan.
While he believed the plan would not cause a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act, he indicated that the commonwealth would be prepared to change federal laws - including the Racial Discrimination Act - to achieve its goal.

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Ignorance = satan

People against the war are really fucking stupid.

I’m sorry, but there just isn’t a good reason to be against it.
Now, I know, all you war critics will say that’s way over the top, but it’s really bloody true: you’re stupid. You are ignorant fools and morons and you really have no grasp of the real world.
The war was about a ton of things. The president mentioned disarmament because it was one issue that all the countries of the world could agree on, at least on paper.

But does it matter? Is disarmament the reason we were flying our planes for billions of dollars over the span of twelve years in the skies of Iraq? Was that the reason we were there? Are you absolute fucking morons to believe that this is the only reason?

The reason was that Saddam was the bad guy. He’s the enemy. I don’t care what the hell the reason is that you are against because it doesn’t matter: he’s the enemy. And, in the real world, you take out the enemies that you can take out. That’s the brutal nature of the world.
Grow the fuck up. That’s the way the world works. It matters very much who controls what land, and it also matters what they do with it.

It matters what happens in a world where anyone can travel to any place at any time and do anything they want and perhaps kill millions of people. It doesn’t, however, matter if Saddam was planning a huge terrorist strike against America because even if he wasn’t - and I really don’t care if he was - he still fell under the same category: the enemy.

If you’re the enemy, then you’re on the other side.
Leftists and anti-war nuts just don’t get that concept. That’s why they get so outraged when we, on the right in this war, denounce them as the enemy. Orwell got it back then, and Bush (as much of a buffoon as they believe he is) gets it. What amazes me is that these erudite jerks don’t get it. That’s why we denounce people who are against this war, and why those on the other side are regarded with loathing and contempt. Being aghast doesn’t change our point of view, because you can’t change the nature of the world and you can’t change human nature.
And in the world, you take out the enemy that you can take out.

Saddam was already a prime target since many years and we already had enough military there to justify us finishing him off. All of a sudden, you now have some anti-war screechers claiming that they thought Iran was the real threat all along. Well, fine: what would you have had us done first? Withdraw all forces from around Iraq to concentrate on Iran? That would have been permissible? Where would they have been based?

Or perhaps you just would have wanted us to leave the Middle East altogether and, quite literally, then given in to every single demand that Bin Laden had made of us? I’ve heard it before from the likes of Cindy Sheehan: “just leave the Middle East”. Great suggestion there. Just say it outright: do what Bin Laden says. That’ll fix our problems.
And she and her friends wonder why they are mocked and reviled.

And then to the argument about the United Nations. What a wonderful little fantasy that one is. As if Americans really want to sit on a round table where sworn enemies of American interest can have a say whether or not to allow it to act; and even while our “friends” who should be supporting us are stabbing us in the back by doing deals with our enemy. What a great idea that is. And then that argument places so much trust in the United Nations.

The UN is a failed body. It’s a piece of fucking trash. The UN is the most stupid, incompetent, and boorish body to ever be put together. Just because the United Nations includes the “voices” of every country in the world doesn’t mean shit. What kind of a bloody idiot thinks that this is a valid point of view? In the 1930’s, the majority of the voices in the world supported fascism.

What a great argument that is for vox populi. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the bodies sitting at the UN are from dictatorships. It’s like trying to form a Better Business Bureau to protect your city from crime, and inviting the Mafia to have a free voice on the panel as equal partners. What enlightened thinking that one is.

Ah, and lest we forget: had the UN been around in 1930, Hitler would have had representation there as well. When the President of Iran can threaten open genocide against an entire people and not get his ass thrown out of those “hallowed” halls of power, then what the hell would the UN have said to Hitler? “You’re a bad boy?”

As I recall, Clinton went into Kosovo without UN permission. In fact, he never even went to the United Nations. Well, guess who was the driving intellectual clout behind that one? Leftists. And did they protest? No, because it suited their aims. But hey, whatever floats your intellectual agenda at the price of the lives of others, right? Not that I minded pounding the shit out of Slobo, but the same holds true for Saddam. Any moron can see that the two were bullies that had to be dealt with.

And then to the notion about WMD. Who gives a shit? I know full well that Iraq had them. I also know full well that they hid them or transposed them before we got there. Everyone knows he wasn’t clean. But, oh, we didn’t find anything so Bush must have lied - convenient and stupid self-serving moronic meme. But does it matter? Does it fucking matter?

No. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter who has WMD but how they are acting. Quite frankly, I don’t give a damn who has WMD in this world as long as they aren’t banging their fist in public and screaming for bloody murder while throngs of worshipers chant at gunpoint that he is the newly resurrected king of Babylon. That’s Saddam, for you ignorant masses. And if Iran wasn’t an insane regime which goes around threatening other countries and blowing people up with suicide bombers by proxy, then I wouldn’t give a damn if they wanted a nuclear program. Do I lose sleep over the fact that the UK has a nuclear bomb? No, because they act like civilized and enlightened people overall.

But again: Iraq was the enemy. And so is Iran. The fact that they act the way they do makes them so. That defines the nature of the word “enemy”, but leftists really don’t get that either. It isn’t that leftists have valid arguments to counter this, it’s just that they are stupid as fuck or dishonest as lying Saudi pigs.

Wake the fuck up and accept the nature of the world you live in. I’m insulting everyone who is against the war for a reason: I have contempt for you. I loathe your comfy, cushy, smarmy little critiques to undermine this country for the sake of your political gain. I hate it, I hate you, and you’re the fucking enemy too. If you stop acting like the enemy, I won’t hate you.

And before you start screaming about freedom of speech, remember what Lincoln did to those who openly criticized his war. And he was right. And fuck you for trying to second-guess one of the greatest liberators, humanitarians, and minds that ever existed in this nation’s history. And fuck you for trying to undermine something which is far, far, greater than you.
Pathetic fucking idiots.


Under fire: Australian soldiers check an East Timorese man for weapons as machete-wielding mobs continue to terrorise Dili.

Meet Mr Dam...Mr J Dam


Italians Disturbed by Mosque Plan

For unknown reasons, the Italian town of Colle di Val d’Elsa is very nervous about plans to build a gigantic mosque

—one of the largest in Italy—in their midst: Italians fear mosque plans.

COLLE DI VAL D’ELSA, Italy — For hundreds of years, Colle di Val d’Elsa has been renowned for its crystal and as the birthplace of medieval sculptor and architect Arnolfo di Cambio.

But, the picturesque Tuscan town, situated on the road between Florence and Siena, may soon be better known as home to one of Italy’s largest mosques.

That is, if it’s ever built.

The controversy over the planned construction has been brewing for seven years and has split the local community. The outcome here could set the tone for Muslim endeavors and integration across Italy.

“Those of us who live here are really afraid,” said Lucia Prizzi, who lives in an apartment beside the field and vineyards where the mosque will be built.

“It’s not right that the local government gave them this land without consulting us first,” she said.

Her sentiments are echoed on graffiti along a nearby wall: “No Mosque,” “Christian Hill,” and “Thanks to the communists the Arabs are in our house!!!”

Another calls on the mayor, who supports the mosque’s construction, to build it at his house.


Islam--What the West Needs to Know

Just imagine if some indy filmmaker had the cojones to make a documentary about Islam, with this as its main theme-

...Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government.

Well, you don't have to just imagine it. Someone has actually made this film, and whoever they are, my hat's off to them.Here's more about this remarkable piece of work:

The (98 min) documentary consists of original interviews, citations from Islamic texts, Islamic artwork, computer-animated maps, footage of Western leaders, and Islamic television broadcasts. Its tone is sober, methodical, and compelling.

Outline of the DocumentaryIntroduction: We hear from prominent Western leaders that Islam is peaceful and that those who commit violence in its name are heterodox fanatics.

Part 1: ‘There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet’Our interviewees affirm their belief that Islamic violence is entirely orthodox behavior for Muslims and stems directly from the teachings and example of the Prophet Muhammad and the commands of the Koran.

We learn that the example of Muhammad is one of a violent warlord who killed numerous people. The Koran – the verbatim words of Allah – prescribes violence against non-Muslims and Muhammad is the perfect example of the Koran in action.

Part 2: The StruggleWe learn that jihad, while literally meaning 'struggle', in fact denotes war fought against non-Muslims in order to bring the rule of Islamic law to the world. Violent death in jihad is, according to the Koran, the only assurance of salvation. One of our interviewees tells of his personal involvement in terrorism and of his conversion to Christianity.

Part 3: ExpansionFollowing the death of Muhammad, his 'rightly-guided' successors carried his wars to three continents, fighting, enslaving, and massacring countless Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. Islam did not spread through evangelism or through its natural appeal, but through aggressive wars of conquest.

The Crusades were largely a belated response on the part of Christian Europe to rescue Christians in the Holy Land suffering under Muslim oppression. The Muslim world today, while no longer the unified empire of the Caliphs, is exceptional for being responsible for the vast majority of conflicts around the world and for almost all of international terrorism.

Part 4: ‘War is Deceit’A great problem with Western efforts to understand Islam is due to the Islamic principle of 'religious deception', which enjoins Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam. Muslim groups today in the West employ deception and omission to give the impression that 'Islam is a religion of peace', an utter fiction.

Part 5: More than a ReligionThe most important characteristic of Islam not understood by the West is that it is more a system of government than a personal religion. Unlike Christianity, Islam has never recognized a distinction between the religious and the secular/political. Islamic law governs every aspect of religious, political, and personal action, which amounts to a form of totalitarianism that is divinely enjoined to dominate the world, analogous in many ways to Communism. (ed.- and like Nazism/Fascism)

Part 6: The House of WarIslamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual combat, dar al-Islam (House of Islam - where Islamic law predominates), and dar al-harb (House of War - the rest of the world). It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to fight and conquer dar al-harb and permanently assimilate it.

Muslims in Western nations are called to subvert the secular regimes in which they now live in accordance with Allah's command. Due to political correctness and general government and media irresponsibility, the danger posed by observant Muslims in the West remains largely unappreciated.

Wow, and spot-on accurate. I was afraid no one would ever have the courage to make a film that tells the truth about Islam in such a direct manner. I am glad to have been proven incorrect.

I am quite certain I will never get a chance to see this film -- it's certain to be permanently banned in the country I am currently residing in -- but I urge everyone who can to see it. It's the least we can do to honor the incredibly brave people who made this project possible.

Remember Van Gogh's fate in Amsterdam after he made his documentary about Islam.In fact, someone (better yet, lots of someone's) should show this documentary and United 93 back-to-back, as a double-feature.

Now that would be an enlightening afternoon at the movies, to say the least.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Time to Fight

M4A1 with ACOG 4x32 Scope, C-Mag 100-Round Dual Drum Magazine, M203A1 Grenade Launcher, and M4QD Suppressor.

Objective Tehran

It is widely speculated that the center of gravity for the Islamo-Fascist movement, and indeed the Global War on Terror, rests with Iran.

They have been a state sponsor of terror since the Shah was ousted, and have only intensified their radicalism ever since.

A friend to the West they are not.

They now fight against us–their presence thinly veiled–in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the mosques of the United States. Europe and the American left is incapable of recognizing the threat, believing that there will be a moderate student uprising demanding liberal democratic reforms.

I will not hold my breath awaiting such a development, as I believe that we will see mushroom clouds rising into the stratosphere–fully sanctioned by the mullahs–before that forlorn hope ever comes to fruition.

No, the only way to deal with Iran is to crush it. Militarily. With boots on the ground.
Our military is perfectly capable of accomplishing this fete of arms. But the political will is lacking–and this we need to change.

Full mobilization will be needed to destroy the regime, and to do this, the American people (the only people in the world even remotely capable of dealing with the threat) need to recognize the danger of allowing the madness to proceed unchecked.

With Iran out of the picture, there will be no more funding or sanctuary for the Iraqi insurgency. Al Qaeda will collapse like a house of cards.

We need to go into Iran, and we need to do it now.

Waiting for them to get the bomb first is the first step toward Armageddon.


(Read more here and here. H/T Little Green Footballs)

Update: More here, here, and here.

Milestone 5,000+ Islamic Terror Attacks since 9/11

Google censured some web sites citing this story below and similar as hate speech.

Islam Is as Islam Does
War on Terror Barbara Stock
May 8, 2006

There are people in America who still do not realize that our country is at war. This is astounding considering all of the threats that Islamic terrorists and leaders have been issuing lately. These unenlightened folks consider President Bush the enemy, so Bush is actually fighting a war on two fronts. One is with Islam, the real enemy, and the other is with American leftists who are more concerned about regaining their power than the safety of the country. Sometimes it’s difficult to sort out which is more dangerous.

In the rush to Bush-bash, the liberals in America are unwittingly handing a victory to Islam. Several retired American generals have joined the left and have publicly spoken out against a sitting president during wartime. Islamics instantly picked up on this fact and referred to this action as a “mutiny” within the American military. Apparently, Islamics don’t realize what “retired” means. Sadly, most of this “mutiny” is due to old-time military men who want to keep an old-time military.

The liberal media report that suicides are up within the military, but they fail to report that the suicide rate within the military is less than half that of the general population. When the Islamics parrot the same fact, it was heralded as a great victory for Islam. Their message was that American soldiers would rather kill themselves than face the brave Muslim warriors.

The truth is actually the reverse. Brave Muslim warriors would rather dress as women and blow themselves up killing fellow Muslims praying in a mosque than face an American soldier. Of course, that is not described as suicide by Muslims. Instead, it has been given the colorful label of “martyrdom.” It is never explained by Islamic leaders how praying fellow Muslims in a mosque are a threat to Islam.

The American left insists that we must encourage the “moderate” Muslim clerics to speak out against the terrorists. Those “moderate” clerics are quietly being killed by the much stronger and violent Islamic leaders. It should surprise no one that most non-violent mullahs are afraid to speak out against the slaughter.

Last week in Iraq, the sister of the new vice-president was gunned down in the street. Her only crime was being related to a man in the new Iraqi government. Islamics think nothing of killing a helpless woman to send a message. But if pictures of a Muslim are released with a bag on his head, Islamics go crazy with rage. Pages from the Bible are used as toilet paper, but if an infidel accidentally splashes water on a Quran, riots break out.

Then there is Iran. Iran claims it has never attacked another country. Technically, Iran committed an act of war when the American embassy was overrun and the Americans within that embassy were taken hostage. Every embassy is considered the sovereign soil of the country that occupies it. Therefore, Iran invaded American soil that day and attacked another country. Iran has funded terrorists the world over. Those terrorist groups have blown up embassies, ships, and commercial planes full of innocent people. Iran’s largest export is not oil, but state-sponsored terrorism.

The Islamic leaders in Iran feel it is their destiny to start the culture war between Islam and the West. This war will herald the return of the twelfth Imam and his return will signal victory for Islam over the world. Iran has just received missiles from North Korea that can be equipped with nuclear warheads and these missiles can easily reach the capitals of Europe.

Now, like the school-yard bully, Iran is huffing and puffing about revenge if it is attacked. Iran can send armies of suicide bombers and all together those armies could not inflict the damage that American bombers could do to Iran in a week. Iran has thumbed its nose at the United Nations. Perhaps some Iranians have short memories.

In the weeks leading up to the liberation of Kuwait, Iraq was pounded nightly by American bombs. There was a video of an Iranian man standing on the outskirts of his town many miles from the Iran/Iraq border. He was watching the night sky being lit up by the bombs and under his feet he could feel the ground shake. He waved his hands and thanked Allah for not being under those bombs. He said he had never witnessed such power.

Even though our troops are spread around the world, America still possesses this power. Iran may soon be under those bombs and its ground will shake much more than it did when the bombs fell miles away. All of Iran’s clever little weapon systems will not protect it. Designed for show, these weapons will be of little use to it if American might is unleashed. Iran’s cute little boats with high-speed torpedoes will never make it out of the harbor.

Unlike Islamics, America will not target women and children. We will target Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. One does not allow a small child to play with a loaded gun and the world cannot allow the religiously insane Islamic leaders of Iran to have a weapon that is capable of wiping out millions of people.

Yet, even here in America there are those who feel that it is Iran’s right to have such weapons. More than likely, if President Bush agreed that it was Iran’s right, these same people would jump to the other side of the argument and demand that Iran be disarmed. These misguided folks don’t care what Iran does. They seem to feel it doesn’t concern them. After all, that is the Middle East’s problem, not an American problem.

Leftists don’t care what Germany does…sorry, what Iran does. They don’t seem to care that Islamics are slaughtering people all over the world. Leftists ignore that Islam proclaims it will rule the world.

Islam is killing people. Islam is killing non-Muslims and Muslims. Islam is killing old and young. Islam is killing Jews and Christians and Hindus. Islam is moving across the world like a dark, evil cloud. When will the free world realize that Islam is as Islam does?

Barbara is a working registered nurse of 25 years. She writes for many webpages such as Renew America, The Conservative Voice, C
hronwatch, MichNews, American Daily, GOPUSA, and many others. She has been picked up twice by Rush Limbaugh and many other sites and newspapers here and abroad.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Front Towards Enemy

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." Albert Einstein

Mort Kondracke: BDS Threatens Our National Survival

Forget about bird flu — if there's a disease that poses a serious threat to America, it's Bush Derangement Syndrome, as Mort Kondracke makes clear in a column that pleads for liberals to put our national interest ahead of their petty resentment of the President.

Kondracke's cry that Bush-hatred is "threatening our national survival" does not come from a conservative. He stakes out the middle ground between the right and the left on the discussion panel on Fox New's "Special Report with Brit Hume," and usually comes off sounding like a pre-McGovern Democrat.

He blames Bush-hatred for government bureaucrats leaking critical secrets that undermine our ability to fight Islamic terrorists, as well as the appalling irresponsibility of demagogues like Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and liberal media outlets like Newsweek, both of which have hyped the NSA's use of anonymous call logs to analyze terrorist threats into a phony civil liberties crisis — much to our country's strategic disadvantage.

The result is a climate in which treason is regarded as heroic, and commonsense antiterrorism measures are treated as crimes. As Kondracke notes:

Would newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the United States had broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its communications? Or revealed how and where Nazi spies were being interrogated? Nowadays, newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes for such disclosures. ...

The phone companies that are cooperating with the government ought to be congratulated for participating in the war on terrorism — as they would have been during WWII. Instead, they are being hauled before the Senate Judiciary Committee as though they were criminals. And trial lawyers are circling like vultures to make them pay zillions for alleged privacy violations.
His main point is becoming increasingly obvious, and not only to conservatives:

Democrats want to destroy Bush so badly that they are willing to undercut national security.
Remember this when the next terror attack comes, because the media sure isn't going to remind you why it was that the intelligence community was not able to connect the dots.

Kondracke quotes Princeton University professor Bernard Lewis, one of our foremost scholars of Islam, as saying that Osama bin Laden and his kind regard America as "an effete, degenerate, pampered enemy incapable of real resistance."

It's not hard to see how this perception would evolve during the Clinton Administration.

Liberals enjoy complaining that Bush is making a bad impression on the rest of the world. They ought to spare a little thought for the impression they are making themselves, particularly on those who want to destroy us.


The BS that is Amnesty International working against the West.

US Blasts Amnesty International Hypocrisy

Another day, another dishonest Amnesty International report blasting the United States.
But this day’s a little different. For a change, the US is
fighting back.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States went on the counter-attack against Amnesty International, rejecting its charges of the torture of terror suspects and criticizing its lack of help in prosecuting deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed allegations by the Nobel Prize-winning rights group, which cited reports that US prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and elsewhere were subject to “torture and ill-treatment.”

“Nobody is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay,” McCormack told reporters when asked about the charges in Amnesty International’s latest annual report.

He went on to point out Amnesty’s role in documenting rights abuses during the 24 years of Saddam’s rule before he was deposed by the Americans in 2003 and later captured and charged with crimes against humanity.

“But when it came time to put Saddam Hussein on trial, which is happening right now, they (Amnesty) are absent. They’ve done zero, zip, nothing, to assist in those efforts,” McCormack said.

“So in terms of where they might focus some of their efforts, I would just offer the humble suggestion that they might follow through in actually assisting with or providing some support to this trial for what they acknowledge is one of the great human rights abusers of recent times.”

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Decency & Democracy

dhim·mi (d m ) - A Qur'anic term that refers to a subjugated non-Muslim person living in a society dominated by Muslims. Second-class status is confirmed by the legal system and dhimmis do not share the rights of their Muslim masters. (ex. of use: "Hey Jimmy, if you want to be a Dhimmi, then you'd better learn how to shimmy.")

dhim·wit (d m w t) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility or guile. A dhimwit is always quick to extend a sympathy to the enemy that they are unwilling to allow their own defenders.

Moonbat (see dhim.wit )

President George W. Bush strides across the world stage as much as the U.S. dominates the world's stage.

This is very good news for those of us who still believe in decency and democracy.

So forget what some slanted opinion polls say about the leadership of the 43rd president and his patriot countrymen.

Recall, Sir Winston Churchill was once one of the most detested men in Britain, then went on to save the free world.

That's Churchill's undisputed legacy.

In another era it may be Bush's legacy, too.

This past week, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of America's strongest allies, was in Washington on a state visit.

He was hailed by one and all in the nation's capital.

Later, Howard was in Ottawa to visit America's latest allies, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the newly elected Conservative government of Canada.

And we all know British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also one of Bush's -- and America's -- strongest allies.

Bush and America have many other allies throughout the world, too, although to read the nauseating Lib-Left news media, one would get the impression Bush is a pariah and America a rogue state.

Well, would you rather have the likes of Communist China, Communist North Korea, or Communist Cuba soldiering the world?

How about Middle East sheikdoms such as Iran, Libya, or Yemen running the show.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already let it be known when his nation gets its hands on nuclear weapons he will use them against the Western democracies.

North Korea's president Kim Jong-il boasts he already has nuclear weapons and is building intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry them to western countries.

Back in the 1960s, Castro tried to install Soviet missiles on his island nation aimed at Canada and the U.S.

Do you honestly believe Bush, Blair, Howard and the like do not have a duty to safeguard us against these types.

Or would you rather have a stack of African dictatorships in charge -- nations ravaged by tribal warfare with their hands constantly out for billions of dollars in western aid that invariably is used to build luxurious palaces and deposited in secretive Swiss banks.

Vladimir Putin's Russia is a mess -- democracy there is in danger -- and old Soviet-style hawks want to take it back to the days of Stalinism.

Many of its non-Eastern European vassal states are in a mess, too, governed by local chieftains.

In Latin America bullies such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez are on the rise.

Their hero, Fidel Castro, lives in luxury while his people continue to live under decades of food rationing.

India and Pakistan -- always at each other's throats, and courtesy of past Canadian Liberal regimes loaded with nuclear missiles -- pose a constant threat to that part of the world.

In Italy, we just lost Silvio Berlusconi, one of Bush's and America's best friends, in favour of left-winger Romano Ponti, and we don't know where he stands on preserving the international rule of law.

In Spain, when the Conservative government of Jose Maria Aznar fell, and Socialist Jose Zapatero came into power, the Spanish quickly capitulated to Islamic terrorist blackmail.

Thankfully, NATO and Norad are still holding together, and some perceptive Europeans leaders are even talking about a missile shield against rogue nations similar to the one proposed by Bush and rejected by weak-kneed types such as the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberals.

Gutless, every one of them.

Talk about 21st century Neville Chamberlains!

So we're left basically with Bush, Blair and Howard and whatever smaller nations such as freed Soviet slave states in the European Union can pull together.

Yes, we've all read in the midst of this international war on terror that Bush has slipped this month to an all-time low in opinion polls at just 29%.

But recall that back in 1951 during another war on terror -- the attempt to prevent Josef Stalin's hordes from advancing into Western Europe and the all-out effort to save South Korea from advancing Communist North Korean forces, backed by Red China -- Democratic President Harry Truman fell to 23% in the polls.

The anti-America mobs can howl all they like, but I'm sticking with Bush, Blair, Howard and other true leaders of the western democracies.

I hope you are, too.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

Narcotic Jihad

The REAL Drug War: sets it's goals on destroying
young westerners of fighting age hooked on hard drugs.

“It is a part of our noble responsibility to spoil the Western society with drugs”

The Taliban considered themselves to have the same "noble responsibility." "And they now gear up narcotic jihad," from Asian Tribune, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Dhaka, 19 May,

(Asiantribune.com): It is current news in Bangladesh. Owner of pro-radical vernacular daily Naya Diganta (New Sky), which was established with dubious fund from Saudi source a few years back, is now under massive interrogation in remand for his involvement in trafficking huge quantity of heroin (narcotic) to European and American destinations.

Bangladeshi intelligence agencies arrested Badruddoza Chowdhury Momen, owner of BD Foods, a company exporting ‘spices’ to Western destinations, for trafficking huge amount of heroin which were packed inside the sachets of spices. On interrogation, Badruddoza confessed to the interrogators that he has smuggled out narcotics worth few hundred million dollars to United States and Europe since 2003.

He said, drugs for trafficking to Western destinations were coming from Afghanistan via Pakistan. “It is a part of our noble responsibility to spoil the Western society with drugs”, Badruddoza said.

The Islamic Holocaust is Comming!

It's happening again; via Iran and it's Islamic allies around the world.

Iran Eyes Badges For Jews
Law would require non-Muslim insignia
Friday, May 19, 2006

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country’s Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

“This is reminiscent of the Holocaust,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. “Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis.” Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical “standard Islamic garments.”

The law, which must still be approved by Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims. Iran’s roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth. “There’s no reason to believe they won’t pass this,” said Rabbi Hier.

“It will certainly pass unless there’s some sort of international outcry over this.” Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was “stunned” by the measure. “We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again,” he said. “It’s state-sponsored religious discrimination.”

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year. It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims. Mr. Behroozian said it will make life even more difficult for Iran’s small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities—the country is overwhelmingly Shi’ite Muslim.

“They have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them,” he said. The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures.

“This is nothing to do with anything here,” said a press secretary who identified himself as Mr. Gharmani. “We are not here to answer such questions.” The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting the Iranian law and calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the measure. “The world should not ignore this,” said Rabbi Hier.

“The world ignored Hitler for many years—he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he’d never come to power—and we were all wrong.” - More of this madness at Canada.com ...


for GOD hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will and to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast (ISLAM).until the words of GOD shall be fulfilled.revelation 17:17......islam fills the bill....not all will hear this.

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller


From Dhimmi Watch..


o11.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:
(1) Jews;

(2) Christians;
(3) Zoroastrians;
(4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;
(5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

o11.2 Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:)), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the pseudoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4).)

o11.3 Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:
(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).


o11.4 The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.
It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

o11.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property.

In addition, they:

(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;
(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
(3) are not greeted with “as-Salamu alaykum”;
(4) must keep to the side of the street;
(5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;
(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

o11.6 They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days (when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

o11.7 A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

o11.8 It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

o11.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

o11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

(1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;
(2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
(3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
(4) kills a Muslim;
(5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

o11.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

Wednesday, May 17, 2006


For travelers around the globe. Diaries by travelers in all sorts of places, tips & important local info, vital for travel today.
A great wealth of info at this site.
My Life of Travel

Tuesday, May 16, 2006


M15 infiltrated by Al-Qaeda
Here yet again we see the bitter fruit of assuming without a shred of evidence that Muslims not engaged in terrorism are loyal supporters of Western pluralism. Of course, some are -- but political correctness also precludes asking Muslim recruits the hard questions that will determine their true loyalty, or at very least put focus on their adherence, or lack of adherence, to the jihad ideology.

TERRORISTS from al-Qaeda have infiltrated Britain's security services, the Sunday Mirror can reveal.

Bosses at M15 believe they unwittingly recruited the Muslim extremists after the July 7 suicide bombings in London last year which killed 52 people.

They were signed up as part of a drive to find more Muslims and Arabic speakers to work as spies to help prevent future attacks by Osama bin Laden fantatics.

Spymasters found some of the agents in Britain's universities and colleges and persuaded them to pass on information about suspected terrorists.

But a senior ministerial source has told the Sunday Mirror: "The truth is that it has now been discovered that some of those people have strong links with al-Qaeda.
"There was always a risk that with such a speedy and widespread recruitment some would turn out to be bad eggs.

"But the recruitment has meant we are now in a much better position to stop al-Qaeda attacks than we have ever been before. Several planned attacks have already been stopped thanks to the high quality of our intelligence." But the disclosure that suspected terrorists have infiltrated the security services will be a further embarrassment to Government Ministers.

Yes. And it gives a renewed urgency to the necessity to start looking realistically at Islam, jihad, and Sharia.

MI5 mission: impossible

Why won't they stop them all? Because they didn't take the threat seriously, and still don't. Because they lack, and have rejected, a conceptual apparatus that would allow them to see that jihadists who are a "French problem" are also a British problem -- in other words, they refuse to face the sources, meaning, and implications of the jihad ideology, despite its being the patent and self-avowed motivation of the terrorists themselves. Because they persist in assuming without any evidence, as does Tony Blair, that the vast majority of Muslims in Britain are on their side, and that those who are not involved in any overt terrorist activity must eschew such activity and believe it to be evil.

From The Telegraph, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

'We will not stop them all." Eliza Manningham-Buller's frank admission that further attacks by Islamic extremists are unavoidable is alarming and depressing.

Whose fault is it that "more resources" were not in place sooner? Even after its recent expansion, MI5 still has only 2,500 officers working for it.
By contrast, the Government has allocated 3,500 civil servants to try to sort out the problems with implementing Gordon Brown's system of tax credits.

Of course, it is true that MI5 received from the Treasury all the increases that it asked for. The question is: why did it not ask for more?...
MI5 did not take the threat from Islamic radicals as seriously as it should have done, even after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
One officer who works on MI5's Islamic desk spoke to The Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity.

He explained that "during the 1990s, MI5 reduced its 'international terrorist' desk significantly.
The then director general refused to apply the term "terrorists" to Islamic radicals whom other governments had told us were involved in terrorism.
So, for instance, the Algerian radicals involved in bombing the Paris Metro, who settled in London, were not regarded as terrorists by MI5. They were seen as a French problem, not a problem for the UK.

It drove our counterparts in France to distraction - as it did the Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians, all of whom were among the governments which alerted us to the fact that there were Islamic extremists involved in terrorism living in London, and who were using Britain as a base for plotting terrorist operations.

They warned us that by not co-operating with them, we were storing up terrible problems for ourselves.

"That is exactly what happened. MI5's policy during those years was astonishingly short-sighted.

"We let Islamic terrorists raise funds in the UK, and fund their terrorism abroad from the UK. We let them broadcast their terrorism-inciting poison from the UK. It has to be seen as part of the background which led to 7/7."

MI5's failure to recognise the threat posed by Islamic terrorism at the end of the 1990s is the best explanation of its inability to prevent the bombings on July 7, 2005. More than any other factor, it explains the organisation's lack of experienced officers to track terrorists in the period leading up to 7/7.

And even after September 11, 2001 - what another MI5 officer has termed "the ultimate wake-up call" - MI5 still appears to have been slow to realise how great a threat the Islamic extremists in Britain were. Abu Qatada, who arrived in Britain seeking asylum in 1993 and was allowed to stay, was called "the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda in Europe" by a Spanish judge.
He would later be termed "a very dangerous individual" by a British one. Qatada was left alone by MI5 in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

It would later transpire that at least three of the 9/11 hijackers had been influenced by him: 18 videotapes of his sermons were found in the apartment they frequented in Germany.
Yet one MI5 officer told this newspaper in October 2001 that Abu Qatada was a "joke figure" - a description he also applied to Abu Hamza, the preacher who turned the Finsbury Park Mosque in London into a centre for Islamic radicalism. Hamza has now been incarcerated.

"The problem in the UK and in Europe is fundamental," says Andrew McCarthy, an American federal prosecutor.

"[The problem] is that you haven't recognised that you are at war. You continue to treat Islamic terrorism as if it were a problem of law enforcement. It is not. You are not dealing with criminals.

"You're dealing with an enemy who is at war with you, and who wants to destroy your society. So long as you treat them as if they are ordinary criminals who should be put through the courts, you will not be able to deal with them effectively. The process of the criminal law will hamstring the security agencies in their efforts to frustrate terrorism."

That is an extreme judgment, and one not yet generally shared within MI5. But everyone in the organisation accepts Dame Eliza's judgment that it will not succeed in preventing every attack.
The question that should concern everyone, however, is this: what can be done to increase MI5's success rate?

That question is not addressed by the ISC report, nor by simply accepting that MI5 can never provide 100 per cent security against terrorism.

Until the Government takes it seriously, we're going to suffer more terrorist outrages, more deaths and more injuries from terrorist bombs - of the preventable variety.
McCarthy is right. It is astonishing that so long after 9/11 his observations are not accepted as axiomatic.




Reporting this, or rather, re-reporting this [about Israel's moves against the "Palestinians"]gives the impression that this site has an agenda other than simply exposing Islam, that is, of seeing a triumphant Israel. I am not suggesting that we should oppose Israel, as it has every right to exist, but to report the military movements of this nation or that nation as cover stories about global jihad is very weak. One wishes we would stick to the global jihad."-- from a posting above
What is the "Global Jihad" you refer to if not the sum of all the local manifestations of the same impulse, arising from the same texts and the same attitudes? The Lesser Jihad against Israel is part of the Globel Jihad, and far from getting in the way of comprehension of that Global Jihad, offers a great many lessons to Infidels.
What lessons? Well, the lesson that the Lesser Jihad against Israel was, for a while, deliberately disguised. It was disguised because prior to the OPEC trillions and all the power that brought, prior to the millions of Muslims permitted to settle deep within the Bilad al-kufr of Western Europe and, to a much lesser extent, North America, the main Jihad in town -- the one that the
West paid attention to and misunderstoode -- was that against the Infidel state of Israel.
The Israelis of course have refused to recognize the nature of the siege they have undergone, the Arab opposition that began before the state was declared, continued after the state was declared and before there was a single Israeli soldier in either the "West Bank" or Gaza, and that will go on forever, whatever further retreats or surrenders based on miscomprehension, by both the Israelis and those who pressure them, of what they face.
Had the Israelis not been inhibited, had they not been so intent on winning allies among whatever non-Arab Muslim states, whose people were essentially unfriendly or contemptuous or hostile to the Arabs, and whose regimes were run by "secular" Muslims -- i.e. Kemalists in Turkey, Shah Reza Pahlevi in Iran, then they might have begun to understand Islam. But they were ruled, by and large, from people who had come from Europe (the Jews from Arab lands and Iran have come into their own in Israel only quite recently).
And what would that understanding have done?
It would have led the Israelis, well-versed in the essential principles of Muslim treaty-making with Infidels, based on the model of Muhammad's treaty with the Meccans at Hudaibiyyah, not to bother too much and certainly not to give up land and other tangible assets to Muslims who have not only failed to live up to every single one of the agreements, ranging from the armistice agreements of 1949, to Nasser's promises (made to Eisenhower and Dulles) in 1956, to the assorted agreements made after the Six-Day War (all those concessions repeatedly squeezed, drop by drop, out of Israel by a series of American secretaries of state, including the egregious Kissinger), to those made after the 1973 War, to all the hustling and bustling about by such non-students of Islam as Richard Haass and Dennis Ross and others who never learned to learn about Islam.
And since the Israelis failed to identify the problem correctly, at a time when, had they done so, Europe still possessed among its leaders those who had a better sense of history, and also did not grow up under the steady stillicide of anti-Israel propaganda that only the most remarkable and level-headed of young Europeans manage to reject in toto, and many perfectly nice people simply know nothing of the history of that area, of the history of the MIddle East, of the League of Nations and the Mandates Commission and the purposes of its various mandates including the Mandate for Palestine, and of course grew up when that fantasy was created and given life -- the local Arabs magically turning into the "Palestinian people."
Had the Israelis understood Islam, they might have managed to convey that understanding to others, including the ruling elites in Europe who, so disastrously, remained equally obtuse when it came to Islam, and let in millions of Muslims without paying any attention either to the tenets and attitudes that Islam inculcates, or to the 1350-year history of Jihad-conquest and subsequent subjugation of every non-Muslim people whose lands the Muslims conquered.
Today, the Arabs and Muslims continue to pretend, aided and abetted by Western hirelings, and by all those who for one reason or another have not studied the Arab siege of Israel (including the demographic and cadastral records of those former Ottoman vilayets that went into making up this "Palestine" that never existed under Muslim rule), that "if only" they were given their way in "Palestine" all manner of things should be well.
We are to believe, I suppose, that Kashmir and the rest of India will be left alone, that Hindus and Christians will no longer be discriminated against, persecuted, even murdered, in Pakistan and Bangladesh, that the disguised Jizyah of the Bumiputra system in Malaysia, that forces local Indians and Chinese to subsidize Muslims at every level, that the Buddhist teachers and monks and villagers murdered in southern Thailand would no longer be murdered, that the As-Sayyaf organization in the Moro Islands would no longer be killing Christian Filipinos, that the Christians in the Moluccas and Sulawesi, and the non-Muslim Chinese everywhere, and the dangerously syncretistic Anbangen, and the Hindus in Bali, would no longer need to worry about Islam or Jemaah Islmaiya and a hundred similar groups, that the Christians in southern Nigeria who tried desperately to escape from the "Jihad" (in Colonel Ojukwu's words in 1969 in the Ahiara Declaration) against them by fighting for an independent Biafra, that the non-Muslim blacks in the southern Sudan, and the non-Arab Muslims in Darfur (Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacy) would find everything suddenly all right.
And in France, in Italy, in England, in Spain, in Russia, in Denmark, in Sweden, in Belgium, and everywhere else where even relatively small Muslim populations dare demand changes in everything -- in the curricula in schools, in the dress in schools, in the hospital wards and the examining rooms, in the food offered in government canteens, in the demands made for limits on the practice of free speech by free men in Europe, exercising their own freedoms, in so much else -- all this the Arabs and Muslims never mention, but somehow let it be known that Israel's refusal to roll over and play dead (though god knows the Israelis have repeatedly been willing to give up far more than any other people would or should, and seem incapable of learning from their repeated mistakes and surrenders) is what causes all these problems in what we may call the Global Jihad, but which can not be understood unless we study, and analyze, the way the Lesser Jihad against Israel was and continues to be misunderstood, by both the simpletons and the malevolent, and that this has had consequences both for Israel and, possibly as disastrously, for the countries of western Europe as well.
This site does "have an agenda." That "agenda" is to take the side of all those Infidel states and peoples that are threatened by Jihad. That means siding with Israel. It means siding with India over Kashmir. It means taking the side of the blacks in the southern Sudan, should they wish to be protected and to declare independence. It means taking the side of the Ibo and other Christians in Nigeria.
It means taking the side of the Serbs when they are now being attacked in Kosovo and Bosnia. It means taking the side of the Armenians as they seek admission of guilt, not by "Turks," but by Muslim Turks and Kurds (and even Arabs in the Syrian desert). It means taking the side of the Thai government if it decides to act decisively, even ruthlessly, in southern Thailand. It means supporting the government of the Philippines as it attempts to crush the As-Sayyaf group.
Do you object? Do you find something wrong with that?
Tell us exactly what.
Posted by: Hugh


June 30, 2006
Bin Laden as Patrick Henry?
By Daniel Henninger
So we got the Hamdan Guantanamo detainee decision yesterday, the turmoil over revealing the Swift surveillance of terrorist financing a week ago, the FBI's capture in Florida of the would-be al Qaeda bombers of the Sears Tower before that, and oh yes, those 17 Muslims in Canada who wanted to invade Parliament and behead the prime minister. We seem to be thoroughly entangled just now in never-ending tensions over civil liberty concerns on one hand and manifest national security threats on the other.
Nearly five years after September 11, it's a little stale to argue that this much confusion is just the way a vigorous democracy functions. Or not.
It was good to see that the FBI could catch a group like the Florida bombers. By coincidence about that time, the director of the FBI in New York, Mark Mershon, visited our offices. Mr.
Mershon made it clear that the FBI will not monitor or surveil anyone, including Muslim extremists, without a "criminal predicate." Generally, probable cause is the gold standard for watching. Mr. Mershon said that if someone keeps his head down and nose clean in the U.S., he can function with a great deal of freedom. That's a rough but workable description of our system.
This traditional, all-American tradeoff between liberty and risk works OK in a country populated with standard criminal types; most eventually work their way up to a police database. But what about the world of Islamic fanaticism whose recruits, notably suicide bombers (or pilots) are nearly all first-timers?
Does "our system" mandate that we allow an Islamic fifth column to fly beneath the radar of probable cause and into buildings? Do we have to settle for catching bottom-feeders like the Florida plotters while the smart boys, planning a smallpox attack in Detroit, stay below what they've read is the threshold for FBI curiosity or a FISA warrant?
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh in a conversation about this tension said, "I'm not sure I agree 100%" with the president or Attorney General Gonzales that we need additional legal authority. He thinks the array of existing tools is adequate, citing the use of conspiracy law against sophisticated organized crime groups. More pointedly he says, "Give me an example of things you can't do with available means."
Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director, agrees that American conspiracy law is a big tent and that "a balance needs to be struck." But he thinks it is a mistake to think about the terror threat in traditional, individual-liberty terms. "The tough case," he said "is what to do with groups that have as their explicit objective, as much of the Muslim Brotherhood does, an Islamic state governing North America? It's hard because it involves raising [security] questions around people who purport that these are their religious beliefs. Our constitutional structure has real problems with that."
Those difficulties notwithstanding, Mr. Woolsey thinks it would make sense to attempt a legislative carve-out of special, defined status for this threat, similar to what we did for communism during the Cold War. I agree. We are damaging ourselves now by conflating traditional individual-liberty concerns with the reality of a global, anti-American movement. Sen. Arlen Specter is the leading example of trying to plug ancient square pegs into this new round hole in our security.
To clarify the new threat, Mr. Woolsey analogizes the McCarran Act, "which made the commies' lives here miserable, if not illegal." That's an interesting idea. The American left will go screaming into the streets at the word "McCarran," but I'd urge anyone else to look at the law's description of the enemy; pull out "communist movement" and drop in "Islamic jihad" and the current threat achieves defined status.
The tension between the Bush administration and its critics has much to do with the fact that the government's surveillance programs are justified to fight a blob called "terrorism." The conceit is we're all supposed to mumble, sotto voce, that it's really Islamic terrorism; but for reasons of delicacy the government won't quite say that and won't make it official. That gives the administration's critics at least a basis for arguing that its surveillance claims are too broad.
In this way the Taliban on Guantanamo reach the status of Everyman, even in the minds of Supreme Court justices. Why not a congressional act defining the threat? So what if it failed? The purpose would now be plain and even the New York Times could no longer pretend it can't distinguish between wiretaps on revolutionary Islamic fanatics and Patrick Henry's descendants.
It is possible to sharpen the focus of this matter further. The critics of the anti-terror surveillance programs such as the NSA's warrantless wiretaps give the impression that these efforts somehow violate principles laid down at the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The legal arguments, however, revolve around the requirements of Title III (establishing probable cause for electronic surveillance) and the FISA statute. Both laws, from the 1960s and '70s, in part were a reaction to government wiretapping of individuals involved in the civil-rights movement and anti-Vietnam War protests.
Many of those in the opposition on these surveillance issues--in Congress, the legal community and the press--are people whose personal and intellectual formation is rooted in the events of that era. This is the prism through which they transmute any political event; does it pass or fail the commandments carved in the '70s? But this is 2006, not 1974. Islamic jihad and al Qaeda are not the Montgomery marchers or Kent State, and our debate and laws should reflect that. Applying transaction analytics to telephone traffic is not the same as two cops with headphones in a hotel listening to the people in the next room.
Perhaps there's a silver lining. The public demonizing of Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Gonzales as ruthless tramplers of civil liberties is a throwback to the anti-LBJ, anti-Nixon style of Vietnam-era protests. This has been catastrophic for shaping public policy around this issue. But if the bad guys go slow because they think that George Bush and Dick Cheney are RoboCops willing to do what they gotta do track, trap and catch them, hey, maybe our crackpot "system" works after all.
Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

Political Correctness Evil

Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism
by Baron Bodissey

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report as a guest-post at Gates of Vienna.

FrontPage Magazine: You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil because of “the violence that it does to people’s souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.” Can you talk about this a bit?Theodore Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

I have heard people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism, perhaps more so. Even in the heyday of the East Bloc, there were active dissident groups in these countries. The scary thing is, I sometimes believe they are right.But how is that possible? Don’t we have free speech here? And we have no Gulag?The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have. Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single strata of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization,” a classic, Marxist interpretation.What happened is that while the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we deemed it to be less threatening. The “hard” Marxists had intercontinental nuclear missiles and openly said that they would “bury” us.

The soft Marxists talk about tolerance and may seem less threatening, but their goal of overthrowing the evil, capitalist West remains the same. In fact, they are more dangerous precisely because they hide their true goals under different labels. Perhaps we should call it “stealth Socialism” instead of soft Socialism.One of the readers of Fjordman blog once pointed out that we never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2. He was thinking of the former Soviet Union and the countries in Eastern Europe, but he should probably have included their Marxist fellow travellers, their sympathizers and apologists in the West. We never fully confronted the ideology of Marxism, and demonstrated that the suffering it caused for hundreds of millions of people was a direct result of Marxist ideas. We just assumed that Marxism was dead and moved on, allowing many of its ideals to mutate into new forms and many of its champions to continue their work uninterrupted, sometimes filled with a vengeance and a renewed zeal for another assault on the capitalist West.We are now paying the price for this.

Not only has Marxism survived, it is thriving and has in some ways grown stronger. Leftist ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse, their critics vilified and demonized. By hiding their intentions under labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could never have dreamt of had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.The Left have become ideological orphans after the Cold War, or perhaps we should call them ideological mercenaries. Although the viable economic alternative to capitalism didn’t work out, their hatred for this system never subsided, it merely transformed into other forms. Multiculturalism is just a different word for “divide and conquer,” pitting various ethnic and cultural groups against each other and destroying the coherence of Western society from within.At the very least, the people living in the former Communist countries knew and admitted that they were taking part in a gigantic social experiment, and that the media and the authorities were serving them propaganda to shore up support for this project.

Yet in the supposedly free West, we are taking part in a gigantic social experiment of Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration every bit as radical, utopian and potentially dangerous as Communism, seeking to transform our entire society from top to bottom, and still we refuse to even acknowledge that this is going on.In Norway, a tiny Scandinavian nation that was until recently 99% white and Lutheran Christian, native Norwegians will soon be a minority in their own capital city, later in the whole country. And still, Norwegian politicians, journalists and University professors insist that there is nothing to worry about over this. Multiculturalism is nothing new, neither is immigration. In fact, our king a century ago was born in Denmark, so having a capital city dominated by Pakistanis, Kurds, Arabs and Somalis is just business as usual. The most massive transformation of the country in a thousand years, probably in recorded history, is thus treated as if it were the most natural thing in the world. To even hint that there might be something wrong about this has been immediately shouted down as “racism.”Eric Hoffer has noted that “It is obvious that a proselytizing mass movement must break down all existing group ties if it is to win a considerable following.

The ideal potential convert is the individual who stands alone, who has no collective body he can blend with and lose himself in and so mask the pettiness, meaninglessness and shabbiness of his individual existence. Where a mass movement finds the corporate pattern of family, tribe, country, etcetera, in a state of disruption and decay, it moves in and gathers the harvest. Where it finds the corporate pattern in good repair, it must attack and disrupt.” This corresponds exactly to the behavior of much of the Western Left in our age.In Germany, Hans-Peter Raddatz in his book “Allahs Frauen” (Allah’s Women) dissects the destructive attitude of Multiculturalism that is shared by many civil servants, journalists, politicians and lawyers in Germany and the EU. In particular, he documents how the German Green Party has a program for dismantling and dissolving the Christian “Leitkultur,” or common culture, that so far has been the foundation of Germany and the West. Raddatz thinks that the decades of Muslim immigration are used as an instrument for breaking down the institutions, norms and ideas that the Left has earlier tried to break down through economics.

From powerful positions in the media, public institutions and the system of education, these Multiculturalists are working on a larger project of renewing a Western civilization that, according to them, has failed.A Norwegian newspaper called Dagens Næringsliv exposed the fact that the largest “anti-racist” organization in the country, SOS Rasisme, was heavily infiltrated by Communists and extreme Leftists. They infiltrated the organization in the late 1980s and early ’90s, in other words, during the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe. They went directly from Communism to Multiculturalism, which should indicate that at least some of them viewed Multiculturalism as the continuation of Communism by other means. It speaks volumes about the close connection between economic Marxism and cultural Marxism. They just have different means of reaching the same ends.Much of the political Left is simply engaged in outing their opponents as evil, instead of rationally arguing against their ideas.

Attaching labels such as “racist” or even “Fascist” to anyone criticizing massive immigration or Multiculturalism has become so common that Norwegian anti-Islamists have coined a new word for it: “Hitling,” which could be roughly translated to English as “to make like Hitler.” The logic behind “hitling” is a bit like this: “You have a beard. Adolf Hitler had facial hair, too, so you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler liked dogs. You have pets, too, you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. You like carrots, you are just like Hitler.”Any “right-winger” can be slimed with such accusations. Curiously enough, the reverse is almost never true. Although Marxism may have killed 100 million people during the 20th century and failed in every single society in which it has ever been tried out, there seems to be little stigma attached to being a Leftist. The fact that Leftists can get away with this and claim to hold the moral high ground amply demonstrates that we didn’t win the Cold War.

We let our guard down after the fall of the Berlin Wall and never properly denounced the ideology behind it. This is now coming back to haunt us.One member of an anti-immigration party in Britain stated that to be called racist in 21st-century Britain is “the same as being branded a witch in the Middle Ages.” He’s probably right, which means that anti-racism has quite literally become a modern witch-hunt.Naomi Klein, Canadian activist and author of the book No Logo, is a darling of the Western Left. She claims that the real cause of Islamic terrorism is Western racism, traceable back to the personal experiences of Sayyid Qutb, theorist of modern Islamic Jihad, while in the USA in the late 1940s. “The real problem,” she concludes, “is not too much Multiculturalism but too little.” More Multiculturalism, she claims, “would rob terrorists of what has always been their greatest recruitment tool: our racism.”Robert Spencer, however, is not too impressed with Klein’s logic or historical knowledge: “Qutb’s world-changing rage?”

Is that rage really Qutb’s? Can modern-day Islamic terrorism really be attributed to him, and to his experience of racism in Colorado? One would expect that if that were so, there would be no evidence of political or violent Islam dating from before 1948. But in fact the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Qutb was part, was founded not in 1948 but in 1928, and not by Qutb, but by Hasan Al-Banna. It was Al-Banna, not Qutb, who wrote: “In [Muslim] Tradition, there is a clear indication of the obligation to fight the People of the Book [that is, Jews and Christians], and of the fact that God doubles the reward of those who fight them. Jihad is not against polytheists alone, but against all who do not embrace Islam.”Paul Berman does not share Klein’s interpretation, either. According to him, Qutb’s book from the 1940’s, Social Justice and Islam,’ shows that, even before his voyage to the USA, Qutb “was pretty well set in his Islamic fundamentalism,” although it may have gotten worse after his meetings with Western “immorality.” According to Berman, the truly dangerous element in American life, in Sayyid Qutb’s estimation, “was not capitalism or foreign policy or racism or the unfortunate cult of women’s independence.

The truly dangerous element lay in America’s separation of church and state — the modern political legacy of Christianity’s ancient division between the sacred and the secular.” Islam’s true champions had to gather themselves together into what Qutb in his book Milestones called a vanguard. This vanguard of true Muslims was going to resurrect the caliphate and take Islam to all the world, just as Muhammad had done.” Both Milestones and parts of Qutb’s perhaps most important work, In the Shade of the Qur’an, are available online in English. In Milestones, he writes that Jihad will continue until all of the world answers to Islam, that “Islam came into this world to establish God’s rule on God’s earth.” “Islam has a right to remove all those obstacles which are in its path,” it “has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions” around the world that are in opposition to this. “God’s rule on earth can be established only through the Islamic system.” What does this have to do with Western racism? Why did Jihad start a thousand years before Western colonialism ever touched Islamic lands? What about the tens of millions of people massacred in India because of Islamic Jihad? Was that due to Western racism, too? Naomi Klein doesn’t say, she just blames the West. And she is far from the only one suffering from this delusion.

Commenting on the Jihad riots in France in the fall of 2005, philosopher Alain Finkielkraut stated: “In France, they would like very much to reduce these riots to their social dimension, to see them as a revolt of youths from the suburbs against their situation, against the discrimination they suffer from, against the unemployment. The problem is that most of these youths are blacks or Arabs, with a Muslim identity. Look, in France there are also other immigrants whose situation is difficult — Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese — and they’re not taking part in the riots. Therefore, it is clear that this is a revolt with an ethno-religious character. These people were treated like rebels, like revolutionaries. (…) They’re ‘interesting.’ They’re ‘the wretched of the earth.’ “Imagine for a moment that they were whites, like in Rostock in Germany. Right away, everyone would have said: ‘Fascism won’t be tolerated.’ When an Arab torches a school, it’s rebellion. When a white guy does it, it’s fascism. Evil is evil, no matter what color it is.”In an interview with Danish weekly Weekendavisen, Finkielkraut said that: “Racism is the only thing that can still arouse anger among the intellectuals, the journalists and people in the entertainment business, in other words, the elites. Culture and religion have collapsed, only anti-racism is left. And it functions like an intolerant and inhumane idolatry.” “A leader from one of the organizations against racism had the nerve to refer to the actions of the police in the Parisian suburbs as ‘ethnic cleansing.’ That kind of expression used about the French situation indicates a deliberate manipulation of the language.

Unfortunately, these insane lies have convinced the public that the destruction in the suburbs should be viewed as a protest against exclusion and racism.” “I think that the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”Maybe the French have fallen prey to the nihilism of Jean-Paul Sartre? Roger Scruton wrote about his continued influence in The Spectator: “The French have not recovered from Sartre and perhaps never will. For they have had to live with an intellectual establishment that has consistently repudiated the two things that hold the country together: Christianity and the idea of France. The anti-bourgeois posture of the left-bank intellectual has entered the political process, and given rise to an elite for whom nothing is certain save the repudiation of the national idea. It is thanks to this elite that the mad project of European Union has become indelibly inscribed in the French political process, even though the people of France reject it.

It is thanks to this elite that the mass immigration into France of unassimilable Muslim communities has been both encouraged and subsidised. It is thanks to this elite that socialism has been so firmly embedded in the French state that no one now can reform it.” “Man cannot live by negation alone.”Karl Marx himself has stated that “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism,” a sentiment that corresponds almost exactly to the Islamic idea that “peace” means the absence of opposition to Islamic rule. Cultural Marxism — aka Political Correctness — and Islam share the same totalitarian outlook and instinctively agree in their opposition to free discussion, and in the idea that freedom of speech must be curtailed when it is “offensive” to certain groups. Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that “there is very little difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left, everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good and everything rightist is a priori oppressor and evil. Facts don’t matter. Justice is determined by who you are and not by what you have done.” “Political correctness is an intellectual sickness. It means expediently lying when telling the truth is not expedient.

This practice is so widespread and so common that it is considered to be normal.” Sina also quotes historian Christopher Dawson in writing: “It is easy enough for the individual to adopt a negative attitude of critical skepticism. But if society as a whole abandons all positive beliefs, it is powerless to resist the disintegrating effects of selfishness and private interest. Every society rests in the last resort on the recognition of common principles and common ideals, and if it makes no moral or spiritual appeal to the loyalty of its members, it must inevitably fall to pieces.” This will be the end result of Multiculturalism, and one suspects that this was the point of it to begin with.Another former Muslim, writer Ibn Warraq, visited Denmark to launch his book Why I am not a Muslim. In an interview, Ibn Warraq stated that especially among the Left there is a post-colonial guilt complex that constitutes an almost insuperable obstacle to any criticism of Islam and Third World cultures. The Left have thus put their own, universal values aside in favor of a dangerous relativism. Ibn Warraq pointed out that more than fifty years after the West left its colonies in the Third World, Leftists are still blaming all the ills of Africa and the Middle East on the former colonial powers, while the same left-wingers only ten years after the fall of Communism blamed Russia’s troubles on unrestrained capitalism.

“The Left refuses to seek answers elsewhere. At the same time they are, because of Marx, accustomed to look for economic explanations to everything. Consequently, they seek the explanation to Islamic terrorism in the economic situation. But it is a great mystery to me how 200 dead people in Madrid are supposed to help the poor in the Islamic world.”Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who has personal experience with living under Socialism, warns that it may not be as dead as many seem to think: “We can probably confidently say that its “hard version” – communism – is over.” However, “fifteen years after the collapse of communism I am afraid, more than at the beginning of its softer (or weaker) version, of social-democratism, which has become – under different names, e.g. the welfare state – the dominant model of the economic and social system of current Western civilization. It is based on big and patronizing government, on extensive regulating of human behavior, and on large-scale income redistribution.” “The explicit socialism has lost its appeal and we should not have it as the main rival to our ideas today.” Klaus warns that illiberal ideas are making a comeback in different shapes: “These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed (Thomas Sowell) on others against their will.”

“The current threats to liberty may use different ‘hats’, they may better hide their real nature, they may be more sophisticated than before, but they are – in principle – the same as always.”“I have in mind environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism (based – as de Jasay precisely argues – on not distinguishing rights and rightism), ideology of ‘civic society’ (or communitarism), which is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence, a refeudalization of society. I also have in mind multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.”Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist. He was one of the first to expose the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the USSR, and spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as a heir to the Soviet Union.

In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC’s compulsory TV licence, which he considers “such a medieval arrangement I simply must protest against it” “The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech — publicising views they don’t necessarily agree with.” He has blasted the BBC for their “bias and propaganda,” especially on stories related to the EU or the Middle East. “I would like the BBC to become the KGB successors in imprisoning me for demanding freedom of speech. Nothing would expose them more for what they are.”He is not the only one who is tired of what he thinks is the Leftist bias of the BBC. Michael Gove, a Conservative MP, and political commentator Mark Dooley complain about lopsided coverage of certain issues: “Take, for example, the BBC’s coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in 2002, he was lauded as an “icon” and a “hero,” but no mention was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as “polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man.” This despite the fact that under Yassin’s guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds.”

“A soft left worldview influences too much of what the corporation produces. We have a right to expect more honesty from the broadcasting service we are being asked to pay for.”Vladimir Bukovsky thinks that the West lost the Cold War. “There were no Nuremberg-type trials in Moscow. Why? Because while we won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas. The West stopped one day too soon, just like in Desert Storm. Just imagine the Allies in 1945 being satisfied with some kind of Perestroika in Nazi Germany — instead of unconditional surrender. What would have been the situation in Europe then, to say nothing of Germany? All former Nazi collaborators would have remained in power, albeit under a new disguise. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union in 1991.” “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular).

This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.” “It is no surprise, therefore, that despite the defeat of communism, the radical Left in the West still arrogates the moral high ground to itself.”“When the Nazis lost the Second World War, racial hatred was discredited. When the Soviets lost the Cold War, the tenet of class hatred remained as popular as ever.” Bukovsky argues that while there might have been a Western military victory, Socialism still prevailed as a popular idea ideologically throughout the world. He writes: “Having failed to finish off conclusively the communist system, we are now in danger of integrating the resulting monster into our world. It may not be called communism anymore, but it retained many of its dangerous characteristics. . . .Until the Nuremberg-style tribunal passes its judgement on all the crimes committed by communism, it is not dead and the war is not over.”

Cultural Marxism has roots as far back as the 1920s, when some Socialist thinkers advocated attacking the cultural base of Western civilization to pave the way for the Socialist transition. Cultural Marxism is thus not something “new.” It has coexisted with economic Marxism for generations, but it received a great boost in the West from the 1960s and 70s onwards. As the Soviet Union fell apart and China embraced capitalism, the economic Marxists joined in on the “cultural” train, too, as it was now the only game in town. They don’t have a viable alternative to present, but they don’t care. They truly believe that we, the West, are so evil and exploitative that literally anything would be better, even the Islamic Caliphate.The Free Congress Foundation has an interesting booklet online called Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology, edited by William S. Lind.

According to Lind, Political Correctness “wants to change behavior, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has.” “Whoever or whatever controls language also controls thought.” “Political Correctness” is in fact cultural Marxism. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the translation, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilization?” Lind thinks there are major parallels between classical and cultural Marxism: “Both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on [University] campuses where ‘PC’ has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.” “Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes.

The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.”“Just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good,” for instance feminist women. Similarly, “white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.” Both economic and cultural Marxism “have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired.”Raymond V. Raehn agrees with Lind that “Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state.” According to him, “Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media.” “He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.”

Another one of the early cultural Marxists, Georg Lukacs, noted that “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.” At a meeting in Germany in 1923, “Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” in order to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West as a necessary prerequisite for revolution.”William S. Lind points out that this cultural Marxism had its beginnings after the Marxist Revolution in Russia in 1917 failed to take roots in other countries. Marxists tried to analyze the reasons for this, and found them in Western civilization and culture itself. “Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?”John Fonte describes how this cultural war is now being played out in the USA in his powerful piece “Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America.”

According to him, “beneath the surface of American politics an intense ideological struggle is being waged between two competing worldviews. I will call these “Gramscian” and “Tocquevillian” after the intellectuals who authored the warring ideas — the twentieth-century Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, and, of course, the nineteenth-century French intellectual Alexis de Tocqueville. The stakes in the battle between the intellectual heirs of these two men are no less than what kind of country the United States will be in decades to come.”Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Marxist intellectual and politician, “believed that it was necessary first to delegitimize the dominant belief systems of the predominant groups and to create a “counter-hegemony” (i.e., a new system of values for the subordinate groups) before the marginalized could be empowered. Moreover, because hegemonic values permeate all spheres of civil society — schools, churches, the media, voluntary associations — civil society itself, he argued, is the great battleground in the struggle for hegemony, the “war of position.” From this point, too, followed a corollary for which Gramsci should be known (and which is echoed in the feminist slogan) — that all life is “political.”

Thus, private life, the work place, religion, philosophy, art, and literature, and civil society, in general, are contested battlegrounds in the struggle to achieve societal transformation.” This, according to Fonte, “is the very core of the Gramscian-Hegelian world view — group-based morality, or the idea that what is moral is what serves the interests of “oppressed” or “marginalized” ethnic, racial, and gender groups.” “The concept of ‘internalized oppression’ is the same as the Hegelian-Marxist notion of ‘false consciousness,’ in which people in the subordinate groups ‘internalize’(and thus accept) the values and ways of thinking of their oppressors in the dominant groups.” “This is classic Hegelian-Marxist thinking — actions (including free speech) that ‘objectively’ harm people in a subordinate class are unjust (and should be outlawed).”He tracks how the ideas of Gramsci and cultural Marxists have spread throughout Western academia. Law professor Catharine MacKinnon writes in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989), “The rule of law and the rule of men are one thing, indivisible,” because “State power, embodied in law, exists throughout society as male power.” Furthermore, “Male power is systemic. Coercive, legitimated, and epistemic, it is the regime.” MacKinnon has argued that sexual harassment is essentially an issue of power exercised by the dominant over the subordinate group.”

At an academic conference sponsored by the University of Nebraska, “the attendees articulated the view that ‘White students desperately need formal “training” in racial and cultural awareness. The moral goal of such training should override white notions of privacy and individualism.’”This can sometimes amount to virtual brainwashing disguised as critical thinking. Fonte mentions that at Columbia University, “new students are encouraged to get rid of ‘their own social and personal beliefs that foster inequality.’ To accomplish this, the assistant dean for freshmen, Katherine Balmer, insists that ‘training’ is needed. At the end of freshmen orientation at Bryn Mawr in the early 1990s, according to the school program, students were ‘breaking free’ of ‘the cycle of oppression’ and becoming ‘change agents.’ Syracuse University’s multicultural program is designed to teach students that they live ‘in a world impacted by various oppression issues, including racism.’”John Fonte thinks that the primary resistance to the advance of cultural Marxism in the USA comes from an opposing quarter he dubs “contemporary Tocquevillianism.” “Its representatives take Alexis de Tocqueville’s essentially empirical description of American exceptionalism and celebrate the traits of this exceptionalism as normative values to be embraced.”

As Tocqueville noted in the 1830s, Americans today are “just as in Tocqueville’s time, are much more individualistic, religious, and patriotic than the people of any other comparably advanced nation.” “What was particularly exceptional for Tocqueville (and contemporary Tocquevillians) is the singular American path to modernity. Unlike other modernists, Americans combined strong religious and patriotic beliefs with dynamic, restless entrepreneurial energy that emphasized equality of individual opportunity and eschewed hierarchical and ascriptive group affiliations.”This battle is now being played out in most American public institutions. “Tocquevillians and Gramscians clash on almost everything that matters. Tocquevillians believe that there are objective moral truths applicable to all people at all times. Gramscians believe that moral ‘truths’ are subjective and depend upon historical circumstances. Tocquevillians believe in personal responsibility. Gramscians believe that ‘the personal is political.’ In the final analysis, Tocquevillians favor the transmission of the American regime; Gramscians, its transformation.”“While economic Marxism appears to be dead, the Hegelian variety articulated by Gramsci and others has not only survived the fall of the Berlin Wall, but also gone on to challenge the American republic at the level of its most cherished ideas.

For more than two centuries America has been an ‘exceptional’ nation, one whose restless entrepreneurial dynamism has been tempered by patriotism and a strong religious-cultural core. The ultimate triumph of Gramscianism would mean the end of this very ‘exceptionalism.’ America would at last become Europeanized: statist, thoroughly secular, post-patriotic, and concerned with group hierarchies and group rights in which the idea of equality before the law as traditionally understood by Americans would finally be abandoned. Beneath the surface of our seemingly placid times, the ideological, political, and historical stakes are enormous.”Britain’s Anthony Browne writes in The Retreat of Reason of how the Politically Correct are more intolerant of dissent than traditional liberals or conservatives, since Liberals of earlier times “accepted unorthodoxy as normal. Indeed the right to differ was a datum of classical liberalism. The Politically Correct do not give that right a high priority. It distresses their programmed minds. Those who do not conform should be ignored, silenced or vilified.

There is a kind of soft totalitarianism about Political Correctness.” “Because the politically correct believe they are not just on the side of right, but of virtue, it follows that those they are opposed to are not just wrong, but malign. In the PC mind, the pursuit of virtue entitles them to curtail the malign views of those they disagree with.” “People who transgress politically correct beliefs are seen not just as wrong, to be debated with, but evil, to be condemned, silenced and spurned.” “The rise of political correctness represents an assault on both reason and liberal democracy.” Browne defines Political Correctness as “an ideology that classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism, and which makes believers feel that no dissent should be tolerated.” He also warns that “Good intentions pave the road to hell. The world is not short of good intentions, but it is too often short of good reasoning.”

However, Anthony Browne focuses more in the geopolitical situation to explain the rise of PC than on Marxist strategies: “Political correctness is essentially the product of a powerful but decadent civilisation which feels secure enough to forego reasoning for emoting, and to subjugate truth to goodness. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and those that followed in Bali, Madrid and Beslan, have led to a sense of vulnerability that have made people far more hard-headed about the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation.”“To some extent, the rise of the eastern powers, China and India, will ensure in coming decades that western guilt will shrivel: finally having equal powers to compare ourselves to, the West will no longer feel inclined to indulge in self-loathing, but will seek to reaffirm its sense of identity. (…) in the long-run of history, political correctness will be seen as an aberration in Western thought. The product of the uniquely unchallenged position of the West and its unrivalled affluence, the comparative decline of the West compared to the East is likely to spell the demise of political correctness.”Lee Harris in his article “Why Isn’t Socialism Dead?” ponders whether Socialism isn’t dead because Socialism can’t die.

The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, has argued in his book, The Mystery of Capital, that the failure of the various socialist experiments of the twentieth century has left mankind with only one rational choice about which economic system to go with, namely, capitalism. However, says Harris, “the revolutionary socialist’s life is transformed because he accepts the myth that one day socialism will triumph, and justice for all will prevail.” Thus there is “an...analogy between religion and the revolutionary Socialism which aims at the apprenticeship, preparation, and even the reconstruction of the individual — a gigantic task.” “It may well be that socialism isn’t dead because socialism cannot die. Who doesn’t want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?”Maybe Socialism is a bit like the flu: It keeps mutating, and as soon as your immune system has defeated one strain, it changes just enough so that your body does not recognize it and then mounts another attack.

Political Correctness can reach absurd levels. Early in June 2006, Canadian police arrested a group of men suspected of planning terror attacks. The group was alleged to have been “well-advanced on its plan” to attack a number of Canadian institutions, among them the Parliament of Canada, including a possible beheading of the Prime Minister, and Toronto’s subway. However, the lead paragraph of newspaper Toronto Star’s story on the arrests was: “In investigators’ offices, an intricate graph plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator.” Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell said that the suspects were all Canadian residents and the majority were citizens. “They represent the broad strata of our community. Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed,” he said. However, there was one common denominator for the suspects that wasn’t mentioned: They were all Muslims. The front page article in the New York Times (June 4), too, was a study in how to avoid using the dreaded “M” word. The terrorist suspects were referred to as “Ontario residents,” “Canadian residents,” “the group,” “mainly of South Asian descent” or “good people.” Everything conceivable, just not as “Muslims.”Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair noted proudly during the press conference following the arrests, “I would remind you that there was not one single reference made by law enforcement to Muslim or Muslim community.”

Before launching the anti-terror raids, Canadian police received “sensitivity training” and were carefully instructed in Islamic traditions such as handling the Koran, the use of prayer mats, and blowing oneself up in the course of an arrest. As Charles Johnson of blog Little Green Footballs noted: “Do the Canadian police extend such considerations to Christian, Jewish, Hindu or other faiths? If they don’t, then the Moslems have already won important recognition as a ‘special’ people.” Commenting on the arrests, the Globe and Mail stated that “It may have been the most politically correct terrorism bust in history.” Canada’s secret security apparatus had been “putting serious effort into softening its image” among Muslims for much of the previous years.The federal government in Canada was considering changes to the Anti-Terrorism Act to make it clear that police and security agents did not engage in religious profiling. The Calgary Sun interviewed a Canadian criminologist, Professor Mahfooz Kanwar, who stated that “Multiculturalism has been bad for unity in Canada.

It ghettoizes people, makes them believe, wrongly, that isolating themselves and not adapting to their new society is OK. It is not.” “Political correctness threatens us because we can’t fight something we refuse to label and understand.” Kanwar said the amount of political correctness during the arrests of 17 Muslims in the Toronto area was “sickening.” “Political correctness has gone too far. Political correctness threatens our society,” said the Pakistani-born Kanwar. “It is the responsibility of the minorities to adjust to the majority, not the other way around,” added Kanwar. Meanwhile, the Canadian Islamic Congress blamed the Canadian government for not showering enough money on the problem. They wanted more funding for research “to scientifically diagnose problems and devise solutions.”They also wanted a nation-wide “Smart Integration program,” whatever that means. Given the fact that Muslims in Canada had quite recently been pushing for the partial implementation of sharia laws in the country, one would suspect that “smart integration” would mean that non-Muslims should demonstrate a little more appeasement. After all, if Canadian authorities listen to the advice of their compatriot Naomi Klein, these planned mass-killings of Canadian civilians were all due to Canadian racism and because the country wasn’t Multicultural enough. Muslims want to kill Canadians, Canadians smile back, tell them how much they “respect” them and ask what more they can do to please them.This is what Political Correctness leads to in the end. It’s not funny and it’s not a joke. Political Correctness kills.

It has already killed thousands of Western civilians, and if left unchecked it may soon kill entire nations or, in the case of Europe, entire continents.As I have stated before, Islam is only a secondary infection, one that we could otherwise have had the strength to withstand. Cultural Marxism has weakened the West and made us ripe for a takeover. It is cultural AIDS, eating away at our immune system until it is too weak to resist Islamic infiltration attempts. It must be destroyed, before it destroys us all.The Leftist-Islamic alliance will have profound consequences. Either they will defeat the West, or they will both go down in the fall. We never really won the Cold War as decisively as we should have done. Marxism was allowed to endure, and mount another attack on us by stealth and proxy. However, this flirting with Muslims could potentially prove more devastating to Marxists than the fall of the Berlin Wall.As William S. Lind points out: “While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Americans realize that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it.

At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance” and “multiculturalism.”Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job. Multiculturalism is not about tolerance or diversity, it is an anti-Western hate ideology designed to dismantle Western civilization. If we can demonstrate this, an important part of the battle has already been won.