Monday, April 27, 2009

The Most Dangerous People in the World

Fjordman, in "Why We Need Germany," at The Brussels Journal writes:


The most dangerous people by far are those running the European Union, who are busy dismantling European civilization and enlarging the borders of the EU to include the Middle East and North Africa, those flooding their own countries with tens of millions of Muslims and other hostile aliens without consulting the native population. This makes the EU the largest criminal entity on the planet, preoccupied with destroying an entire continent, dismantling the greatest civilization that has ever existed and replacing the native population with others. I have described this in my book Defeating Eurabia, which is available online.


Next to the EU, the most dangerous people are the Leftists all over the Western world who are waging a Jihad to destroy their own civilization and have teamed up with Muslims to achieve this goal. Unlike neo-Nazis, these people are not only far more numerous but socially accepted and disproportionately represented in the media and the education system, where they systematically silence “racist” dissenters by destroying their livelihoods and reputations. They use an imaginary “far-Right” threat to crush people they don’t like.


According to Dr Aidan Rankin, “anti-Fascism” is the new Fascism. The so-called anti-racists and Multiculturalists are aggressors with totalitarian leanings; the people they unfairly attack are victims of a failed social experiment and one of the greatest betrayals in history:

“Progressives (as they invariably call themselves) use accusations of racism and fascism as excuses to bully and oppress impoverished white communities and isolate them in racially based ghettos. For white liberals, anti-racism becomes a form of auto-racism, directed at members of their own race who are deemed to be socially inferior. It is, in other words, a new type of snobbery and social exclusion . . .

Continue reading at . . .

Read the whole thing!

Friday, April 24, 2009



The "Home of The Green Arrow," in the post "Nice little smear by the BBC on behalf of the state," says:

The BBC . . .

. . . in a tiny article . . . shout out . . .

"A candidate for the British National Party (BNP) has been arrested by armed police in Suffolk".

But armed police. I ask you. [The Green Arrow goes on to say . . . ] They report that David Lucas, a BNP candidate in the European Elections was arrested in connection with an incident at his farm last year. Incident? Last year?

Of course if you dig a little deeper you find out that the incident they refer to was a large fund raising party that was held on Davids property at which an old army weapon was on display.

and . . .

From the [tiny article on the] BNP website:

“Politically directed police are being sent to harass BNP activists and provide the controlled media with unsubstantiated smear stories as election day draws ever nearer,” said Simon Darby, deputy leader and press officer.

Reacting to the news that totally innocent BNP Euro Eastern region candidate Mr David Lucas had been detained yesterday, Mr Darby said such things were always expected in the run-up to each and every election.

“Mr Lucas had his home searched by police on the pretext of looking for illegal weapons, most likely because he was alleged to be the owner of the deactivated Bren gun which was used as a stage prop during the BNP’s recent Battle for Britain road shows,” Mr Darby said.

“Of course they found nothing at Mr Lucas’s house. They have now bailed him till after the June elections, at which time they will, as is always the case, withdraw any suggestions of charges. All this does is harass legitimate and innocent political activists while providing the media with an opportunity to print lurid anti-BNP stories.

Could this type of police action be in our future?

Thursday, April 23, 2009

How to Save America I - Democracy Reform

Ohmyrus writes this about reforming our Democracy:

Democracy Reform: "Did America's Founders want Democracy? By Ohmyrus

We have come to believe in democracy almost like a religion. But I think it is time to rethink it because it is not working well. Therefore it is useful to start from first principles by looking at what America's Founders were thinking when it crafted the Constitution of the United States.

'Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.'
- James Madison 1

John Adams

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
- John Adams 2"

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.
- John Quincy Adams 3

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.
-John Adams 4

From this we can see that America's Founding Fathers did not intend for the US to be a democracy but a Republic with elected leaders. They were concerned more with liberty than with democracy.

You can see this with the way the Constitution was drafted. It has an electoral vote system which is still in use today. The people vote for these electors who then choose the President. If they had absolute confidence with democracy, they would have a direct vote system to choose the President.

Then there is the Supreme Court who can strike out any law that they regard as 'Unconstitutional'. That is also why the US has a Bill of Rights which they forsaw will protect the individual against the tyranny of the majority. This has worked well in some cases but not in others in ways that the Founding Fathers did not forsee. For example, unjust laws discriminating against blacks were ruled unconstitutional. But on the other hand, abortion was legalised angainst the wishes of the majority. So was pornography.

America's Founders understood, more than today's politicians, that liberty is the foundation for prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. They wanted secure property rights which they know that a true democracy will endanger.

You can see this from James Madison's comment about democracy being incompatible with the rights of property and time is proving him right. Private property rights have been eroded by the tyranny of the majority. In France for example, you cannot fire or hire at will. You have to keep sluggards in your work force. This of course will affect your rights as a property or business owner. In some modern democracies, you cannot easily kick out a tennant that you no longer want again affecting your property rights. Thus you cannot hire who you want and you cannot accept whatever tennants you want.

Like John Adams, I am worried that democracy will soon degenerate into anarchy and anarchy will in turn begat a dictatorship. I see this as a distinct possibility and even probability in the next few decades. I see the irrational decisions made by western democracies and wonder how long they can get away with it. How long before the cumulative effects of bad decisions cause system failure?

For example, governments are overspending all over the western world and Japan. As can be seen in my first article, 'Democracy needs a Reformation', the budget deficits in the OECD averages about 4% of GDP. The shortfall is made up for typically by borrowing money. Thus democracies are spending money to benefit this generation at the expense of future generations who must pay the bill eventually. Of course they can't vote and the current crop of politicians won't be in power by that time. This is a result of the problem I highlighted in my first article.
For a politician to win power, all he needs to do is to promise to redistribute income from the haves to the have-nots. This is also what James Madison feared. In 1792, he wrote, 'Government is instituted to protect property of every sort....This being the end of government....That is NOT a just government...nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.'

In other words, the Founding Fathers of America clearly saw the danger that one man one vote will bring about a redistribution of wealth from the able, diligent, disciplined and daring to those less able, diligent, disciplined and daring. The Socialist welfare state that we see today in most western democracies would, I am sure, appall America's Founders. Under democractic government, your property risks being taxed away by votrepreneurers so that they can win elections.

Secondly, there is the immigration time bomb. America has lost control of its borders as millions of illegal immigrants have found their way into the country and it looks like most will be allowed to stay legally. Now, both major parties panders to them because they both want to court the Hispanic vote even though they are a minority. It should be remembered that in a close election, even a few percentage of votes can make a difference.

In Europe, the immigration problem is even worse as the immigrants are usually Muslims who have an even more different culture than the Mexicans that go to America. The difficulty of assimilating them is compounded by the religious differences on top of linguistic and racial differences.

A sensible immigration policy should admit those with valuable skills and come from cultures that readily assimilates with the host. But if they stick with their own language and refuse to assimilate, you run the high risk of dividing the nation. A civil war is not unimaginable. The track record of people of different cultures living peacefully together is not good.

Of course the present day politicians won't be around when or if the problem becomes serious and so they don't care. In addition, instead of screening them so as to accept the best and brightest, it seems to me that most of the illegals lack education and skills. This does not make sense.

How long can this last? I see democracies unable to solve serious problems. The solution of these problems require short term pain in order to achieve long term gain. But the voters won't accept this and politicans cannot deliver the bitter medicine. This is the Achilles Heel of any democracy.

1. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, The Federalist on the New Constitution (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), p. 53, #10, James Madison.

2. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), Vol. VI, p. 484, to John Taylor on April 15, 1814.

3. John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York on Tuesday, the 30th of April 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789 (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), p. 53.

4. John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, editor (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. I, p. 83, from "An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, with the Author's Comment in 1807," written on August 29, 1763, but first published by John Adams in 1807.

posted by Ohmyrus @ 12:47 AM


At 12:55 AM, Joe Rouse said...
Excellent analysis!

At 6:07 PM, Serendipity Collections said...
Joe took the words right out of my mouth! Thank you for this fine analysis!

At 2:44 PM, kenny said...

This is the doom of our time, Our constitutional protections have collapsed with 3 critical changes.

1: the 16th amendment made taxation possible ill respective of the power to spend. effectively poor states to spend on themselves from the pocket of rich states.
2: the 17th amendment broke the ability of the Interested State party to protect it's rights from usurpation by the federal government in all matters of judges, treats, laws, and important officers.

3: The 3rd and final nail was FDR's new deal and the poltical power he had thou both houses of congress which the mob gave him to blackmail the Cort until effective giving congress the broad spending and control power that has enabled them to buy their reelection if they were willing and incompetent enough to uses it.

This effectively makes congress Indifferent on all other matters, and predisposed to spending ever greater sums of money on securing ever more permanently their power. as the ones that don't go along lose with in a few elections until someone replaces them that does. a process of natural selection that favors Big government(socialism) for the composition of congress.

Our Constitutional System has been pretty much overturned with theses key changes, it's extremely unlikely we will be able to fix it, with a revolution of some kind, or the collapse of government.

Still, we have to try...

[First posted on] Wednesday, November 29, 2006 at

Monday, April 20, 2009

Sunday, April 19, 2009

New Riddle of the Sphinx

What's Black and White, Islamic and Christian, Born in Africa and America, and Flies All Over the Place?

Possible Answers:

a. A Man for All Seasons

b. A Chessboard made of Ebony and Ivory being Tossed in the Air

c. A Police Car with Two Policemen of Different Races, Going off a Cliff

If you are asked by the Sphinx, however, I would not use any of the above answers. The Sphinx will Strangle you.

If you are a Modern Oedipus, and can come up with the right answer, the Sphinx will kill herself.

HINT for the correct answer: It (the creature contained in the correct answer) is whatever it thinks that you want it to be. If it advances its purpose, it will shed one skin and appear new and shiny in another one. It will not answer any straight question as to two of its conditions listed in the riddle. It will use either side of its three double-sided conditions to bedazzle and thus deceive you. Come to think of it, it is more noxious and dangerous than the Sphinx herself.

NOTE: Both Sphinx and Sphincter have the same root in Greek. Make of that what you will.


The answer to "The New Riddle of the Sphinx" was actually given--long before the New Spinx posed her new riddle--at

"Obama wants it both ways, has always wanted it both ways. Black and white, Indonesian and American, Muslim and Christian. He loves playing one off the other, using one to hide the other even as the traces of the truth may be assembled to reveal the whole cloth of deception and self-promotion he has been weaving so skillfully since his childhood. No wonder he is a man of change. He IS a changeling, a veritable chameleon, adapting and amending his life story to fit the circumstances."

As the correct answer was given (Obama), the Sphinx (the Strangler) devoured (ate) herself before her new riddle was posted here. That leaves no Sphinx, but only a Sphincter.

A new riddle that must be asked by us is "Who is this Sphincter?"

As Sphincter has the same root as Sphinx--strangle--We ask: "Who is Strangling Us Now?"

"Who is it that is strangling our country, the United States of America, and turning it into another ruin of Western Civilization?"

Is it the One who is a product of this--Western Civilization? Or is he a product of the Other, the barbarous non-civilized world, the world proudly hailed by themselves as Dar al-Islam - areas where Muslims are in the majority - the House of Islam or better said, "The World of Islam."

The Strangler (Sphincter) would have it both ways, he wants to remain The Riddle, this riddler, this strangler of all we hold dear.

Although the Strangler wants us to be puzzled, not to know for certain who or what he is, his true agenda is exposed--ugly and stifling--through the thin-wearing veneer of his many poses: from easy-going, charming likeability to the arrogance of his narcisistic self.

You see, the Strangler IS a Sphinx!


Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?"

At the tail-end of . . .

The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within

Islamization of the U.S. and a possible "Manchurian Candidate"

"Many Muslims insist that Islam is consistent with democracy and can be modernized, but these ideologies are at their roots inconsistent and thus incompatible. Even the act of lying is permissible in Islam."

from The Islamization of America - conquering Americans from within


Islam's "Manchurian Candidate?" *

At the tail-end of the Islamization of America post at Islamic Danger 2 U

* Obama, the Manchurian candidate

[from David Kupelian's "Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian candidate"]

In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.

Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Fitzgerald: "If General Petraeus Had Read "War And Peace"

A review of Hugh Fitzgerald's analysis of the war against the Islamics who attacked us can be found at How to Stop the Islamic Jihad--How to Defeat the Camp of Islam.

For the entire article, go to

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The Emperor Obama

Sultan Knish says:

"The acts of cluelessness and perfidy that mark Obama's big trip are too many to mark. It is clear that whatever else Obama is, he is completely ignorant. The mindblowing spectacle of Obama waxing rhapsodic about Kemal Ataturk, even while trying to win the favor of an Islamist party working to undo everything Ataturk did, and that has jailed many of his supporters, once again demonstrates the sheer depths of hopeless ignorance at which Obama swims. An ignorance that no one in the press dares call him on, leaving it to the occasional blogger to get up and shout, 'The Emperor is Naked'.

[Reminds one of another Emperor--The Emperor Jones*.]

Little wonder that in turn the Muslim world meets Obama's acts of obeisance with contempt, resulting in at least one assasination attempt and a Turkish newscaster conducting a broadcast in blackface.

Even the very monsters and thugs Obama is trying to kiss up to hold him in utter bottomless contempt."

(See Obama: Ignorant of History?)

Eugene O'Neill Play Synopsis at
* A play by Eugene O'Neill. Originally called The Silver Bullet, the play is highly effective as pure theater through its use of such elements as pulsing drums, gunshots, and the dramatic jungle setting. Dialogue does little to advance the action. Jones serves as a symbol for a debased humanity . . .

Monday, April 13, 2009

Obama's "AmeriCorps" Obama on the way to become the "Fuehrer"

[New links re Obama-loyal Paramilitary Force added on April 15, 2009. See tail-end of post, just before the Appendix]

GOP Congresswoman Warns About Americorps

from Gates of Vienna blog:

Rep. Michele Bachmann, a second-term conservative Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, has become the target of an increasingly vicious smear campaign by liberal bloggers for daring to openly criticize her Democratic colleagues and President Obama’s plans for the United States. The latest bash-Bachmann-fest springs from concerns she expressed on a local radio talk show that the AmericaCorps program, which is to be overhauled and vastly expanded through recently passed federal legislation, will morph into a mandatory service program, with young people sent to indoctrination centers for “re-education.”

“It’s under the guise of — quote — volunteerism,” Bachmann told host Sue Jeffers on KTLK-AM in Minneapolis during an interview April 3. “But it’s not volunteers at all. It’s paying people to do work on behalf of government. We had about 75,000 people involved in AmeriCorps before, this adds another 250,000 people, so more government employees — but what’s even more concerning about it is the focus is on young people.”


But it was her comments about AmeriCorps, in a segment just over two minutes long, that triggered a splenetic outburst of rage across the blogosphere with comments ranging from snarky to obscene.

[…] contacted Prof. Alan Charles Kors, professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania and noted a authority on indoctrination, particularly of students, for his observations to Bachmann’s comments.“I think that Rep. Bachmann’s prudent and reasonable concerns are not that young people will be herded into ‘camps’ whose goal is ‘re-education,’ but that the ‘training’ for an expanded AmeriCorps, given the growing penchant for highly partisan, politicized, and indecently intrusive ‘sensitivity’ and ‘diversity’ training, will move in an Orwellian direction,” he replied in an e-mail.

— Hat tip: JD

Meet Fierce Blonde Behind Obama Eligibility

Soviet Union survivor: President spits in face of every U.S. citizen

Drawing on her experiences under a communist regime, she told WND she is determined to do her part to stop America from following in the all-too-familiar footsteps of her former homeland.

Life under communism

She described her life in a communist nation: Markets were bare, people had no desire to work and the government forced young children into slave labor.

“We’d stop at the store, and the food stores were empty,” she said. “I remember we had to stand in lines for hours in the cold. We were in a bus, going home and suddenly we’d see a line. We wouldn’t even know what they were selling, but we knew something would be there — some food. We’d stand for two hours to buy maybe a pound of salami or a half a pound of butter.”

As a young child, Taitz asked her father why the market shelves were empty.

“In America, they have everything,” he would tell her. “The stores are full..”

Her father explained that Americans were interested in working and received paychecks based on their productivity. However, in the Soviet Union, farmers were part of a socialist system of collective farming and were compensated equally — regardless of output.


She said that, much like President Obama’s proposed brigade of youth organizers, the Soviet Union used children for slave labor.

“They would put us on trucks, and we would go to the countryside,” she said. “We were told to go and pick tomatoes.”


“It is interesting that when we go to court challenging Obama’s eligibility, I experience such a déjà vu, like I am in the communist Soviet Union again,” Taitz said. “I feel, my God, I am back in a totalitarian regime. I’m shocked by the total and complete idiocy of those judges who come up with such idiotic excuses about why they refuse to sign a subpoena — something so basic to their jobs — to get his records.”

Asked what motivates her continue fighting the eligibility battle, Taitz replied, “I feel that this man is arrogantly spitting in the face of each and every American citizen. I feel like he has just spit in my face. I take it personally that he is trampling on our Constitution and on our laws.”

She continued, “Having the experience that I had in the Soviet Union — seeing lack of freedom, lack of a system of justice, lack of judicial integrity, lack of press with integrity, an economic system in shambles — when I saw all that, I began fighting.”

Taitz said mainstream media in the United States are becoming much like the Soviet Union press, because they do not provide truthful information about Obama and have pushed for his socialist society. She offered a suggestion for dealing with “detached” and “ignorant” reporters who advocate such a system..

— Hat tip: JD

Also see The New "Hitler Youth" of Obama*
OBAMA: A Present and Constant Danger


Non-Army "Civilian" Paramilitary Forces to Control the Population under the Hitler Nazi Regime
The Origins of a National Police Force as proposed by Obama
See Obama's SS"
This National Police Force of Obama’s would have to be as well-funded and powerful, his own words, as the current military is. You know, the one whose primary loyalty was to America, not Obama?"


Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals

Election '08: Democrats' reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.
IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism
Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.

In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.

"Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities," Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. "I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.

Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." When they're not protesting, they're staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.

Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It's training the "next generation of nonprofit leaders" — future "social entrepreneurs."

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, "we will make sure you can afford a college education." So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.

Many of today's youth find the pitch attractive. "I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."

Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."

One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."

The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.

The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military — and stick American taxpayers with the bill.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Is it way past time to defang Islam?

At Citizen Warrior is an article arguing pro . . .

Demoting Islam's Religion Status

Fat chance of that with what we got in Washington at this time. But still, it's worthwhile reading. Things can change awfully fast, and who knows . . .

the rest is silence

Friday, April 10, 2009

Hello, Americans, Brits, Europeans . . . this is the future for all of us.

First in Line for the Bus to Hell

as posted at, and from, The Gates of Vienna

New material "WHAT TO DO" added below since this was first published here!

. . . video, taken from security camera footage on a Paris bus, shows a group of “youths” violently attacking a passenger. It’s disturbing to watch, and if you are sensitive to violent images, you may want to skip it

Eursoc has a comprehensive report on the whole incident

Oh, and by the way, Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna adds: "The policeman who posted the video online was arrested for doing so."



separation and robust deterrence are the only answer.

Not hate, not disrespect, not tilting at delusional windmills that Muslims should, want to, or can be like the West. Just separation.

The doctrine of separation from Islam has several champions now, who differ in some details but all agree on what that Polish bugler expressed in 1241: close the city gates. Lawrence Auster defined Separationism as per these points:

Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

We cannot destroy Islam.

We cannot democratize Islam.

We cannot assimilate Islam.

Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

What this separation entails is a subject that Islam experts like Hugh Fitzgerald, and truthful thinkers about the condition of the West like Fjordman, Lawrence Auster and Srdja Trifkovic have written much about. Other worthy commentators like Steve Sailer and Diana West have also put forth worthy ideas.

What emerges from these is the uniform perception of Islam’s menace, the epochal mistake of opening the West to Muslim immigration, and the plan to reverse the tide. In the aggregate, the main points are:
1. Complete stop to all immigration from Muslim countries.
2. Offering financial inducements to legal Muslim residents to return to their ancestral countries. 3. Deportation of all criminal immigrants even if citizens.
4. Deportation of all illegal immigrants.
5. Closing of Wahhabi mosques and Salafi-linked institutions.
6. Ethnic profiling of Muslims and surveillance of mosques and of Muslim employees in sensitive positions.
7. More severe penalties for terrorist and seditious activities, with ostensibly "religious" activities like advocating for sharia, preaching jihad or even the soft jihad of "conquering the West with the power of the womb" defined as sedition.
8. Much tighter border controls.
9. Cessation of all welfare payments to immigrants.
10. Cessation of involvement in the internal affairs of Muslim countries.
11. Cessation of foreign aid and all "help" to Muslim countries.
12. Military disengagement from Muslim countries, while erecting forward military posts on the perimeters of the Muslim world.
13. Punitive military strikes against regimes that harbor and abet terrorists, but without the deluded occupation and "nation building" that followed such strikes against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Needless to say, there isn’t any chance this agenda can be implemented, except after the criminal lunacy of the ruling Pods [elite] has led to more terrorist attacks by jihadis, civil wars and perhaps worse. And so, while all these ideas are wise, proper and warranted, at a certain level Separationism is a theoretical exercise, based again on the premise of "ought," "should," "have to" and "must" relative to both the rulers and the majority of the Western population that not only haven’t the slightest intention of following such imperatives but regard their issuers as evil.

Geert Wilders, a politician whose job is to win elections, has tried to offer some anti-Islamization measures mild (and ineffective) enough to be acceptable to the electorate in his super-liberal country. Yet, his Klare Wijn platform in 2005 that included these milquetoast measures was deemed "implausible" by a margin of 53% in public polls.

Upon receiving the Kluge Prize in 2003 in the U.S. Library of Congress, the distinguished Polish philosopher, Leszek Kolakowski, gave a speech entitled What the Past Is For in which he said:

"We must absorb history as our own, with all its horrors and monstrosities, as well as its beauty and splendor, its cruelties and persecutions as well as all the magnificent works of the human mind and hand; we must do this if we are to know our proper place in the universe, to know who we are and how we should act. [snip] If we forget [snip], we will be condemning our culture, that is to say ourselves, to ultimate and irrevocable ruin."

But we have undergone a massive population replacement, not only through an infusion of some 100 million+ Muslim and other Third World aliens, but also through the replacement of at least 300 million of our own people’s brains with synthetic legume pods manufactured in true global-economy fashion by the firm Gramsci, Adorno & Said (4), whose local franchises have been operating for decades in every school and university in every Western country. How are we to absorb our history if there is no we? How are we to know how to act if we don’t know who we are?

Hugh Fitzgerald in particular is a great and prolific educator about the totalitarian and West-unfriendly nature of Islam. And chipping away like this at the public’s ignorance and apathy is important, and should continue. But it cannot possibly bring public sanity in time to prevent further calamities of the West’s self-dhimmization. For this reason, the road to "Atlantis" we’ll be charting leads there via a wide detour.

It’s only when Antipods have established a strong base at that detour, that talk of Separationism will be more than an exercise of the imagination. Nevertheless, there are two points that I’d like to add on top of the thirteen.

Be nice. Separation from Islam and from Muslims, unless the latter commit much further transgressions, should not to be carried out in a spirit of anger. This is normal self preservation, as mundane as keeping the bull and the bear in separate spaces. We discarded this common sense due to our own foolishness. Muslim countries have not.

Muslim citizens of the West who behave lawfully, contribute economically and choose to ignore or battle against the incendiary aspects of their faith, cannot be penalized for the idiocy of their host countries in having allowed them to settle there. However inconvenient, however costly their continuing residence in the West, the West has no moral right to kick them out, though it has the right to cordon them off from jihadi influence.

The same applies to relationship with Muslim countries. None of the separationist measures implies, ipso facto, hostility. Good fences make good neighbors. What doesn’t make good neighbors is if one is aggressively tribal and devious by nature, and the other one is a naïve "progressive" floating on fumes of Hope and Change. It’s in wresting the keys to its house from the Hope and Change boyz that the West’s security lies, and not in demonizing the swarthy, ululating neighbor.

Beyond that, it is necessary to recognize that the issue is wider than just Islam. The issue is the incompatibility and unassimilability of well over 100 million Third-Worlders imported into the West by its Body Snatcher regime, and the lack of any justifiable reason for this population replacement. The issue is the ethnocide of the Euro peoples by the demented legume pods bobbing on top of the social pool like a red tide of algae choking off the supply of oxygen to the creatures below. In water ecoscience it’s called eutrophication. In political science, maybe a new term is in order, europhication.

The strange dimensions of Bodysnatcherland (1) can be seen even in Finland. According to statistics quoted by a Finnish blog, Somalis, who constitute 0.2% of Finland’s population, commit 12% of reported robberies. The Somali community in Finland, of course, lives at the taxpayers’ expense just as is does in every Western country where it’s present.

To import Somalis to such a singularly unmixed white and monocultural nation as Finland is a symptom of a galloping psychopathology. Not only that; the Finnish legal establishment actively prosecutes ethnic Finns who publish politically incorrect statements about Islam or Muslims. A blogger named Seppo Lehto was sentenced to long imprisonment and a large fine for "incitement against an ethnic group" and "disturbing religious worship." To do this, the Finnish Body Snatchers had to dig up a blasphemy law so old that the first attempt to overturn it was made in 1914. And now, a Helsinki councilman and blogger Jussi Halla-aho will be tried for blasphemy, for having written that Muhammad was a pedophile.

Predictably, True Finns is the fastest growing political party in Finland. But who knows how much of the true is left to be rescued.


Moslems as Body Snatchers

(1) The basic analogy reverts to Part 1, where we cited the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In the film, alien "Body Snatchers" produce giant legume Pods that replace living people while appearing to be identical to them. From the Pods develop the new Body Snatchers who cultivate further Pods etc. I use these terms interchangeably, usually preferring Pods as a catchall term, and Antipod as the antithesis of Pod.
(2) Known only under the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg, this is a German scholar of Semitic languages whose research shows that the Koran is a pastiche including contemporaneous Christian Syriac passages that ought to be interpreted according to their Aramaic meaning, not their Arabic one, e.g. raisins, not virgins.


Please see:

Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures
AND . . .
How to Stop Islamization--Drastic Times Call for Drastic Measures

Thursday, April 9, 2009


by Fjordman

I will defend all Western countries but I feel especially close to Britain, which makes it all the more sad to see how humiliated this once-great nation currently is. The English language once conquered the world. Now the rest of the world is conquering the English-speaking countries. If current trends continue, people in Singapore will know English while the nation that created the English language will cease to exist.

At the same time as sharia law has gained official recognition as a part of the British legal system and Muslims proudly talk about conquering the Western world, a British woman was arrested because of a supposedly "racist" doll she kept in her window. In al-Britannia a Muslim man can claim benefits for children with multiple wives and brag about subduing the country and reducing its traditional inhabitants to second-rate citizens or worse, but you cannot have a "racially insensitive" doll in your own home, at least not if you're white.

In my book Defeating Eurabia, I have a chapter about the situation in Britain. Since I'm already here I can again repeat that the book, which is available online as well in a printed version, can be republished for free online or in print and translated to other languages by anybody who wants to, as long as they do not represent a totalitarian ideology. I actively encourage people to do so.

In a survey published in April 2008, one in three medical doctors in Britain said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. At the same time, Muslim men with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits. Baroness Warnock, an influential government "ethical" adviser suggests that elderly dementia sufferers may have a "duty to die" because they are a financial burden to the state. Elderly Brits have to die, with or without "encouragement," so that the state can afford to pay for all the Nigerians and Bangladeshis who flood the country. The "welfare state" now means that the natives should watch grandma die because she's getting old anyway and we need the money to pay Muslims with multiple wives and numerous children so that they can feel comfortable while they colonize the country.

These incidents may seem unrelated, but they are not. Make no mistake about it: Harassing the natives in order to crush them mentally and destroy any ideas they might harbor about defending their country against foreign colonization is a deliberate strategy on the part of the authorities and the ruling Multiculturalist oligarchy, whether you identify this as the British Labour Party or the European Union (both are correct). Of course, this is about the entire Western world, not just Britain, but Britain is arguably the worst example of all. I am not aware of arrests for "racist" dolls even in Sweden, Belgium or al-Canada, and they are bad cases of suicidal Multiculturalism. Britain in 2009 is no longer the nation that gave us Shakespeare, Newton or Adam Smith; it is the world's largest open-air prison, an enlarged Marxist reeducation camp, a horror story where the authorities wage cultural and demographic warfare against the indigenous people of the country. The only good news is that I sense that native Britons are getting angrier by the day, and will not go quietly into the night.

These destructive trends are not limited to Britain, however. In a comment to Takuan Seiyo's latest essay in his terrific series "From Meccania to Atlantis" at The Brussels Journal, American blog reader Queen made the following comment about the situation in California:

"San Francisco is a Third World toilet. It has a higher per capita murder rate than New York, and one almost as high as Chicago's. It smells bad (the sewers have been malfunctioning for years), and is dirty and shabby. The city budget is 450 million dollars in the red, but they recently spent several hundred thousand dollars on a campaign to provide illegal immigrants with a city ID card so that they could 'access' free city services. Seiyo doesn't mention the worst aspect of the Bologna family slaughter: the illegal immigrant killer was protected from deportation by a taxpayer funded program that paid to ship under-age illegal immigrant crack dealers/gangbangers to 'group homes' in other parts of California so that the feds could not find them and deport them. Those in the 'group homes' simply walked away from them and returned to a life of crime and murder in SF. Too bad for the Bologna family which lost their father and two sons. One wonders how a city that depends on tourism for most of its economy cannot see that it won't survive its descent into Third World toiletude."
It used to be said that trends that start in California today will be evident in the rest of the United States tomorrow. If this remains true, I guess that means that the United States will soon be a Third World entity. I see no reason to expect that this decline will stop under the administration of President Obama, who has for a generation been a member of an organization of anti-white Marxists dedicated to hating the majority population of the country. This only happens in white majority Western countries, since white people have been publicly demonized for so long that many of them believe that they deserve this kind of abuse.

Contrary to the absurd claims about "Eurocentrism," Europeans are traditionally the least ethnocentric people on the planet, which is why we invented sciences such as archaeology because only we possessed the scholarly objectivity to do so. So we are the least ethnocentric peoples on Earth, yet the only ones constantly attacked for ethnocentrism.

I could add that I don't gloat over the plight of the United States. As indicated in my essay Barack Hussein Obama and the Triumph of Marxism, I was apparently one of few Europeans who didn't support the election of Obama. I'm tired of seeing Europeans gloat over the fact that the USA is sinking, just as I am tired of seeing some Americans gloat over Europe's decline. The entire Western world is currently in decline, not just in relative terms as a percentage of the global population or economy, but in real terms as functioning societies.

That being said, although all Western countries without exception are sinking under the weight of Third World mass immigration and in the process becoming a part of the Third World, they are not sinking equally fast. With the exception of France, Belgium and possibly the Netherlands and Sweden, the English-speaking world is leading the disintegration of the West, ideologically and demographically. The entire West is sick, but the Anglosphere is sicker than most. The English-speaking countries still have the most dynamic military traditions of the West, but that counts for little as long as they are used for promoting global Multiculturalism rather than for protecting the home country.

I cannot see that the Anglosphere has more freedom of speech than Continental European countries, either. The USA with its First Amendment does, which is great (we'll see what their new President does about that), but al-Canada is plain nuts and Britain is a Multicultural banana republic. Australia and New Zealand could be a part of Greater China by mid-century. Maybe they will be more prosperous than France will be as a part of Greater Algeria or the United States as a part of Greater Mexico, but by then they will be Asians, not Westerners.

I'm not sure why the Anglosphere is so bad. In the case of Britain, I strongly suspect it's partly caused by a Post-Imperial Stress Syndrome for a nation that once ruled much of the world and now cannot even rule its own suburbs. Empire was their identity. Much of the same can be said about the French. Indeed I suspect that one of their motivations for supporting the awful EU project is for them to resurrect some of their past imperial glory in another form.

Yet this cannot explain the actions of the United States, which is still the world's greatest power although that may not last forever. There is some form of universal proposition nation idea with roots dating back to the Enlightenment at work here. It's the concept that a country is not a nation based on a shared heritage, but an abstract entity which can be joined by absolutely anybody, a bit like an enlarged video club. If you claim that the United States is a "universal" nation and that Hamas-supporting Muslims, with which Westerners have absolutely nothing in common, can and should be imported to the USA, then you are a supporter of the concept of a proposition nation. This idea will eventually kill the United States as we once knew it.

Western elites are committed Post-National Globalists. The EU oligarchs want to import 50 million Africans, in addition to expanding the open borders of the EU to include Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. As I've documented in my essays, this is a planned destruction of all European and indeed Western nation states through transnational organizations such as the EU and the UN, in cooperation with local Multiculturalists. There is nothing accidental about this. We need to support, as a matter of principle, all European patriots who fight for their country and their dignity, provided that they do not champion totalitarian ideologies. We're all in the same boat.

Suppose the natives in some Western European countries actually start to seriously resist the organized destruction of their countries, halt mass immigration and reverse Multiculturalism. How will American authorities and media react to this? Frankly, I wouldn't be too surprised if they turn out to be actively hostile to the European natives. Europeans should reach out to American individuals. They are victims of the same Multicultural war against European civilization as we are. But we should expect no sympathy from the American elites. They are a hostile entity just as much as the EU elites are.

As we know, a "Nazi" these days is not one of the Muslims and their Leftist cheerleaders who shout "Death to Jews!" in the streets of Europe; it's any white person who doesn't lie down and die on command. If we don't lie down, we must be Nazis. We are after all Europeans.

Europeans have learned the wrong lessons from Nazism. For instance, the European Union is now actively and deliberately promoting Islamic immigration to Europe by the tens of millions, knowing fully well that they will gradually displace the original inhabitants of the continent. They also know that the people who move in have a culture of extreme anti-Semitism and despise Christianity, just as the Nazis did. Eurabianism has disturbing similarities with Nazism in some ways and with Communism in others. The EU is promoting Lebensraum for a new master race in Europe, just like the Nazis did. They only disagree on which master race to promote. The resurgence of violent anti-Semitism is directly caused by the policies of the EU and the national political elites. To hear them denounce others as "Fascists" is the ultimate fraud.

The EU is currently the planet's most evil organization, an institutionalized attack on the very existence of the native peoples of an entire continent, the most influential and creative civilization in human history. The EU is an organized crime against humanity and we should support absolutely everything that can undermine it as well as Globalism and Multiculturalism throughout the Western world.

That being said, the English-speaking world, and the United States in particular, is responsible for championing one of the most dangerous ideas of our time: the proposition nation. Everybody from Saudi Arabia to Somalia can supposedly be imported to the USA and the American political system should be exported to other cultures, by force if necessary. The USA is supposed to be a "universal nation," but there is no such thing. Under Obama, I fear that the USA will no longer be the land of the free, home of the brave, but rather a global enforcer of non-discrimination and Diversity, the Multicultural Empire. Some would argue that this was the case already under Clinton and Bush, but it certainly will be the case now.

The European Union is a different kind of Multicultural Empire, although it, too, champions a form of proposition nation. I suspect that the idea ultimately dates back to some of the worse strands of Enlightenment thought. The French, who to a great extent have created the ideological and bureaucratic basis of the EU, have their own ideas about assimilating people from all around the world. Those of us who live in Western Europe thus have the misfortune of being exposed to the influence of no less than two Multicultural Empires at the same time.

The "conservative" French President Sarkozy, who praised Arabic as the language of science and high civilization after millions of Frenchmen voted for him in the hope that he would defend France and French culture, has stated that it is a duty for the French to become less French, culturally and genetically, and that the state should aggressively promote this agenda. The goal of Multiculturalism is to destroy a once-great European nation and turn it into an Islamic-dominated Third World entity. Make no mistake about it: This is what Multiculturalists have in store for all of us, if we do not stop them.

Fjordman is a Norway-based writer. He contributes in Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna, Faith Freedom International and Jihad Watch amongst other websites. He is the author of Defeating Eurabia. This essay appeared 10 Feb, 2009 on the Islam Watch website (Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims). It is archived at


by Kathy Shaidle


Imagine a Super Bowl with all male cheerleaders and half-time prayers. In that America, they drink Jihad Cola instead of Coke and thank Allah when they win an Oscar.

Luckily, that America is fictional, one vividly described in Robert Ferrigno's 2006 futuristic novel, Prayers for the Assassin, set in 2040. But is it really so hard to imagine, in a world in which a man named "Barack Hussein Obama" can get elected President just a few years after Muslim hijackers destroyed the world's tallest buildings in the heart of New York City?

Today many Americans are either blissfully ignorant of, or simply indifferent to, the slow, incremental growth of radical Islam in their midst.

We sometimes hear about terrorist cells or suspicious Muslim "compounds" on the news. However, these stories represent merely the tip of an Islamic iceberg that could very well doom America. Not today or tomorrow. But in our lifetimes? That is a real possibility.

And don't shrug off Islam as "just another religion." Muslim sharia law deems women to be inferior to men, and allows husbands to "lightly" beat their wives. Polygamy and child bride marriage are condoned and encouraged, due to the example of Mohammed himself, whose many wives included a nine year old. Anti-Semitism and slavery are enshrined in the Koran, as is exploitation of and even violence against all "unbelievers."

Radical Muslims have learned they don't require bombs or hijacked airliners to destroy America. They can just use America's own ideological infrastructure against itself.

Using a kind of ingenious political jujitsu, radical Muslims rely upon everything from the rights to freedom of speech and worship enshrined in the U.S. Constitution to the current atmosphere of hypersensitive political correctness to push their agenda.

For example, the "Islamification" of the educational system is now underway. Textbooks whitewash Islam's bloody history. Public school children forbidden to pray or recite the Pledge of Allegiance are, however, obliged to play "Muslim for a Day." Meanwhile, universities eagerly introduce footbaths, Muslim prayer rooms and hallal cafeteria food.

Increasingly, Muslim employees are suing companies for the "right" to refuse to handle "unclean" pork or alcohol, or the "right" to wear headscarves. It is no coincidence that these companies include household names like UPS, Wal-Mart and McDonalds's — radical Muslims are sending a message to smaller firms who won't have the means to fight similar suits in the future.

These demands for accommodation extend even behind prison walls, where Muslim prisoners (indoctrinated by Muslim chaplains trained by foreign extremists) insist on getting special treatment as well.

"Lawfare" is on the rise, too. Muslim groups now file expensive, time-consuming lawsuits against critics of Islam, and while these suits are currently confined mostly to Canada and Europe, they have a "chilling" effect on American publishers, writers, journalists and filmmakers. Last year, it only took a couple of threatening emails to persuade a major U.S. publisher to cancel an upcoming novel about Mohammed.

Few Americans realize that their neighborhood mosque was probably built and financed by well-heeled terrorist sympathizers abroad. In fact, 80% of American mosques are Saudi-supported, and serve as safe gathering places for radical imams and dubious "charities" with anti-American agendas.

Islamic terrorism has also found a home on the internet, where (according to one UK think tank) a "virtual caliphate" (or Muslim supremacist empire) thrives, beyond the reach of authorities. The web has become an invaluable arena for radical Muslim recruiting, training, communication and organizing.

Americans looking to the government to protect them from these threats don't realize that federal agencies in the thrall of political correctness actually undermine the war of terrorism. Few Muslims currently hold public office in the United States, but this may change if Democrats begin to view them as a new source of donations and votes.

Over the next few months, I'll be your guide to the growth of radical Islam, both at home and abroad. You'll learn about "moderate" Muslim spokesmen who turn out to be anything but, and meet writers and authors censored by their governments for critiquing the Koran.

I'll be talking to experts in the fields of intelligence, religion, crime and foreign policy and sharing their insights with you.

Many Americans have already forgotten what happened on 9/11, or simply don't want to think about it anymore. Our fear, disgust or indifference is exactly what radical Muslims are counting on. As exhausting and demoralizing as it can be to educate ourselves on the facts, we must remember that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance."


Do not allow Moslems to impose their ill-conceived "rules for living" on us.

Based on a primitive's ramblings and remembrances of what he heard about the extant religions, these rules are as worthless as is the entire Islamic ideology--except for giving its followers permission to rob, rape, maim, kill, and overrun the lands of all those who do not follow it.

By placating these Mohammedans, our side loses the best weapon it has for survival: keeping these primitives separated from us.

This can be effected first by keeping Moslems out of our countries and countries and not allowing those already in them any special rights and privileges.

Second, Mohammedans must be allowed to stew in the cesspools of their own making without us giving them any relief.

Any aggressive action by Islamics outside of the areas they occupy must be punished with such severity that it will not be repeated.

We must look back on our history and use the same strategy and tactics that had beaten back Moslem forces and kept them confined in their areas before.

Keeping Islamic countries completely isolated at this time is not possible as they provide a market for armaments (Saudis etc.) and technology (Iran etc.) and other goods.

This opening is provided by Islamic purchasing power obtained through control of oil resources. Depriving Islamic control of major oil reserves or switching to alternate energy will alleviate this situation.

These actions must, at this time, be confined to a wish list. No Western government nor a majority of Western countries' populations appear to be willing to go down that road.

What can you, as an individual, or part of a pro-survival minority, do to keep Islam out of our lives?

Briefly, do not buy products from Islamic countries, do not deal with Islamic businesses in your country (e.g. Ethan Allen furniture) that finance the Islamic jihad, on a local level, do not give in to Islamic demands for special rights.

Support the availability of pork products, and pork those Islamics who demand that they be removed to follow the dictates of a mentally deranged primitive who lived in the 7th century.

. . . And see below

Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures
[This post has new IMPORTANT information added!]
. . . and it's getting drasticker and drasticker all'a the time!


BELIEVE ME! ('cause I've read a lot of 'em)

It ain't Politically correct, and it ain't nice. But then neither is Islam. So, take your pick.

The man who wrote these methods of counter-Islam speaks from experience.

Listen to him, PLEASE:


Islam is a primitive and brutish religion and unfortunately hence, only
primitive and
brutish methods work with islam

As a rule of thumb, muslims are peaceful as long as they are below a
critical threshold
As soon as they cross that threshold, they are a menace

The key then is to dilute muslims below the critical mass

This critical mass is a function of the local kafir community

For example, among a sikh host, the critical % for muslims is about 65%
Among PC infected white Europeans, this critical % is 5%

The first and foremost is to recognise that the lands of islam are lost
and the only thing to do is to evacuate the residual kafirs
A cordon sanitaire needs to be imposed on darul islam
mid-east Christians, bangladeshi hindus, etc this extra 20 - 30 million
will dilute the muslims below critical mass
In addition, east asians, south americans can be imported to dilute
below critical mass

The next thing is to raise fertility of kafir women
In short we have to counter breed against islam
He that is born will die , she that is born will breed 5 , either as a
kafir woman now,
or inside an islamic harem later

This demographic surge of islam will end in 30 years, contain this and
will implode
Muslims were 12% of the world in 1900, and 21% today, solely by

Islam is like a shark, to breathe, a shark has to swim, keep a shark
and it dies
Similarly a contained islam, unable to expand will implode from within

Next, is to import kafirs with a history of success against islamic
Importing Caribean blacks or Sikhs will do the trick
Indian Punjab was 33% muslim in 1947, the sikhs reduced it to 0% in 2
The sikhs used islamic method on muslims
When the sikhs ruled Pakistan, they shut down all the mosques and
were thrown to
their deaths from minarets
When the mullahs declared jihad agains the sikhs, the sikhs invaded
( near Afghanistan )
and cut up the chief mullah and burnt his body
The sikh general Nalwa used mass reprisal terror against muslim
and it was very effective
For any act of islamic terror, he burnt down the nearest muslim town
and no
one allowed to escape
The sikhs have an interesting method to prevent PC
The golden temple has a muslim atrocity museum
You can see sikh gurus tortured to death for refusing to convert to
This is kind of a holocaust museum
In addition, sikhs have a daily evening prayer called Ardas wherein
remember all the sikh victims of muslim atrocities

Next is a policy of active containment
For example strict law enforcement
In Gujurat, Modi has tamed the muslims by periodically cutting off
electricity to muslim areas
and getting them to sweat in the hot Indian sun
and giving the police a free hand to thrash muslims
Strict law enforcement has a side effect, each time the more jihadist
elements come out to protest, thrash them
and the rest get tame

Interestingly the only 2 areas in India free of islamic terrorism is
Indian punjab, where sikhs solved the problem in 1947 and Gujurat where Modi used
islamic methods on muslims

Also another tactic used by hindus in India is economic boycott
For example even in Mumbai, no hindu rents a house to a muslim

My favorite is guided tours of kafir women inside muslim ghettos, where
they can see lecherous islamists
in action first hand and get cured of PC

I would also advice on switching to bio-diesel
Jatropha grows in semi-desert and many trains and cars in India are
switching to biodiesel from Jatropha
Jatropha is far more effective than ethanol

I also suggest setting up pig abatoirs near muslim neighborhoods
Remove halal food from schools based on animal cruelty
Any other tactic for making their daily life miserable

Also consider unleashing Christian missionaries on muslim immigrants
Use rice-Christitianity methods, conversion for services

The spanish inquisition took 120 years to get spain rid of muslims
The sikhs managed it in east punjab in 2 months

But overall the main enemy is within
The politically correct, kafir needs to be defeated before islam can be

Please add links to

this has online books on islamic atrocities in India

[End of Quote]

Oh, and if you're wondering, "What did the Moslems ever do to the Sikhs to deserve such drastic treatment at their hands? Take a gander at

Islam in the Punjab of India
or, if this has been made unavailable by the Islam-intimidated censors,

And now here is what YOU can do.


THE FRENCH (Les enfants de la Patrie) RULED BY MUSULMANS?




1. Don't Rent to Moslems

Oh Heavens! Here in America (the U.S.), you are running head-on into the Fair Housing Laws. That is, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin.

So, what to do?

a. Pig images outside of building
b. Display Crosses
c. Keep plenty of dogs on premises
d. Display Stars of David
e. Display pictures of the Holy Virgin and Jesus
f. Festoon building with Christmas lights

2. Selling a House

a. Have dogs and running about the property when showing

To Repel Islamics in all Real Estate Transactions:

Use OUR seasonal symbols--much as crosses are used to keep vampires at bay--to repel Islamics. Halloween brings witches and goblin decorations but also lends itself to having pig masks about. Thanksgiving can be celebrated with images of kneeling pilgrims. Christmas and Easter are times of great religious outpourings with nativity scenes, palm crosses, etc. And don't forget the Hannukah menoras.

This holds whether you are religious or secular--be creative!

Now, I realize that all this is not PC. But, in time of need, the devil will eat flies (In der Noht, frisst der Teufel Fliegen).

I know, I know, there are some perfectly charming people who happen to be Moslem. I have known some myself. Probably (one hopes) that they will remain "perfectly charming" and not turn into nasty (and deadly) jihadists. But, how's one to know? How can we tell when the "nice" son (or daughter) of the Moslem family next door decides to join THE JIHAD?

We cannot. The only "moderate" Moslem is one that is no longer alive. If he (or she [Muslimah]) wakes up (while still alive) and sees how repulsive the ideology codified in the Koran is--and tried to leave Islam--becomes an apostate--he or she is under Islamic sentence of death.

In denying real estate--whether for a convenience store or for a MOSQUE--to Moslems, you will run into "Fair Housing" laws here in the U.S. Be creative. I will not publicly suggest that you circumvent any law. If you use the suggested techniques, you will not be doing so.

You must put economic self-interest aside--and be an idealist--or you will become a slave of Islam.

2. Economic Boycott

a. Don't Buy from Moslem Businesses

Do not deal with Moslems, no matter how doe-eyed and sweet, how polite, at convenience stores, gas stations, etc.

Do you know that Ethan Allen furniture is run by a Moslem? Sadly, this so-American brand name is not a true American firm. Its owner supports Islamic supremacy causes.

Do Not Buy Ethan Allen Furniture!

The practice of boycotting local Moslems is repulsive. It is reminiscent of what the Nazis did to Jews, The difference, however, is that while the Jews did not have an agenda for taking over the country, Moslems do.

Don't know whether it's a Moslem business?

Find them here:

Islamic Finder

or here:

Islam Finder

3. Local Action

a. No Mosques! Do not allow mosques to be built. Use ordinances, codes, zoning restrictions, etc. to keep this from happening.

Get involved in local government, school boards, neighborhood groups to keep the mosques out of your bailiwick.

b. Not only do NOT vote for, but actually oppose any Moslem candidate running for political office. No matter what party nominates him or her.

c. School Boards must not allow Ramadam or any religious dispensation for Moslems. No halal food in school cafeterias.

d. Organize attorneys to fight (pro bono, if possible) any attempts by Moslem groups to force ordinances or laws on local government such as removing crosses etc.

Even if you are secular, join with religious groups to oppose Moslem attempts to Islamicize. Make alliances with any group that has the same goal as yours--to keep Islam out of America.

e. Do not make Moslem friends, no matter how nice they are--at work, in the PTA, in the neighborhood. You will meet perfectly decent Moslems. Do not succumb! You are fighting to keep your country from going Islamic.

ISLAM IS NOT "JUST ANOTHER RELIGION," it is a foreign ideology whose proponents will eat you alive, if given half a chance!

f. Spread anti-Moslem sentiment among ethnic groups that are vulnerable to Islamic "missionaries" (Da'awa).

The Caribbean Africans suggested by my East Indian colleague COULD be vulnerable. Point out the Arab (Moslem) predeliction for slave trading. The Islamic references to blacks as "raisins" can serve you well there.

g. Keep Moslems from joining any lodge or Veterans organization to which you belong.

h. If you have any more ideas, post them here under COMMENTS [here] and I will add them.

[the foregoing is taken from]

Also see How to Stop Islamization--Drastic Times Call for Drastic Measures

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Obama's Kissing Up to Moslems, earns him* nothing but their contempt

*he is "the" president (not "our" president, at least not mine nor of those who think as I do, but "the" president of the United States)--as he is the president of the United States, the contempt in which Moslems now hold the United States extends to all of us.

(AP Photo/Herbert Knosowski)

"I know, because I am one of them"

Obama has personal ties to Islam. His father was a Muslim Kenyan, and Obama lived as a child in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. He told lawmakers that he knows Americans have been enriched by their country's Muslim heritage _ "I know, because I am one of them."
--MARK S. SMITH - Associated Press Writer

Obama . . . is dismissing the importance of understanding the belief-system and goals of the enemy. Can the U.S. defeat an enemy it is not prepared to name or understand?
"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical ... in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject."...
--"Obama declares US not at war with Islam" (Tom Raum for Associated Press)

Fringe ideology? Does one who was brought up as a Moslem in Indonesia (as Obama was) not know the principal tenets of Islam? (As concerns the non-Moslem world: convert or be conquered and then convert or remain as subhumans and pay heavy taxes in a Moslem-ruled land.)

As Robert Spencer has it: Can this "fringe ideology" be rolled back without confronting its roots and the reasons for its popularity in the Islamic world? Does the President have any reason for dubbing it a "fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject," when Hamas won elections in the Palestinian Authority and Sharia was enshrined as the highest law in the new constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan? I doubt it.
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch

. . . and now Obama prostates himself and crawls on his belly as he seeks to appease all the Moslems in the world:

"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida," the president said. "We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."
"We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country," Obama said.... (Tom Raum for Associated Press)

How? We must ask. How has Islam made the world into a better place? And especially how has it done so for the U.S.?

Especially as the biggest impact Islam has made on the United States was its successful strike at New York in 2001.

And as Hugh observes in a Comment to the above-cited Jihad Watch post:

[Obama] uttered phrases that are flatly untrue. Islam is based on a clear division of the world between Believer and Infidel. If Obama doesn't know that, if he thinks the easygoing lackadaisical syncretistic Islam that he might have become dimly familiar with as a child is the same thing as the real Islam, the doctrinally-correct Islam (as Ibn Warraq insists: "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."), then he really has to start burning the midnight oil. He, and every other person in the governments of the West who have assumed the responsibiity of protecting -- and therefore of instructing -- others.

MrFitnah adds:
Never the less Mr President Islam is at war with the world.

Ishaq:"When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound ourselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances."

profitsbeard says:
Islam has been at war with humanity since 622 A.D. Maybe Obama needs to re-read his old Koran.
This time in English.
Sura 9:29 Barry?

We have no mutual interests with the Islamic world and no matter how much Obama says that we respect them, that respect is not returned. Left alone, without western assistance, Islam would soon drown in its own misery. Islam needs the west simply to survive.

More Comments at

Elsewhere, Dan Goor, says:
. . . Throughout the primaries and the election, President Obama denied his Islamic roots, he went as far as to say that he was not now, and never [in his past] a Muslim. After the election, when he realized that any negative political implication from being a Muslim would have no political affect on his future, President Obama decided to use his Islamic middle name as part of his given name for the inaguration.

Obama claims that his father was not a practicing Muslim, why then would the man name his child Hussein, a very prominent Muslim name? And, the very intelligent man that Barak Hussein Obama is, he could not have been unaware, throughout his life, of the roots of his name.

Those accused with the planning of the 9-11 event, collectively pled guilty, likely in order to test Obama’s ability to allow the death sentence against Muslims; the Koran forbid believers to put to death other Muslims. Will these perpetrators of one of the most heinous crime on US soil, be actually put to death?

President Obama’s overtures towards Iran with vague pre-conditions (no word about the Iranian commitment to destroy Israel) is paramount to suggesting that Islamic relations are important enough for President Obama to put aside long existing commitments to allies by the US, and that Israel’s security is less important than are relations with Islamic-Iran, and Iranian oil; not a good message to the global community

Al-Arabia interview, Iran appeasement, other overtures towards Islam, are they due to Obama’s birthrights?
Dan Goor,
Posted in March 20th, 2009
Published in A Mulatto Semite of Muslim-birth; will Israel be sacrif, Is Islamic birth affecting Obama's thinking, Known for shedding loyalties for expediency

We Should Have Known! Look at . . .

"I Will Stand With the Muslims"
by Rich Carroll

Squeamish Marxist Democrats avert your eyes. I am about to swat you on the nose with a rolled-up Che Guevara poster.

The tapestry of a carefully woven biography of Barack Hussein Obama is a cloth of deception and self-promotion this candidate has been weaving since childhood, called in Arabic "Taqiyyah", adapting and amending his life story to fit his circumstances. The accumulation of research from primary sources about his Muslim past is deep and undeniable; as far back as Tine Hahiyary, one of his teachers who states "Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. I remember that he had studied mengaji" (recitation of the Quran). Emirsyah Satar, CEO of Garuda Indonesia says "Obama was often in the prayer room wearing a sarong at that time".

The list would make a book: "The Audacity of Lying". In a New York Times interview, Obama’s half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng stated "My whole family was Muslim and most of the people I knew were Muslim." In an interview with Nicholas Kristof, (NY Times) Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, with a first-class Arabic accent.

Let us dispense of any further charade that Barack Hussein Obama has no ties with Islam. His long history of Islamic teachings, close Muslim friends and family, and a continued connection with Islam through his friendship with Louis Farrakhan is out there in research land for anyone to read. Let us also dispense with any forgetfulness that Obama’s chosen circle of friends and mentors included convicted Weatherman bombers abdicating the overthrow of the United States, along with dozens of anti-white, anti-American associates. His close associations during his lifetime would be a "Who’s Who" list of anti-American communists, Marxists, and anti-white black theologians and Islamic religious mentors.

Today’s title comes directly from a quote on page 261 of Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, and the exact quote is "I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction". I checked. Franklin Roosevelt never said "I will stand with the Nazis should things get ugly." Lyndon Johnson did not say "I will stand with the North Vietnamese should things get ugly." (insert historical reminder that John Kerry DID stand-by the North Vietnamese when things got ugly).

From and More at

from April 21, 2007 Intimidation: Radical Islam's Attack on Democracy:


. . . an Islamic worldview that predisposes its adherents to take offense at any provocation, real or imagined. It also has to do with the weakness and vulnerability of societies that have allowed multiculturalism to dilute their inherent cultural strength, leaving them open to the intimidation we now see being used to hammer them into submission. Make no mistake; appeasing Islamic radicals will not stop their incitement of Muslim minorities or their lobbying for special status, as we see in [UN]RESOLUTION 60/251.

The Islamic worldview has two fundamental parts, the Dāru-l'Islām, the "House of Islam," meaning the Islamic part of the world, especially Islamic states and the Dāru-l'Harb, the "House of War" or "Domain of Disbelief" (that's us, folks).It is the traditional duty of Islamic rulers to extend the House of Islam into the House of War. This is accomplished through the Jihād, the Holy War. According to Islamic law, upheld by the most respected jurists and scholars, the inhabitants of Dāru-l'Harb forfeit their "blood and property" to believers.

"It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property." - Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi

This fundamental worldview, as taught in the Quran, is happily accepted throughout the Islamic world and taught in Islamic schools from Detroit to Lahore. Islam will conquer all other religions and peoples. Allah, through his prophet, demands it of the believer. It is done with the sword, by cunning and stratagem, or by variations of the sword, cunning and Taqiyya, precautionary deception and keeping one's intentions and convictions secret. While used in times of persecution and danger, it is appropriate when the Dāru-l'Islām is faced with an implacable enemy. If tanks and rifles cannot beat the West, then other stratagems must be applied, Allah demands it.

For example, the Saudi government calls us a vital ally while filling American mosques (and mosques worldwide) with hate literature and funding Jihadi groups. This duplicity is considered perfectly virtuous and in harmony with Allah's will. The unbeliever, after all, deserves only contempt. In that context, RESOLUTION 60/251 is eminently logical and its language sensible. Blasphemy is specifically prohibited in the Quran, meaning of course, blasphemy against Islam. Muslims are perfectly free to refer to Christians and Jews as the spawn of "pigs and apes" and discriminate with abandon, as is done the Islamic world over.

One sometimes sees T-shirts in Copenhagen, on the backs of the ubiquitous "Muslim youth" that declare, "2030, then we take over." No one takes them seriously. They should. As Islam is mainstreamed in western democracies, its more radical adherents learn to use our inherent weaknesses against us.

Currently, no European nation has a replacement birth rate, let alone one to equal that of its Muslim immigrants. This is perfectly legal and as it progresses, Islam demands greater pride of place within the society, until, eventually, it will be a significant enough presence to shed its minority status and profoundly affect the national debate. It will demand adherence to its standards of behavior, where it will eventually dominate or tear the host society apart. This process is well under way in England and France. In his book, How Democracies Perish, French philosopher Jean-Francois Revel writes:

"Democracy tends to ignore, even deny, threats to its existence because it loathes doing what is needed to counter them. It awakens only when the danger becomes deadly, imminent, evident…But democracy can defend itself only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy. His aim of destroying democracy itself, of actively seeking an absolute monopoly of power, is shrewdly hidden behind the citizen's legitimate right to oppose and criticize the system. Paradoxically, democracy offers those seeking to abolish it a unique opportunity to work against it legally. They can receive almost open support from the external enemy without its being seen as a truly serious violation of the social contract. The frontier is vague, the transition easy between the status of loyal opponent wielding a privilege built into democratic institutions and that of an adversary subverting those institutions." - Jean-Francois Revel

His words are prescient and chilling, and as true today about radical Islam as when written 30 years ago about communism. This enemy is outrageous in its demands, cunning behind the scenes, relentless and patient in its chipping away at the foundations of western democracy. It seeks legitimacy. What cannot be taken by the sword can be subverted, undermined, defeated from within. The outrage over a few innocuous Danish cartoons was carefully staged, calculated for effect and abetted by the press and politicians blinded by multicultural platitudes. These events will continue and escalate, activists cultivating the appeasers, seeking inroads, cowing the weak and demanding special status. The goal is to establish conduits into the vulnerable humanist heart of the "Domain of Disbelief." RESOLUTION 60/251 is another step in legitimizing Islam's influence.

The difference in fundamental perceptions between the Judeo-Christian West and Islam cannot be understated. Attacks in Jordan a few years ago led to demonstrations in protest of terrorism against Muslims where demonstrators tellingly cried, "We are Muslims! We are not Jews or Crusaders! Why attack us?" Of course, if you are a Jew, a Christian or other non-Muslim, it is perfectly permissible and even admirable to attack you. It is permissible to lie to you, steal from you, rape you, enslave you and sometimes kill you. The Muslim belief in evil is vastly different from ours in that it centers on Muslims being the only moral humanity and all others being vile and debase. The benefits of kindness, forgiveness and charity do not translate to the non-believer outside of the required conversion to Islam and the Quran's instructions on the treatment of conquered peoples.

We ignore this worldview at our peril. A Muslim can describe the evils of the crusades, all the while knowing the vastly larger and vastly more murderous Muslim Wars of Compulsion were perfectly correct and moral. Conquering and converting by the sword, from 200 miles south of Paris to the islands of the Indonesian archipelago and all points in between is not a crime because it spread Islam as Allah commands. The comparatively miniscule Crusades were a crime because they attacked Islam. History can be rewritten and the context obscured in the West's ongoing relativistic stupor. When have you heard about the Wars of Compulsion? When has an honest historical comparison or debate found its way into our living rooms about anything Islamic?

Western nations have become so cowed by Islamic intimidation and so blinded by politically correct relativism that they succumb to the Islamic worldview and condemn their own cultures to appease it. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has lobbied for the United Nations to include language against blasphemy of Islam for some time. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana supported the idea at its inception. This is an old confrontation, reinvigorated and spread by modern technology. It will take advantage of every weakness, every religious naiveté and every hesitation to act. There are two unanswerable questions. The first is: How can we maintain our tolerance and fundamental freedoms while ensuring our own survival? The other is: Will

from April 21, 2007 Intimidation: Radical Islam's Attack on Democracy

If Obama is at all conversant with Islam--as he must be, having received Islamic instruction and attended mosque in Indonesia. He must know that . . .


We also must learn how to defeat the Mohammedans. Not by meekly seeking their foregiveness for our past imagined transgressions against them, but with actions based on past historical successes in stopping the Islamic hordes.

from . . .

Religion by the sword: in the century following the death of Muhammad, the religion of Islam formed the basis for the rapid conquest of the Christian lands of Europe, North Africa, and the Near East.
Publication: The New American
Publication Date: 03-SEP-07
Author: Behreandt, Dennis

Again and again the spears and swords of the Frankish defenders repulsed the invaders. The heavy and lethal blows dealt by Karl, better known as Charles, earned him the legendary surname "Martel": The Hammer. On the bloody field of battle between Poitiers and Tours so many Arabs fell that Saracen chroniclers named the battlefield "the pavement of martyrs" Among the dead was 'Abd ar-Rahman al-Gafiqi. Though the numbers are heavily exaggerated, the lopsided nature of the Frankish victory can be distilled from the report of the near-contemporary chronicler Paulus Diaconus, who reported that the Franks killed 375,000 of the enemy while suffering only 1,500 casualties themselves.
[End of Excerpt]